Sitting of 18 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belarus) Order 1995 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bolivia) Order 1995 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 17 October.

    BARINGS REPORT
    Ordered,
    That there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the collapse of Barings, conducted by the Board of Banking Supervision.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Cycling and Walking
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the potential contribution of (a) cycling and (b) walking to the health of the nation. [33208]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Responsible cycling and walking can improve physical and mental fitness and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.
    Mr. Robathan: May I, as a fellow Leicestershire Member of Parliament, welcome the new Secretary of State to his first Question Time?
    I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that activities such as cycling and walking can also improve blood pressure—particularly on a day like today when
    1434
    people's blood pressure is unnecessarily raised by a fatuous and ridiculous rail strike? To that end, will my hon. Friend co-operate with his colleagues at the Departments of National Heritage and Transport, and others, including Education and Employment, to ensure that cycling and walking are encouraged by all Government Departments?
    Mr. Bowis: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks; and I can confirm that he and I walked here for questions. I know of my hon. Friend's prowess as a cyclist. From time to time I am taken for a walk by my border terrier. We can certainly agree that cycling and walking are better for us than captaining losing tug-of-war teams, which he and I have both done.
    My hon. Friend's point is a serious one: deaths from coronary heart disease could be reduced if we all undertook more regular, moderate exercise. It is also undoubtedly true that the physical and mental health of the nation would be improved if we took more exercise and if there were fewer strikes by the trade unions affiliated to the Labour party.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If walking and cycling are so healthy, perhaps we should all be grateful to ASLEF for its strike, which means that people can walk and cycle to work. That is another way of looking at the dispute.
    It is all very well recommending walking and cycling in London, but the air outside is poisonous. When is the Minister, in collaboration with his colleagues, going to do something to improve the quality of our air so that it will be a pleasure to walk and cycle in London?
    Mr. Bowis: Of course, if public transport was not on strike, fewer people would be in cars, more would be on the railways, and there would be less air pollution. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to say that the issue needs looking at. Together with our right hon. Friends in other Departments and in our committees, air pollution is being examined at present; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indulge in a little exercise whether or not the trains are on strike, so as to improve his mental as well as his physical health.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that all exercise is important, not just cycling and walking? In that context, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most successful campaigns in Britain was the one run by the Sports Council, in conjunction with the Health Education Authority, "50 Plus and all to Play For"? Will my hon. Friend give encouragement to a similar campaign on a continuing basis to encourage those of us who are getting on a bit?
    Mr. Bowis: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on swimming the Thames for charity and raising, I think, some £16,000. That is a tremendous achievement. Next time, we look forward to him walking it.
    My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that excellent campaign by the Sports Council and the HEA for sport for the over-50s. The message today goes not just to the over-50s—this links with the launch of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's sporting initiative, which is also good for the health of the nation—but to people of whatever age, including those over 65, to take up not only sport but moderate and regular exercise.

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have been temporarily closed in the last month. [33209]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): That information is not routinely collected, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the London ambulance service has no record of any temporary closures in the area of her constituency during the past month.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am extremely shocked that such figures are not available nationally. The figures from the London ambulance service supplied to me show that in June alone eight units were temporarily or partially closed and a further seven were put on "avoid admittance". The Minister must respond to the fact that there is a serious and excess demand for accident and emergency places, particularly in London, and I ask him to review his policy, particularly on Oldchurch hospital, because at the moment the demand there is excessive.
    Mr. Sackville: Our hospitals are now seeing 13 million attendances a day which is a remarkable achievement for which the hon. Lady should give credit. This month, reasons for temporary closures included burst water mains in two cases, a power failure, an orthopaedic registrar taken ill and a shortage of junior medical staff. The hon. Lady should not seek to trivialise the difficulties that staff face.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Having read the report of the Royal College of Surgeons containing the shocking statistic that one in four deaths in our accident and emergency departments is avoidable, does my hon. Friend agree that a significant reason for that is the fact that too many accident and emergency departments are fragmented and cannot deal with every type of accident? If the paramount priority of our NHS is to save lives, at least in our more densely populated areas there should be fewer but more comprehensively equipped accident and emergency departments which, apart from anything else, would ensure greater cover by consultants.
    Mr. Sackville: I welcome what my hon. Friend says because accident and emergency care has developed and changed more than almost any other part of the health service in recent years. Two things are needed: a network of paramedics—highly trained ambulance staff—who can treat patients on the ground and take them promptly to hospitals, and a network of high-tech accident and emergency units with access to all the major specialties. This is not about politics but about the medical facts of survival in accident and emergency units.
    Mrs. Beckett: I join the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new responsibility. The Minister's answer about accident and emergency departments and temporary closures is extraordinary. He says that this is an area of medicine that has changed more than any other. One of the changes, as he should be aware, is that we have seen a pattern of temporary closures of accident and emergency units across the country—in Peterborough, Hull, Wales and Scotland. Clearly, there is a serious problem.
    1436
    Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, first, that is the kind of information that the public want and need, not the stuff in the league tables which the British Medical Association recently called pointless and misleading, and that it is his duty and that of his Department to collect information about what are serious gaps in the service?
    Mr. Sackville: The right hon. Lady is being ridiculous. The amount of time for which accident and emergency units are closed is a tiny fraction of the number of hours during which they are in operation. It is absurd to suggest that units do not inform each other of problems as they arise, or that they do not have systems enabling them to inform ambulance services.
    Closures will happen from time to time. Accident and emergency work is unpredictable: there may be large surges of demand, staff may not be able to come to work, and numerous other problems may arise.
    Mrs. Roe: First, may I add my congratulations to those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already received on his appointment?
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that consultant expansion in accident and emergency services has taken place more rapidly than in any other specialty, with more than 100 extra consultants appointed within the past 10 years?
    Mr. Sackville: That is true. The new faculty of accident and emergency came into being only a couple of years ago. There has been a rapid increase in the number of specialists, and a growing realisation that the latest techniques in accident and emergency treatment and resuscitation save many lives that would otherwise not have been saved.

    Consultants
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the working arrangements and contracts of consultants. [33210]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): None. The working arrangements and contracts of consultants are a matter for individual national health service employers.
    Dr. Wright: Has the Secretary of State seen a recent report on consultants' working patterns by John Yates, who has advised the Government on waiting lists? In the light of that report, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why some consultant surgeons are operating five times as much as others? In particular, can he explain why some consultant surgeons who are working on maximum NHS contracts are finding it possible to work in the private sector for two or three half-days a week? John Yates has asked for a full and urgent inquiry; will the Minister give us one?
    Mr. Dorrell: Let me begin by thanking various hon. Members for their good wishes on my appointment. I hope that they will not evaporate too quickly.
    I am aware of the work that John Yates has done, but I do not agree with his conclusion, which appears to be that the planning of consultants' time is best handled at a national planning level. I think that it is best handled at the level of local management of the individual unit.
    The hon. Gentleman asked why individual consultants' working patterns vary in different parts of the national health service. The answer is that individual consultants'

    1437
    agreements with local NHS employers vary in different parts of the NHS. I should have thought that not only Conservatives but Opposition Members would welcome that. Let me refer the hon. Gentleman to page 26 of the Labour party's NHS policy document, in which, under the heading "Staff: the most vital resource", Labour commits itself to the following proposition:
    "We favour local flexibility to meet local need."
    I agree at least with members of the Labour party who sign up to that policy.
    Mr. Rowe: I agree with my right hon. Friend about local arrangements. Does he agree with me that there is national anxiety about the work of consultants who are suspended from their own trusts? It strikes me as extraordinary that a consultant who has been suspended should be able to continue to work in the private sector without let or hindrance. There have also been far too many cases of consultants who have been suspended finding work in other trusts.
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that the maintenance of professional standards of medical conduct, both in the NHS and in private practice, is an important issue for the medical authorities and, ultimately, the General Medical Council to consider. I welcome the fact that the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill, which was passed earlier in the Session, will allow a more rigorous view to be taken by the medical authorities. I shall follow up my hon. Friend's point in that context.
    Ms Jowell: Why does the Department propose to stop collecting information about the availability and use of operating theatres? Is it not because the Government want to fiddle the figures for the number of operations that are carried out and cancelled, just as they have fiddled the unemployment figures over the past 10 years?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, it is much more straightforward than that. We should collect information that we are going to use; we should not waste taxpayers' resources by collecting information for which there is no effective use, so the test to be applied to all administrative routines in the national health service is: will this improve patient care? If it does not pass that test, the administrative routine will be abolished.

    West Sussex NHS
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to strengthen the NHS in West Sussex. [33211]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that more than £284 million, including £6 million in growth money, has been allocated to West Sussex this year for investment in health services. They will have nearly £12 million more growth money next year. There is also a five-year capital programme of more than £100 million. That represents a significant demonstration of commitment to the health of my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Stephen: On behalf of all my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for the massive injection of cash that the Government have put into the local NHS. Will he join me in thanking not only the doctors and nurses, but the administrators, without whose skill and dedication the
    1438
    local NHS would not have been able to treat more patients, and to a higher standard today than at any time in its history?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. It is team work of clinicians, administrators and everyone involved in the NHS that delivers high standards of excellent health care, but I must give him a warning. I mentioned growth money in his constituency and in that part of West Sussex. That comes from savings in bureaucracy from getting rid of regions, which the Labour party has pledged to restore. I ask him therefore to point that out to his constituents, and to tell them that, if they want that growth money to flow, they had better have a careful look at Labour party policy.

    Junior Doctors
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are (a) contracted for and (b) working more than 72 hours per week. [33213]
    Mr. Malone: Our task forces reported that, as at 8 February this year, 768 hard-pressed on-call posts still required action to comply with our aim to bring all such posts within 72 contracted hours. That was a reduction of 88 per cent. from the position in March 1994. A further 1,776 posts in the less onerous, non-acute specialties are due to be brought down to 72 contracted hours by December 1996.
    Mrs. Jackson: I thank the Minister for his reply, but has he seen the big notices on motorways which say that tiredness can kill, and that applies to lorry drivers whose maximum working week is a mere 45 hours? Is he aware that the 72 contracted hours level that has been agreed is an average, not a maximum, and that as many as six out of 10 junior doctors may regularly be working more than 72 hours? Does he agree that an exhausted young doctor in a hospital ward where the nursing staff is overstretched must be a danger to patients' safety?
    Mr. Malone: I suggest that the hon. Lady considers the signs in her constituency, never mind signs on motorways. Northern general hospital has one of the best records in cutting hard-pressed posts—there are none at all over 72 hours. Only 14 per cent. of juniors are working more than 56 hours, which is less than half the national average, so perhaps, when she looks for success in this policy area, she might best look at home.
    Of course, we do not want junior doctors who are exhausted. That is why, since 1991, 1,150 extra doctors have been brought into the health service to help reduce hours and why we are determined not just to reach our targets on the 72-hour commitment, but to work with junior doctors to ensure that the real time worked comes down to 56 hours as well.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Why do some junior doctors work much longer hours than the average and than those who work a normal week? Is better management required? Is work going on to achieve that?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to point out the variations that take place across specialties. The reason for that is straightforward. Different specialties require different work patterns. For example, in some specialties, a large proportion of the time is spent on call; in others,

    1439
    the work is especially active. That is the reason for the variation across specialties, but of course we are trying to ensure that we come within the overall targets set.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate the Minister of State on surviving the ministerial reshuffle. Given the increasing commercial pressures being placed by the internal market on hospital trusts, and given that the Government recently announced that the contracts of junior doctors are to be held by the trusts, not by the region or the Department, will he confirm that the hours worked by junior doctors now stand to be negotiated locally and that the wages and conditions of junior doctors also stand to be negotiated locally by the hospital trusts?
    Mr. Malone: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not being whisked off to Australia with the Leader of the Opposition to deliver a lecture, but remaining here to ensure that the health policy set by his leader is observed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The question of junior hospital doctors' contracts and the custody of them is perfectly straightforward. They are best held at trust level. If they were held at regional level, we should have the curious experience of doctors becoming civil servants, which is not what anyone wants. The details are still being discussed with junior doctors but we are alive to their concerns. Deans will be responsible for the educational aspect of their contracts. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the matter in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best measure of the Government's success in this area is not only that 96 per cent. or so of junior doctors are meeting the new deal targets on hours but that we are beginning to hear comments from the profession itself suggesting that junior doctors are missing out on vital experience because they are required to clock on and off, as it were, to meet some of those targets?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that such comments are increasingly being made by junior hospital doctors, but, despite that, I must stress the Government's commitment to ensuring that those targets are met. We are determined that they should be met, but it depends, of course, how each trust configures the service. It must be done with two things in mind: reducing the burdens on junior doctors and ensuring that they get proper and flexible training.

    Parents (Travel Costs Allowance)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review the travel cost allowance and facilities provided for overnight accommodation for low-income parents of children undergoing major surgery outside their locality. [33214]
    Mr. Bowis: The 1993 Audit Commission report "Children First" showed that most hospitals provide facilities for parents to stay overnight at no charge. The hospital travel costs scheme for taking a child to hospital is kept under review. Community care grants for hospital visiting of children are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
    Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not think it unacceptable that parents whose children have to have major surgery in an area outside
    1440
    their own have to search for funding either from the social fund or from charities to enable all their costs to be met? A constituent of mine eventually managed to obtain funding from the social fund, but it did not meet all the costs. She went to see her daughter who was having surgery in Birmingham but found it very difficult to manage. Will the Minister review the situation and introduce a rule whereby all NHS hospitals provide not only accommodation but transport costs?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady says that families should not have to hunt for funds. I have here a guide that contains information for parents of children going to hospital. We have a very good system of support for families on low incomes—if they are taking a child to hospital, they are covered by the hospital travel costs scheme and if they are visiting, they can have access to social fund community care grants. There is discretion for those above income support level if their journeys are regular and frequent.
    The hon. Lady should think carefully about what she said about travel beyond local boundaries. If a child is ill, one of course wishes that child to go wherever the best treatment is, and there are now many hospitals in major centres around the country where careful consideration is given to the needs of families. Increasingly, there are beds for parents and even beds next to the children's beds. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider what a success story that is.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend not follow that line of questioning and give help only to children who have had major surgery? Does he accept that although leukaemia sufferers, for example, may not need major surgery, their parents need to be with them? Is he aware that voluntary bodies have set up hostels for just such cases, as happened in Birmingham? Will he listen with a sympathetic ear to any of them who ask for help?
    Mr. Bowis: I will always listen with a sympathetic ear to my hon. Friend. I know well of the success story of the voluntary hostels in Birmingham to which she has referred and I shall certainly look at it. As I promised, we shall keep the whole scheme under review. She knows too of the remarkably good facilities in the Birmingham children's hospital, with some 29 parents' beds and five flatlets available for families. There has been progress in that area and we want it to continue.

    Cigarette Smoking
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking among young people; and if he will make a statement. [33215]
    Mr. Sackville: Action is being taken across government to reduce smoking among young people.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that for many people the quintessential image of life in Conservative Britain is a young school girl or school leaver with a fag drooping out of his or her mouth? Is he further aware that the incidence of smoking among school girls is on the increase and that the money allocated to campaign against it has been cut by half in the past 12 months? Is not the fundamental problem that the Conservative Government

    1441
    take any money in any form from tobacco companies rather than legislate in advertising or any other sphere to put the health of our young people first?
    Mr. Sackville: A Government who increase by a huge figure the taxation on tobacco in every Budget are hardly trying to encourage tobacco producers or the use of their product. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is a good European. He may like to ask his friends in Brussels why they continue to pay £1 billion a year for the production of tobacco in southern Europe, and why at least one European country taxes tobacco so low that cigarettes are sold at a fifth of the level in this country. He might like to consider whether behind his question and his new-found interest is a certain whiff of Euro-hypocrisy.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why there has been an increase in smoking among young people is the prevalence of cheap, smuggled tobacco? What is he doing in the Council of Health Ministers to raise public awareness of that issue in the other European countries?
    Mr. Sackville: We are doing everything possible to persuade our European partners, in the spirit of harmonisation, to increase their taxation on tobacco. Of the major countries, we are by far the largest taxer of tobacco. I agree with my hon. Friend that just as it is very difficult to persuade young people not to do things on the ground that it is bad for their health, it is also very difficult to persuade them not to buy cigarettes cheaply across the channel and bring them into this country.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware of the new moves being taken by the public health authorities in the United States to consider making tobacco and nicotine controlled substances under the dangerous drugs regime? Will he assure the House that the Department of Health will watch carefully what is happening in that regard? Would not the most effective way of dealing with smoking in young people be for the new ministerial team simply to ban the advertising of cigarettes available to young people?
    Mr. Sackville: Having brought the accursed habit of smoking from the American colonies originally, perhaps we can learn some lessons from them on how to reduce consumption here.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding general practitioners there are in Redbridge and Waltham Forest district. [33216]
    Mr. Dorrell: There are currently 86 general practitioners who are fundholders in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority area serving an estimated 44 per cent. of the population.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that one of the great success stories of fundholders has been the fact that they have helped improve standards across the board for all general practitioners by the use of innovation and best practice, not only by driving down the cost of the drug budget, but by bringing areas of medicine into their practice? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things as a result: first to make it even easier for other
    1442
    practitioners to become fundholders as fast as possible, and secondly to expose the nonsense of the Opposition, who seek to level downwards to get rid of best practice and innovation and to crush the whole idea of improvement among general practitioners?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with both my hon. Friend's propositions. He will know that we are developing fundholding by extending the concept to include the total purchase of health care for a particular resident population and by extending it down the patient list size. There is now a fundholding scheme for relatively small general practices. Both of those are welcome developments which follow through the Government's policy of giving real budgets to doctors to allow them to make real choices. That is in preference to Labour's policy, which is to give notional budgets to doctors to allow them to make notional choices.
    It is an extraordinary commentary on the Labour party that, when it is given the choice between regional health authorities and fundholding practices, it chooses to keep regional health authorities and to abolish fundholding practices. That, of course, is before we have heard the word from Hayman Island about where the policy should go next.
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Secretary of State must be aware that, although there is no evidence to justify the statements just made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith)—there is no proper evidence and no evaluation behind those statements—there is growing evidence that GP commissioning is both more effective and less expensive than fundholding. As the Secretary of State seems to have overlooked them, I draw to his attention the recent remarks by Duncan Nichol, the former head of the health service executive. He said that he preferred GP commissioning and then said:
    "You don't necessarily need the budget in your hand but you need to influence it."
    As the evidence is on the side of GP commissioning rather than fundholding, why are the Secretary of State and his colleagues trying to discourage commissioning? Why are they wasting money and risking fragmenting the health service by forcing people to become fundholders?
    Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Lady says that there is no evidence; that is not true. The efficiency with which fundholders use their resources has been assessed at between a 3.5 and 4 per cent. improvement year by year. The total cost of the administrative element of the fundholding budget is between 2 and 3 per cent. Even if one assumes that the total cost is extra cost, it is actually paid for by the efficiency achieved by fundholding doctors. In terms of the choice between notional commissioning and hard budgeting, I should like to hear the right hon. Lady explain why she thinks that a doctor is better able to deliver value for his patients if he is given a notional budget than he is if he is given the opportunity to commit real money to buy real care from real health service providers.

    Waiting Lists (Dorset)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trend in waiting lists in Dorset compared to the rest of the country. [33217]
    Mr. Malone: The numbers of patients on waiting lists fell last year both in Dorset, by 1.3 per cent., and nationally, by 2 per cent. More importantly, Dorset hospitals have made considerable progress in reducing waiting times.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the success of the hospitals in Dorset can be explained by exactly what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked for—the evidence? The evidence is that going ahead quickly with fundholding and trusts has been extremely successful. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the people in the NHS in my constituency and throughout Dorset on their work? There is, perhaps, one cautionary tale. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would look at dentists in Dorset to see whether he can get them as well sorted out as the rest of the health service in Dorset has been.
    Mr. Malone: On the last point, I am of course happy to look at the position of dentists. I am also happy to congratulate all those who work in hospitals in Dorset. There have been fantastic achievements. There were 97 six-month waiters in the West Dorset General Hospitals trust in September 1994. That figure is now down by 100 per cent. There was one six-month waiter at the Poole Hospital NHS trust in 1994; that figure is down by 100 per cent. The Dorset Healthcare trust had only three six-month waiters in 1994; that figure has been reduced by 100 per cent. At the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS trust, there were 333 patients who had waited for more than six months at 30 September 1994; that figure is down by 100 per cent. That is a 100 per cent. success rate for west Dorset. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate all those who are responsible for delivering it.
    Mrs. Golding: The Minister may be interested to know that I worked in the Dorchester hospital many years ago. For that reason, I have taken a keen interest in what is happening in the area. The Minister quotes figures. He should be aware that 811 operations were cancelled in Dorset in the past financial year and that 20 per cent. of the patients involved were not readmitted within one month as agreed in the charter. The Minister will also know that nationally in the three months to March 1995, there was a 22 per cent. increase in operation cancellations. The number of patients who were not readmitted within one month increased massively to 49 per cent. on the previous three months.
    There is great concern that so many operations are being cancelled, often at the very last moment when patients have received their pre-medication and have been fully prepared for the theatre. Surely the Minister cannot continue to be complacent. The situation is causing extreme distress and inconvenience to many people, especially to children. What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Malone: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box and to her responsibilities. Cancellation of operations across the country as a whole is a matter for concern, and one that individual hospitals are addressing. Only last week I visited Basingstoke hospital, where a pre-admissions ward has reduced cancellations almost to zero. We must make such initiatives widely known throughout the country, so that the problem can be dealt with.

    Resource Allocation
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and how he intends to implement the modified weighted capitation formula in allocating resources to health authorities. [33188]
    Mr. Dorrell: The modified formula will be used as the basis of allocations to the new health authorities in 1996–97. Implementation will be gradual in order to safeguard continuity and stability of funding.
    Mr. Timms: The Secretary of State will be aware that the York university report commissioned by the Government and published in October showed conclusively that inner-city areas such as mine do not receive an adequate share of health service resources. In the light of that information, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the fact that it has taken so long to introduce the new formula, and is he as alarmed as I am by the fact that, this year, for the first time, 24 per cent. of the resources allocated to health authorities are being distributed without reference to deprivation criteria? What initiatives can he announce to the House to ensure that people living in areas such as mine receive a fair deal in the allocation of health service resources?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asked what initiatives we have to ensure the fair allocation of resources throughout the health service. I entirely agree that fair allocation of resources is an important priority; that is why the York university work was done, at the Government's request, to ensure that the weighted capitation formula represented a fair way of distributing resources to purchaser health authorities. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the 24 per cent., the York university work covered roughly 76 per cent. of health care—in-patient and day-patient care—but did not cover the assessment of need for community and other services. That element of health service care not covered by the York university work accounts for 24 per cent. of total resources. That is why that element is not covered by the formula.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in areas such as my constituency of Colchester, North there has historically been a lack of funds because of the unfair distribution of resources? I welcome the new formulae. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that waiting lists in places such as north-east Essex reflect the problem of unequal funding rather than a lack of efficiency in hospitals?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the allocation of resources to his constituents needs updating. That is why we have changed the formula, and why the new formula will be used to distribute resources in future. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has returned to us, and it would be wrong of me to let this moment pass without welcoming him back from his travels. Moses went to Mount Sinai and the right hon. Gentleman has been to Hayman Island. It is right for the whole House to welcome him on his return.
    Mr. Bayley: The Secretary of State paid a fulsome tribute to the York university researchers who did the work on which his new NHS funding formula is based, but he did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East

    1445
    (Mr. Timms).Why has the Department entirely removed the needs weighting for the community health services part of the funding formula? When will the Government start increasing funding for underfunded health authorities in inner cities and in the north so that everybody in the country will get an equal and fair share of NHS funding?
    Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that the formula does not apply to the 24 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred because it is not designed to apply to it. He asked when the process of change is to start, but the answer is that it has already started. This year, the regional health authority allocation to district health authorities is informed by the new formula, and we will ensure that future distributions are also informed by the formula.

    Finchley Memorial Hospital
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the Finchley Memorial hospital. [33189]
    Mr. Bowis: The Finchley Memorial hospital is an excellent example of a community hospital providing a range of services to local people including rehabilitation and respite care, out-patient clinics and therapy services.
    Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend commends the Finchley Memorial hospital as a community hospital and for its excellent work. In launching the neighbouring community hospital in Edgware, will he hold up the Finchley Memorial hospital as an example of best practice, and so take the scare out of the scaremongering of Opposition Members?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hospital is part of a pattern for the modern health service in providing community services, and those services have been backed by a further £15 million of primary care from Barnet health authority. That should provide a pattern for the future of which my hon. Friend can be proud.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33178]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Hon. Members must stop shouting.
    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share the public's concern about hon. Members who peddle political influence for private gain? If so, why is he rejecting Lord Nolan's plan that earnings from such activities should be declared? Where does he stand on the matter? Why, for once, does not he give a lead?
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman began, I thought that he was going to comment on the rail strike. The fact that he is sponsored by the National Union of
    1446
    Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might explain why he did not. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I look forward to that.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33179]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Now that we have seen the quite ridiculous spectacle of the Labour leader travelling around Australia passing himself off as Margaret Thatcher, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reminded the House that while he was actively working in support of Margaret Thatcher's policies of low taxation, a strong national defence and moderate trade unionism, that very same Labour leader was actively and consistently opposing every single one of those policies?
    The Prime Minister: It seems to be the case that the Labour party in opposition today supports the policies that it opposed so vigorously in the 1980s. I have no doubt that the Labour party in opposition in the future will support the policies that it so vigorously opposes today.
    Mr. Blair rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: I would have slightly more respect for Conservative Members who say how shameful it is to have dealings with the Murdoch press if they had said that at the time of the 1992 general election.
    I have given the Prime Minister notice of this question on Bosnia. After the appalling events in Srebrenica and Zepa, does the Prime Minister agree, first, that rather than talk of withdrawal, having designated safe areas and encouraged people to enter them, it is our duty to pursue all practical means to uphold the United Nations mandate and prevent further ethnic cleansing; secondly, that we should use UNPROFOR to open up the supply road to Sarajevo; thirdly, that we must impress on our American colleagues the absolute necessity of practical support for our actions rather than just rhetoric; and, finally, that, as threat after threat has been made to the Bosnian Serbs but not carried out, over the next few days we must work out our bottom line and this time stick to it, otherwise the consequences for the United Nations and for the resolution of conflicts everywhere will be lasting and disastrous?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about Bosnia earlier this morning and I am grateful to him for saying at that time that he would raise the general question this afternoon.
    Let me say to the House on the back of the right hon. Gentleman's question that there are, in reality, only three options for the future in Bosnia. The first is to see events escalate from the present circumstances into full-scale war, which would need a huge NATO force, including American ground troops, if that were remotely practical. The second option is to try to continue the United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping work. That is becoming more dangerous and hazardous as day succeeds day, and carrying on that work does not guarantee prevention of the sort of attacks that we have seen at Srebrenica and are seeing at Zepa at the moment. Against that, however, the

    1447
    activities of the United Nations are still saving a great number of lives and the activities of British troops in central Bosnia in particular have brought peace to an area where we saw bloodshed and carnage on a massive scale only two years ago. The third option is to withdraw UNPROFOR and then lift the arms embargo. It is possible that events will head in that direction but I believe that, if that were to happen, it would be a course that we would regret, and that the Bosnians would come to regret as well.
    There are no magic answers. What is clear—we need to be entirely clear about it—is that it is not practical to mix war fighting with peacekeeping. Of those difficult options, I am sure that the right way is to go on trying to keep the peace, trying to provide help and trying to promote negotiations, until or unless that becomes impossible.
    It is to deal with matters such as the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised that we have taken the lead this week in international efforts, including the meeting of chiefs of defence staff on Sunday, the visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to Bosnia, the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Washington, and the conference that we have called for Friday this week to try to deal specifically with questions such as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman and to determine a viable way forward for the protection forces and the diplomatic process. I hope that such a way can be found because, if it cannot, the alternatives for Bosnia and the whole region are potentially catastrophic.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, the police and the courts, crime has been falling throughout the country for the past two years? In Staffordshire, crime has fallen by 14.5 per cent. and in the City of London it has halved. Does that not show that we are the party of law and order? As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would say, by opposing every toughening measure that we have introduced, that lot over there are nothing but wind and soundbites.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with his analysis and the accuracy of pointing out that the crime statistics are indeed falling and have been falling for some time. Neither the Government nor the police are complacent about the task that lies ahead and I commend a number of police constabularies for the innovative moves that they have made—Operation Bumblebee is but one example—to target particular types of crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is important to continue in that fashion. We intend to do so, and to continue to give top priority to the battle against crime.
    Mr. Beith: If there is not to be a total and irreversible humiliation of the United Nations and all that it stands for in this desperate situation, do not clear and achievable objectives have to be identified and followed through? Would not one of those objectives be the maintenance and defence of a clear humanitarian route over Mount Igman to Sarajevo to relieve and supply that city?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. It is one of the matters that is being examined at the moment with the commanders on the ground. A route over Mount Igman would be suitable in the summer but perhaps less suitable in the winter. What
    1448
    is necessary for Sarajevo is an access and egress route in both summer and winter, but I do not deny the importance of having proper access and egress over Mount Igman.
    The right hon. Gentleman and others should appreciate that it is necessary to look at the wider question as well as individual snippets of policy, such as the proposed route, in order to get a proper view of what is practicable and what it is possible to ask the forces to do and to maintain. I repeat that one cannot mix war fighting with peacekeeping. It is important for the safety of our troops and protection forces for that to be recognised. There is an element of action that can be taken, but we must leave it to the commanders on the ground to determine precisely where that line is drawn, unless the western democracies are prepared to cross that line entirely towards a war-fighting role. I see no indication that those powers are prepared to do that.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra and its management on the completion of a highly successful summer pops concert programme that has given pleasure and enjoyment to 25,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on the fact that it was held in the Merseyside development corporation area, which represents a continuing commitment to the Government's wish to regenerate the inner-city areas?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate everyone concerned on what was clearly an attractive and worthwhile event. My hon. Friend is right to point out the proposals that we have carried out for some years to regenerate the inner-city areas. There is a good deal more to come, and I believe that people up and down the country will welcome it.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33180]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Do the Prime Minister and the leaders of other western democracies understand how deeply betrayed the people of Bosnia feel? They live, or did live, in so-called safe areas, but they have been given no protection in the face of Serbian aggression. If it was right, as I believe that it was, for the House to pass legislation about alleged Nazi war criminals living in Britain, what are we and the international community going to do about those war criminals in Bosnia today who are ethnic cleansing, mass murdering, raping and committing other such war crimes? Will any action be taken to bring those war criminals to justice?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that because it has been given in the House on a number of occasions—he knows that the answer is yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this matter, but he should not underestimate the work done by the aid agencies and United Nations troops, who have aided those agencies to carry out work that otherwise would have been impossible to complete. Many people are alive today who would not have been but for that action, which was largely led by this country and British troops.
    Mr. Churchill: I fully appreciate the difficulties confronting my right hon. Friend in the decisions that he

    1449
    must take with his fellow national leaders over Bosnia. Is he aware, however, that the honour of Britain is engaged in the defence of the safe haven of Gorazde, which the Government established, and which is guarded by 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers? Is it not now incumbent on us to ensure the safety of those tens of thousands of the civilian population who have flocked there? Will he make sure that we and our allies, together with the United States, do all in our power to ensure that Gorazde does not fall?
    The Prime Minister: I am conscious of that, but my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that it would not be appropriate for me to expand on that matter.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33181]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister realise that the recommendations of the Greenbury committee will do nothing to curb the obscene pay rises that have been
    1450
    awarded to the directors and chief executives of privatised utilities? Does he further realise that the announcement yesterday about taxation will affect the half a million ordinary employees who have share options? Is it not time that the Prime Minister took action to curb excessive pay awards in major companies rather than increasing the tax burden on ordinary employees?
    The Prime Minister: I know that it is coming to the end of term, but that is pretty rich from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has been calling for share options to be taxed as income for some time. Just as some Members now appear to be calling for a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings, here is the hon. Gentleman talking about reducing taxes. There seems to be a lack of conjunction between the Front Bench and the Back Bench.
    As far as other matters are concerned, I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said yesterday, some way away,
    "There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success".
    Well, there sits the prejudice—right along the Labour Benches.

Business of the House
3.30pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a most important statement, which the House should pay attention to. Would those Members who are leaving please do so quietly, because the remainder of us want to hear what it is all about?
Mr. Newton: The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
For three hours, there will be a debate on the First Report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Children (Scotland) Bill.
That will be followed by a debate on Bosnia on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, for a further three hours.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and say that we recognise the need for a debate on Bosnia in the present circumstances? Obviously, he is right to make arrangements for the House to discuss that specific matter in a specific debate, rather than using the Wednesday morning debate for that purpose. We shall also understand if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House feel it necessary to recall Parliament in the recess, given the speed with which events may move.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can clarify the position of the Foreign Secretary, who was here a few moments ago for Question Time? I understand that the Foreign Secretary is going to Washington shortly. Surely it would be possible for him to delay that visit so that he can participate in that debate tomorrow, and surely it will be right for him to do so.
Finally, I do not want to quibble with the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but, in view of the fanfare last week when the Prime Minister launched his sports policy, may we ask whether that debate will be rearranged—or will sport be put back on the back burner?
Mr. Newton: I welcome the hon. Lady's generally constructive and supportive remarks. I shall return to her last point in a moment.
As far as the debate on Bosnia is concerned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is going to Washington, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and I believe that most people in the House will regard it as important that he should play his full part in the international discussions that need to be associated with effective action in Bosnia. The debate in the House will be taken on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor).
1452
There is, of course, no suggestion of putting sport on the back burner. I believe that it will be universally agreed that Bosnia must come ahead of it tomorrow, but of course I shall make every effort to provide time for a debate on sport in the spillover.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am happy to endorse the change in the business for tomorrow; it is absolutely right and proper that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the Bosnian situation before the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that it will not be a substitute for a recall of Parliament, if the circumstances dictate that Parliament should be recalled?
Secondly, I hope that I can assist the right hon. Gentleman by assuring him—I think that I speak for most hon. Members from Scotland—that the Lords amendments to the Children (Scotland) Bill are largely uncontentious and should be taken more or less formally to enable the House to go straight to the debate on Bosnia, as is right and proper in the circumstances.
Mr. Newton: On the Children (Scotland) Bill, I should make it clear that that business was inserted following representations from both sides of the House, and on the clear understanding that the amendments are uncontentious and should pass through the House without difficulty. The business will not impede the debate on Bosnia. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's affirmation of that fact on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, yes, I think that I have shown—by this statement and various other changes that I have made, including the recall of Parliament during the short recess—that the Prime Minister and I are always willing to make appropriate arrangements as circumstances necessitate.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Why did not the Leader of the House make it clear in his statement that the important debate on Bosnia was, in effect, replacing the planned debate on sport? Does he recall that, on Friday at 9.30 am, I said that, despite the presence of the Minister responsible for sport on the Front Bench, there was to be no statement in the House at 11 am, although one was made at Millwall football ground? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he could perfectly easily move the motion tomorrow at 10 o'clock to suspend the rule, so that we could have a debate on sport for two or three hours? If he does not do that, he might well be accused of putting sport on the back burner.
Mr. Newton: I have already said something on that subject to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and it would be a ridiculous charge if pressed. I also think that it would be ridiculous for anyone to think anything other than that, in today's circumstances, it is more appropriate to debate Bosnia tomorrow.
Mr. John Marshall: While I recognise the need to replace the debate on sport, does my right hon. Friend accept that a sum of £100 million for a sports academy gives the lie to those who say that the Government are putting sport on the back burner?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is as helpful to me from below the Gangway as he used to be from above it.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why can we not have the debate on Bosnia on an Executive motion

1453
from the Government, so that we can vote at the end of it and the will of the House can be made known to the country at large? If the Prime Minister has his summit meeting on Friday, would it not be appropriate to suspend the Adjournment of the House for the summer recess until next week?
Mr. Newton: I do not think it would, especially given what I have already said by implication to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, and more directly to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), about our willingness to make appropriate arrangements—for example, for a recall—should that prove necessary.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his assurance about a recall of the House was perhaps not quite as categoric as it should have been? May we have an absolute assurance that, if this Government of supine gentlemen plan a retreat from Bosnia, in the scuttle they intend, the House has a chance to debate the matter before it is done?
Mr. Newton: I shall try to keep my tone down, despite the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised—
Mr. Faulds: Bloody disgrace.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) should keep his temper—nobody in the House wants to hear it.
Mr. Newton: I shall say as calmly as I can to the hon. Gentleman that, if we felt that Bosnia did not matter, we would not have recalled Parliament during the recent short recess precisely because of an important development that needed to be debated.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I thank the Leader of the House for responding to a request to bring forward the Children (Scotland) Bill tomorrow, which is much appreciated by all those involved in Scotland? Will he tell us now that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that that legislation is implemented as quickly as possible?
Mr. Newton: That is the purpose of inserting the legislation in tomorrow's business, and I am grateful to everyone who has co-operated in the process, including the hon. Lady.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Why are the Government attempting to push through the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1995 on the nod this afternoon, when it was rejected in Committee only last week?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order. We are concerned only with the very narrow business statement about tomorrow's change of business. As I am sure there are no more questions about that, we will move on to the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Barings
3.39 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Board of Banking Supervision's inquiry into the collapse of Barings. I set up the inquiry in my statement to the House on 27 February and I have recently received the board's report from the Bank of England.
Since receiving the report, I have had to consider very carefully the legal considerations relevant to publication. I am sure that it is right for Parliament to have the report in all its detail, so that its consideration of the Board of Banking Supervision's conclusions and the lessons to be learned can be properly informed.
I have concluded that the balance of the public interest lies firmly in favour of publishing the full report. The report is being published today without any deletions, and copies are available from the Vote Office. I am very grateful to the board and to the investigating team for the huge effort they have put into compiling the report. They have done a thorough and a speedy job.
The report's main findings are: the losses were incurred by unauthorised and concealed trading activities within Barings Futures Singapore; the true position was not noticed earlier because of serious failures of controls and managerial confusion within the Barings group; and the true position had not been detected prior to the collapse by the external auditors, supervisors or regulators of Barings.
The Board of Banking Supervision was not able to gain access to all the information that it would have liked. In particular, it was unable to determine Nick Leeson's motives or whether he was acting alone, because of serious difficulties in obtaining information from Singapore. The obstacles were, I understand, legal ones, and there were some problems in providing the Singapore investigators with all the information that they, in turn, sought from London.
However, it was clearly important to ensure as complete an exchange of information as possible, and I wrote twice to the Finance Minister in Singapore seeking his help in obtaining the co-operation of the authorities there. It is regrettable that serious legal obstacles remained that prevented all the relevant documents from being provided to our board.
Leeson himself was invited to co-operate with the inquiry, but he declined to do so. Through his solicitors, he has been informed of the conclusions that the board has reached about his part in the collapse. His solicitors wrote to the board on 22 June saying that the report's conclusions were inaccurate in various respects, but they did not provide any further details of his response.
The report describes how the concealment of the true nature of dealings in Singapore and the build-up of losses from unauthorised trading began almost as soon as Nick Leeson joined Barings Futures Singapore as general manager and head trader in 1992. By the end of 1993, the cumulative loss was more than £20 million and, by the end of 1994, it was more than £200 million. Losses then leaped spectacularly in the first few weeks of 1995, and, after the collapse on 26 February, the cumulative loss was a staggering £827 million.

1455
Leeson successfully sought to conceal those huge losses throughout by a complex and systematic process of deception and false reporting. Such a massive unauthorised position could not have been established if there had been an effective system of management, financial and operating controls within Barings. The report details a great number of failings, and I shall give the House some examples.
The money required to fund the losses came primarily from London. It was advanced to Singapore with no independent check on the validity of the requests, or any attempt to reconcile them to any known trading position. If management in London had sought to examine the information from Singapore to support the requests for funds, they should have discovered that the information that they were being given was meaningless.
Barings management in London seem generally to have believed that the money being sent to Singapore was being lent to clients to facilitate their trading. However, the credit aspects of these advances were never formally reviewed or considered by the credit committee.
Barings management did not question why they were apparently lending more than £300 million to clients to trade when they had collateral of only about £31 million from clients for those trades. The management of Barings did not question the extraordinarily high levels of apparent profitability of supposed arbitrage dealings in Singapore, which were regarded as being without risk.
In the view of the Board of Banking Supervision, those profits should have been viewed as abnormal and questionable, and the extraordinary profitability reported in 1994 should have attracted the close and thorough attention of the management long before the collapse.
Despite Leeson's efforts at concealment, some information on the account that he used to hide his losses was available to London, but it was never analysed. No one in Barings accepted responsibility for Leeson's activities for the whole of 1994. His deception was made easier as he was not only a trader but was in charge of the so-called back office, which processed the paperwork associated with trading. In 1994, Barings' internal auditors recommended that, as a trader, he should not have this responsibility for the back office. Barings failed to implement that recommendation.
There were also serious and consistent failures and errors in the bank's exposure reports to the Bank of England and in other reports to the Securities and Futures Authority, which made it less likely that they would be alerted to evidence of a problem.
Coopers and Lybrand Singapore was the auditor for Barings Futures Singapore for 1994. In preparing these accounts, the auditor expressed the view that the controls of Barings Futures Singapore were satisfactory. This conclusion is not easy to reconcile with the lack of segregation of duties within the Singapore subsidiary which I have just described.
For both 1993 and 1994, the auditor of the London operations was Coopers and Lybrand London. The report also raises doubts over the effectiveness of its testing of Barings' internal controls. The board considers that more thorough tests would have been likely to reveal the inadequate support for the funding requests from Singapore, but the 1994 audit had not been fully
1456
completed, and it will never be known whether Coopers would have raised with the management the important issues which had apparently not been identified or addressed by the time of the collapse.
The independent members of the Board of Banking Supervision were separately asked by me to review the role of the United Kingdom regulators, particularly the Bank of England, in the events leading to the collapse. The board was assisted in this inquiry by a team of accountants, lawyers and derivatives experts, all drawn from outside the Bank of England.
The board does not consider that the events leading up to the collapse point to the need for any fundamental change to the framework of regulation in the United Kingdom; but there is, it concludes, a need for improvements in the implementation of existing arrangements. [Laughter.] The arrangements are only as good as the people who carry them out.
The board considers that the Bank of England reasonably placed reliance on local regulators of the overseas operations, and was also entitled to place reliance on the explanations of the management for the profitability of these operations, and on the other information provided by Barings. Although the regulatory reports from Barings to regulators did contain information that was relevant to the collapse, they did not contain material information which could have alerted the regulators to the existence of the unauthorised positions that had been taken.
The board identified a number of shortcomings in implementation by the Bank of England. It considers that an error of judgment was made in 1993, in giving Barings Brothers and Company an "informal concession" in relation to the normal obligation of a bank to notify in advance exposures representing more than 25 per cent. of its capital base. The time taken by the Bank of England to address the policy issues involved resulted in what the board judged to be an unacceptable delay of almost two years in reimposing the 25 per cent. limit. The Board of Banking Supervision was unable to determine whether the delay on the part of the Bank of England in imposing that limit was a contributing factor in Barings' collapse.
The board also considers that the Bank of England displayed a lack of rigour in the analysis leading to the decision to permit Barings Securities Ltd. and Barings Brothers to be supervised on a joint, or so-called solo consolidation, basis, and in failing to review the decision. Solo consolidation of the two companies need not have resulted in a reduction in control over the advance of funds to the Singapore subsidiary, but in the case of Barings that was the practical effect.
The report draws lessons for the management of banks such as Barings, and for regulators and auditors. The Bank of England has accepted all the recommendations relevant to it, and I am placing copies of the Bank's detailed response in the Library of the House. The only other regulator for which the Board of Banking Supervision draws lessons is the Securities and Futures Authority, which will respond once it has studied the report.
The collapse of the Barings group was clearly a very serious matter, and caused great damage to the reputation of the City of London. It has led to loss for a number of investors in Barings. However, the takeover by ING has stabilised the group, and averted the prospect of far greater loss. Nothing has happened since my earlier

1457
statement, and there is nothing in the report, to make me doubt my view that it would have been wrong to use public funds to rescue Barings.
Finally, I should like to remind the House of an important point. No regulatory system can provide a 100 per cent. guarantee against a bank failure, especially where there is a deliberate intention on the part of individual traders to conceal or deceive, combined with inadequate management controls. In cases such as this, it is important that lessons are learned quickly and promulgated widely, so that all parties, including the management of other financial institutions, can learn from the unfortunate example.
The speed and openness of the process of inquiry is the best way to give confidence to the public and to the City. The Bank of England has already responded positively to the report. It is essential that the management of all financial firms do the same.
Mr. Gordon Brown: We now know from today's 350-page report that the entire capital of Britain's oldest merchant bank was transferred out of the country against the law, without any supervisor or regulator either noticing or finding out.
We now know also from the exposure in the pages of the report that, along the line, Barings' managers, directors, accountants and regulators were also subject to error. We now know also—an astonishing admission from the Bank of England in the report—that there were no guidelines or systems in place to deal with the problem.
Does not the 350-page report reveal not just the blame that must attach to Mr. Leeson, who gambled away a bank and who awaits trial in Singapore, but the fact that the system of regulation designed to detect and check irregularities is now also on trial? Is it really sufficient for the Chancellor, in a statement virtually devoid of significant recommendations for policy change, to tell us that all that is needed is a new memorandum of understanding with the Securities and Futures Authority and a better understanding by the Bank of England of non-banking business and the management structure of banks—all of which we should have expected to have been automatically in place years ago? We have had a statement from the Chancellor that suggests the need rather than answers the case for reform.
Given that the report has discovered not just serious failures of controls and managerial confusion in Barings, but that warnings were ignored from 1992 onwards, why were such failings not identified or dealt with by the regulatory authorities in advance of the collapse? There is no answer to that in the report we have.
Will action be taken against the management of Barings under the Banking Act? Do we have an assurance that they will not be allowed to take senior management positions in other banks, except under the most stringent controls? Will the Chancellor join me in criticising those officials still in post whose management has left pensioners without their savings, and who have disgracefully insisted on taking their share of £95 million in bonuses? That will cause considerable public anger.
What does the Chancellor have to say in response to Mr. Andrew Crockett of the Bank for International Settlements, who warned in January of the risks arising from banks increasingly using the derivatives trade to generate their biggest profits, and with Barings, as the report says, making its system of remuneration for senior
1458
executives throughout the bank heavily dependent on profits generated from derivatives? Was not the system itself inherently unstable? Will the Chancellor tell us why no requirements have yet been imposed on other banks to ensure the existence of adequate and greater controls to detect excessive exposure on a daily basis?
As for the role of the Bank of England, is it really right for a junior official in the Bank to carry the can? The report reveals that just about everyone in the know in Singapore, including many newspapers—and, indeed, many in London—was aware of the problems of Barings; but not, it seems, the Bank of England, which should have been the first to know, but apparently was the last to be told.
Is it not clear that the report has provided a damning indictment of the Bank of England's whole approach to the supervision of the banking system? On page 244, the Bank admits that it relied on an informal network of understanding, and made informal concessions—as the Chancellor said—to a management that it now concedes were shambolic. It was thought reasonable to rely on local regulators—regulators who have refused to co-operate in the investigation.
A statement on page 245 symbolises the whole problem:
"There does not appear to have been any guideline or system in place within the Bank for determining … the situation".
Does that not illustrate everything that is wrong with the Bank's approach—an excessive reliance on the old boys network—and does it not demonstrate the need for tougher regulatory controls?
Can the Chancellor really be satisfied with a concluding statement in the report that says only:
"the Bank should explore ways of increasing its understanding of the non-banking business"?
Why is it only now that the Bank proposes to co-operate with the SFA in a better way, and why does it propose only at this stage
"to prepare internal guidelines to assist its staff"?
Is it not symptomatic of the whole culture of complacency that the Governor said only last August that there was no need to worry about the derivatives market, because
"We now have an expert team monitoring derivatives",
getting better all the time? Was it not also over-complacent to dismiss the Americans as "over-excited" by the need for regulation, and to say of derivatives traders such as Barings:
"These people know what they are doing, whether it's at director level or the chaps on the desk"?
These failures reflect not just incompetence, but a flawed structure of regulation. Is it not time to listen to the advice that has come from within London, from the Bank for International Settlements, to learn from the experience of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to ensure that the regulatory system, nationally and internationally, matches the realities of global trading in the 1990s?
Will the Chancellor now set up a review to consider these matters, and also to consider whether the Bank of England should continue in its regulatory role, or should pass it to a new banking commission? After three significant and embarrassing failures—Johnson Matthey, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and now Barings—we must do far more than the Chancellor has

1459
announced today to ensure effective supervision, and, for savers and investors, to ensure that there is far greater confidence in the integrity of our financial system.
Mr. Clarke: Like everyone else, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt study the report and reach sensible conclusions in the end.
First, let me deal with the Government's role. When Barings collapsed, the Government first took a full part in attempts to sort out the affair that led to ING taking over the bank, and to early fears of substantial losses being minimised. We were not panicked into using public funds to bail out the bank. I then immediately asked the Board of Banking Supervision to exercise its proper function and inquire into the matter, so that the House and the public would know the facts of the case and the lessons to be learned as quickly as possible. We were criticised for acting in that way, but the board has produced a copious report.
As the hon. Gentleman conceded, the report pulls no punches. It describes the facts in considerable detail, and it requires considerable study. Hours of reading are needed to catch up with precisely what went on in Singapore and London, in the bank and elsewhere. The report spares no one from criticism; it has exposed the failures, as far as is possible at this stage, for anyone to read.
The strictures that the hon. Gentleman heaped on Barings management are somewhat understated, compared with those in the report. So far as I am aware, all those responsible in Barings management are no longer with Barings, having left that bank as a result of action taken by the new owners and Barings. Similarly, the man most responsible for the supervision of Barings inside the Bank of England has resigned from that Bank. The attempt to get behind that and to ignore, perhaps, at this stage, on inadequate study, the report's findings on how carefully the trading in London was concealed, and how completely the failure of control inside Barings was concealed, is a mistake.
Having obtained the facts for the House and the lessons to be learned, I now commend the report to the House for study, no doubt, for debate, or for whatever else we wish to do in due course when people wish to consider this matter properly. Meanwhile, open inquiry, full disclosure and a hard-hitting, independent report are the best way of restoring confidence in the Bank of England.
Certainly we need to improve collaboration between supervisors in different countries, a process that has been well advanced by the Basle committee, but this underlines the need to take it further. It is not true that the Singapore authorities flatly refused to co-operate; there was proper reason. The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Monetary Exchange are well-regulated bodies, and the reputation of Singapore and the City of London is high in the international arena.
On both sides of this divide, there are legal constraints imposed by the regulatory authorities on the disclosure of information, and that is the only thing that has stood in the way of the full information that will no doubt emerge in due course, when the entire Singapore and London picture is revealed.
There are failings inside the Bank, which is why 17 recommendations are addressed to the Bank and why it has accepted those recommendations and is addressing
1460
them, but, with the greatest respect, if one has a regulatory system that the board says is fundamentally right as a framework, it is fully effective only if the efficiency of the people operating it is as good as the ingenuity of the people who are trying to conceal information.
Frankly, just renaming the whole thing and having a new banking commission in a spirit of, "Something must be done, so let's move a lot of brass plates about and have the same people doing the regulating, but call them a different name and put them in a different institution," is a facile response to such a serious matter.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) leaps off into the general question of derivatives, which is an important and serious matter. The report makes it clear that the cause of the collapse in this case was not the nature of the derivatives markets, although it is true that derivatives, because of their gearing, enable big positions to be run up more quickly than could occur in the ordinary futures market.
In that market, and in any international trading of this type, if people are skilful enough in their systematic concealing of the true nature of dealing, and if the people responsible for them, in the bank or outside, are complacent enough not seriously to get beneath it, this sort of thing occurs.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Complacent.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says, "Complacent." That is the criticism in the real world that could be hurled at many of the senior people in Barings and in the Bank of England.
Mr. Brown: Hindsight.
Mr. Clarke: It is all very well having hindsight. I have hindsight. The board has hindsight. I compete with the hon. Gentleman in imposing strictures on all those people who have lost their jobs. Any hon. Member putting himself in their position realises that it never crossed their minds that they might be playing some small part in such a huge and systematic process.
Obviously, however, it is clear that the systems inside financial institutions and inside the Bank of England had to be tightened up to ensure that absolutely no complacency or anything else could allow this sort of thing to slip through in future. That action has been taken because of the prompt, open and effective action of this country's Government in discharging their obligations to the House.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, during his statement, he mentioned the name of my constituent, Mr. Nick Leeson, on about a dozen occasions? Does it not strike my right hon. and learned Friend as odd, to say the very least, as it certainly does both Mr. Leeson's family and most of my constituents, that Mr. Leeson, who is clearly a central figure in this matter, should be sitting in a prison in a member state of the European Union, awaiting extradition to Singapore, when he has made it clear that he is anxious to make a clean breast of this matter in his own country?
Does it not strike my right hon. and learned Friend as surprising, in relation to what I think is a good report that will help to re-establish confidence in the City, that someone who has such a contribution to make should not have been invited to return to this country to make a clean

1461
breast of his position, and therefore to enhance the sort of inquiries that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to pursue?
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend is speaking on behalf of the legitimate interests of his constituent, which is what he and I are elected to the House to do. However, it is not possible to produce a board report that does not make copious references to Mr. Leeson, given that he was personally responsible for the trading and settlement of transactions that ran up a total of £827 million in losses and broke the bank where he was employed.
When it came to publication, I carefully considered Mr. Leeson's position and the public interest. Mr. Leeson must be dealt with by due process of law on whatever charges may be brought against him in whatever jurisdiction, but it seemed to me that the overriding public interest was to restore confidence in the City of London and our regulatory authorities, and to meet the Government's obligations to the House and let the House know as much as we knew, so that it can in due course reach a considered conclusion.
As for Mr. Leeson's possible trials, he was a resident of Singapore, and therefore made himself subject to the laws and jurisdiction of Singapore. If he goes back to Singapore, he will no doubt have a fair trial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry that half the Labour party still thinks that mention of foreigners means that there is no justice to be had. We are dealing with trading in Singapore. I have no doubt that, when considering extradition, the German authorities will consider the nature of the charges against Mr. Leeson, the prospects of a trial there, and, quite properly, German extradition law and whether he should be extradited.
The question whether Mr. Leeson faces charges in this country is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the Serious Fraud Office, not for Ministers. It is hardly surprising that proceedings are going ahead in Germany, and the British Government can play no part in determining whether Mr. Leeson is extradited from Germany. We cannot repeat the sneers of the Opposition, who seem to think that one should not extradite Brits to foreign countries even when they seem to have been engaged in unauthorised trading activities in Singapore and the concealment of those activities, which resulted in considerable loss for other people.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The report and the Chancellor's statement are scathing about the Barings management, but what lessons are the regulatory authorities going to learn? If there is be no fundamental change, despite what the Chancellor sees as the Bank of England's lack of rigour, can we at least be reassured that there is to be new vigilance with regard to the same people running the front and back office or new restrictions on individuals' trading positions?
What comfort is there in the statement for small investors who believed that they were investing safely in the Queen's bank? Will the Chancellor press the new owners and the banking sector to compensate them, at least in part?
Mr. Clarke: The House can in due course debate the regulatory system, but the board, which put an enormous amount of work into studying the matter, concluded that the framework of regulation is not the problem.
1462
May I make a very loose analogy, of which I hope people will not make too light a use? In a system of law—for example, criminal law, to enter another sphere—if a policeman makes mistakes, it does not mean that the criminal law is defective and should be changed by Parliament. What is important in that instance is that the police take on board the lessons and ensure that those who work for them investigate properly and do not allow things to pass them by which should not have passed them by. That is a rough analogy with what we are facing now.
As for the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, separation between front of house and back of house, between trading and settlements, is, as I understand it, absolutely fundamental to the proper financial control of any action of this kind. I know of no one in the City of London who does not take it as elementary that there should be a separation of responsibilities between the front of house and the back of house.
That is a serious criticism of Barings in the report, but no one out there in any financial house has any grounds to believe that a new rule is required. Anyone should be caught up by his management and regulator if it is discovered that there is no proper separation. Mr. Leeson was in charge of the entire Singapore arrangement—trading and settlements—in Barings Futures Singapore.
I cannot remember the last point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. Harvey: Compensation.
Mr. Clarke: As far as compensation for people is concerned, the losses have been hugely reduced by the successful acquisition of Barings by the Dutch bank, as have those of the 4,000 employees of Barings, most of whom were trading successfully in a good bank and had nothing whatever to do with these operations in Singapore. If one takes a stake in the capital of a company and something goes wrong with the capital and the company goes down, it does not seem obvious to me that one can instantly look for compensation elsewhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are seeking to be called, and I must ask for the co-operation of the House. I would like brisk questions, a single question from each Member, and I must ask the Chancellor for brisk answers.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn to figures published by the Bank for International Settlements which estimates that the worldwide market in derivatives grew from $1 trillion in 1986 to $45 trillion by the end of 1994; a more than fortyfold increase in eight years, to which the Bank of England now plans to add by introducing a strips market in gilts; that the co-operation between national regulators of this market is wholly inadequate; and that there is actual competition between derivative markets in various parts of the world, so that they often positively refuse to pass on information to each other—for instance, between the Singapore and Osaka stock exchanges?
Is not it clear that, unless better international regulation is introduced, we will have a succession of Barings-type collapses throughout the financial markets of the western world?
Mr. Clarke: There is indeed a huge growth in derivative markets all over the world. It is part of the

1463
rapidly changing nature of financial markets. I have already conceded that trading in any form of derivative with the new financial instruments now emerging is more highly geared, so that positions can rapidly become more exposed than those in ordinary cash futures markets or anything of that kind.
This report again comes to the conclusion that the collapse was not caused because we were in derivative markets. The collapse was caused because a single trader, from the moment that he arrived there, started concealing what he was doing from the authorities in London, which had a complete collapse of management controls and failed to detect what he was doing. That could have happened in any kind of market.
Subject to that, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of much closer collaboration between the supervising authorities in different countries. That becomes ever more important as we see these markets explode at the rate that they are doing, and I am sure that the Bank of England is in the forefront of those who want to extend the present Basle arrangements wider and wider across the globe, especially into the Asian markets which he describes.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that we have been in this position before? This is not the first occasion that we have investigated in this House. There have been other cases, and the same kind of complacency seems to go on from inquiry to inquiry. Does he not understand that the Bank of England's role in supervision is seriously flawed? It has good friends, it relies on the friendships that it has acquired, and that is not good enough.
The regulations we require demand a certain amount of scepticism. That is not the province of the Bank. The Bank does not behave in such a way. What we really need is a proper regulator, and the Chancellor should turn his attention to that.
Mr. Clarke: I do not think that the Bingham report can be described as complacent. Indeed, this Board of Banking Supervision report cannot be described as complacent. It is no good coming along with set attitudes before the report has even been presented and saying that is complacent or a whitewash, or anything like that. It is an extremely hard-hitting report, with positive recommendations, which have to be acted on by the Bank and by any financial institution. It is no good putting up stereotypes of the old boys network being relied on. This report gives no credulity at all to that kind of broad-brush allegation.
What happened was that the responsible people in the Bank, and one under the responsibility of the man who has now gone, gave an informal concession to the 25 per cent. limit, which was then allowed to run for two years before they were told that no such concession should be allowed. For that and other reasons, there are 17 recommendations addressed to the Bank, and they should be answered and acted on by the Bank, as they are going to be.
It is scratching about and trying to find something new to state, "Never mind the recommendations, we now want a brand new institution to be set up." A brand new institution would probably have exactly the same people
1464
working in it as those who work in the Bank of England. It would have to start from scratch, carrying out the recommendations of the Board of Banking Supervision.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that this speedy report will result in action? We all welcome the fact that the report has been obtained efficiently and effectively. Can my right hon. and learned Friend, however, assure the House that the action that will result will be that a proper financial review will take place of the financial controls in every bank operating outside London, in respect of their derivatives, futures and options operations? It is clear that the way in which the Bank of England went about its regulation was totally inadequate, and that it did not have proper reporting systems set up in this regard.
Mr. Clarke: I very much trust that such a review is taking place in every financial institution that has been remotely involved in the derivatives market or has significant exposures of any kind. One aftermath of Barings in practice is undoubtedly that every similar institution throughout the globe is trying to ensure that its system protects it against any rogue trader exposing it to such enormous sums that the bank can be brought down or anything like it.
I trust that every institution will have in place the internal financial controls to ensure that no single trader is reporting as profit transactions that are actually losses which he is hiding away in some undisclosed account. That is what Mr. Leeson was doing in Singapore, among other things, to try to conceal and to limit his exposure in the trades in which he was taking part.
I agree with my hon. Friend. The difference is that it is no good pretending that the Government can review the internal auditing procedures of every bank in London. There is no way in which, as the board concedes, the Bank of England can go over every internal audit inside London. We all know that catastrophic errors were made in this case. All institutions, not just Barings and its new owners, the Bank of England and all other regulators, should now be reading the report and taking action, as my hon. Friend rightly demands, on its recommendations.
Mr. Giles Radice: As the Chancellor's statement has made clear, the report on the Barings crash reveals massive failures by auditors, by supervisors and by regulators. What action does the Chancellor propose should be taken?
Mr. Clarke: The action I have taken is that, within five or six months, from February to July, I have had produced an extremely comprehensive report setting out all the facts and presenting lengthy recommendations about the steps that should be taken by the Bank of England and by others to ensure that the best protection possible is given against such problems in future.
If I had heeded half the requests that were put to me in the aftermath of Barings, when everyone was trying to be wise after the event and everyone wanted some great new judicial study to be set up, we would not have got what we have now, which is a concrete report of great length and thoroughness, which sets out recommendations that now have to be acted on. That is the responsibility of Government and that is why I am accountable to the House for the way in which we do that. I advise the hon. Gentleman now to study the report and to follow it up, if

1465
he wishes. He may wish to ensure that the supervisory authorities are taking action as they committed themselves to do in the light of this disaster.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Given, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that there was a massive failure of supervision in this country of Mr. Leeson's activities, and given that he is a British subject working for a British bank and investing largely British funds, is it not appropriate at least to consider extraditing him back to this country, where the whole story can come out? Mr. Leeson has offered to co-operate with the Serious Fraud Office. Would that not be better than having him hung out to dry while people in this country are able to walk away from their basic responsibility for this whole business?
Mr. Clarke: It is not like that. The question of prosecuting is not for Ministers, but for prosecuting authorities. Whether anybody is charged with an offence in this country, or whether anybody's extradition to this country is sought, is not a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Government should properly take a role. To do so would be simply to set aside the rule of law.
As I have said of Mr. Leeson, he went to take charge of his bank's operations in Singapore, operating on the highly sophisticated market of the Singapore Monetary Exchange, subject to the controls of that exchange and of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. If one goes to live and work in Singapore, one accepts the jurisdiction of Singapore and the laws of Singapore. If one leaves Singapore afterwards, one is entitled to challenge any request for extradition to Singapore which the Singapore authorities make.
Those are matters for the Singapore and German courts, not for the British Government. It would be a bizarre policy stance for the British Government to say that we wanted our prosecuting authorities to bring charges that they are not at the moment minded to bring, in order to rescue somebody from extradition proceedings that he faces in Germany to send him back to Singapore to face charges. That is nothing to do with me; I have neither good will nor ill will towards Mr. Leeson. It is up to him and his lawyers to handle their current problem, which is the extradition proceedings in Germany.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Chancellor aware that, when the Governor of the Bank of England gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he said that to transfer more than 100 per cent. of the share capital of Barings bank to Singapore without the permission of the Bank of England was a criminal offence, and that such permission had not been given in that case? Does that mean that criminal proceedings will take place against Barings bank, or is the Chancellor saying that some informal non-legally binding concession constitutes a bar to legal action?
Mr. Clarke: The question of criminal charges is not a matter for me—nor, in my opinion, should it be up to a Minister of the Crown to decide whether any individual should be prosecuted for such things. No doubt the Governor of the Bank of England gave the reply that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because normally there is a
1466
25 per cent. limit on exposure compared with the capital value of a bank, and in certain circumstances there could be a criminal offence.
It is not a matter for me, but it would appear that, on that occasion, an informal concession had been given by the responsible official in the Bank of England without referring the matter up to anything like the level of the Governor. It is for the Serious Fraud Office to decide whether an informal concession stands in the way of any prosecution. The whole point of the board's report is to bring such matters out, and it is now for the responsible authorities to take action or not to take action, depending on the evidence that we now have, or on any evidence to which they have access, in support of what the board reports.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor has said about Mr. Leeson's position, but it seems to me astonishing and unsatisfactory that the investigation took place here in the City of London without Mr. Leeson's being involved face to face. In the light of the extreme incompetence demonstrated by Barings management, I hope that, whatever may happen to Mr. Lees.on afterwards, it is not too late to bring him back to undergo an investigation.
Mr. Clarke: No one here has the powers to extradite somebody from another country to give evidence to such a board of inquiry. Mr. Leeson was invited to co-operate with the inquiry, and people would have been sent to interview him had he been willing. But he declined to co-operate, and all we received was a bland questioning of the accuracy of the report, by his solicitors.
Even if Mr. Leeson wished to come to this country, he is inconvenienced at the moment by the fact that he is in a German gaol facing German extradition proceedings. It is more than likely that, if he came to this country, he would face extradition proceedings here too, because no doubt the Singapore authorities would seek to extradite him from this country. Those are not matters for me—nor, with the greatest respect, are they matters for the House. They are matters for the prosecuting and legal authorities in the various countries involved.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has it ever crossed the Chancellor's mind that, in the whole series of crashes in the financial world that have extended over many years—in fact, throughout the 16 years that the Tory Government have been in power—[AN HON. MEMBER: "And Maxwell."] Yes, that as well—and Johnson Matthey. When each crash happened, we were told that things would be put right, that the Bank of England would deal with things, and that people would be put in place to watch over what happened.
But since then, there has been not only the Bank of Credit and Commerce International but a whole catalogue of others. Many of the people on the Treasury Bench come from the belly of the banking establishment, and they are always spouting, "Don't let Labour in, they'll lose your money." Yet this is a Government who in 1992 lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and never went near a betting shop.
I have some advice for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of talking about investing in derivatives, why do the Government not resign and let the British people invest in the future instead?
Mr. Clarke: I can recall three such collapses in a number of years. The City of London is the major

1467
international centre for financial dealings across the exchanges, and it has an extremely good reputation for regulation. That reputation is reinforced by the promptness with which we produce inquiries of this kind with a full disclosure of the facts, and also by the fact that we are seen to be taking action in the light of those inquiries.
I said at the end of my statement that it is impossible to devise any system which gives a total guarantee that nobody will ever successfully beat the system. Our system is as good as anywhere in the world, and it must be—as far as we can create it—the best in the world to keep up the reputation of the City of London. The Government have never been charged with direct responsibility for supervising banking. Even the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is not suggesting that the Treasury or the Government should take control. The attempt by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to make party political points is completely pointless.
Just to show how people can be deceived—we all remember the case of Robert Maxwell, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) helpfully recalled. I remember that Mr. Maxwell was the hero of the hour at the Trades Union Congress that I attended, and he practically owned the Labour party. Everybody at the time said that they had doubts about Mr. Maxwell's financial propriety, but they took the money, went to the parties and were patronised by Mr. Maxwell. So we do not want the Labour establishment coming here to tell us that we are deficient in regulating the City of London.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the very fact that we have this public report stands in fine contrast to the practices in other jurisdictions? For example, as far I know, the French authorities have still not produced a public report on the appalling shambles at Credit Lyonnais.
Since the report exposes the most monumental record of management incompetence and failure, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is extremely important for the integrity and international reputation of the City that those involved in that management negligence are not allowed in future to occupy positions of responsibility in financial institutions?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he is right. There are other authorities in the world that might be capable of producing as full and frank a response to a problem of this kind as we have done, but there are not very many. There are quite a lot of authorities that would never do it, and quite a lot that—I hope—will learn from our report and our openness. That openness and rapidity of response and reaction is the best reassurance for people who are looking for prudent management and the safety of their funds in the City of London.
As far as I am aware, all the significant people in the management of Barings who were named in the report are no longer with Barings, and the person responsible in the Bank of England is no longer there. Should any of them seek to re-enter the financial services market, they will have an opportunity to do so, but they will have to satisfy the regulators about the propriety of their return.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Chancellor accept that the idea that Leeson acted completely on his own—the so-called rogue trader theory—is increasingly less credible? Has he read the sentence in the conclusions of the report which says:
"Moreover, we cannot rule out the possibility that Leeson may have been acting in concert with one or more persons"?
Mr. Clarke: I made reference to that comment in the report in my statement, and I accept that. It is clear that Leeson traded in an unauthorised and concealed way. He opened—very rapidly after he arrived—account No. 88888, which was concealed from the management in London, although references to it might have been picked up later in London. He hid losses in that account to make his transactions appear profitable when they were making a loss. When he was finally pressed on the margins and could not find finance, Leeson created apparent financial obligations that were not there, and I recommend that the hon. Lady see what he did.
If we get all the details and papers from Singapore—these may well emerge in due course, when the Singapore authorities have completed their processes—we may be able to rule out the possibility that others were involved. But it is not possible to get away from the fact at the heart of the matter, that this man was in charge of trading and settlements. For reasons at the moment best known to himself, he was not disclosing—indeed, he was systematically concealing—the true nature of that trading to all those in the Barings group in London.
Mr. Nigel Forman: As it appears from everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said this afternoon that none of the dramatis personae—whether traders, managers, regulators, supervisors or auditors—comes particularly well out of this story, and as few of us have yet had a chance to read this long and important report, will my right hon. and learned Friend at least keep an open mind on the important political point that it may be necessary to take subsequent action on mature consideration once he and his colleagues have had a chance to look further at all the implications? He should not close off that possibility yet.
Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly heed my hon. Friend's wise advice. I think that he is correct. I have published this report at the earliest possible moment, which I appreciate is on the eve of the parliamentary recess. To have held it back until after the recess would have caused unreasonable delay.
My main concern is to re-establish the reputation of the City of London and ensure that every possible lesson is learned from this collapse. We can all read the report properly, and there is plenty of time for more mature consideration. Many people with expertise on the subject, both inside the House and outside, will no doubt come forward with proposals for more precautions against such events happening again.
The Government will keep an open mind and are open to sensible suggestions. What I am rebutting today is off-the-cuff bright ideas that are not in the report. The report makes a full disclosure and many recommendations, and hon. Members should now consider it seriously and decide whether they have a substantial contribution to make on further protection.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The Chancellor has used parliamentary privilege to find Nick Leeson

1469
guilty, and now wants him sent back to Changi gaol to disappear for ever. That is odd behaviour for a lawyer, given that Ministers can instruct prosecuting authorities on extradition matters.
On the main point of public policy, the Chancellor has displayed extraordinary complacency, and the Bank of England has issued a press release saying that nothing fundamental needs to be changed. How soon will it be before people with investments through PEPs or pension funds that are traded overseas have a regulatory body independent of the Bank of England to oversee how banks in this country handle those investments? Leaving it with the Bank of England ensures that, in future, our money will be as unsafe as the Bank of England. The Chancellor should heed the recommendation of my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in that regard.
Mr. Clarke: I have said all that I need to say about the legal position. These matters must be settled by due process of law, which is a matter for neither the Government nor this House. Nor can it be resolved by emotional references to overseas jurisdictions, as though courts outside this country are necessarily inferior to those in this country, and therefore British subjects should not appear before them. Hon. Members should make a more objective judgment than that.
On the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Bank of England, of course the Bank must act as it said it would act on each of the 17 recommendations addressed to it. But it is simplistic politics to say that we should take those matters away from the Bank of England and set up a new banking commission, which presumably will operate the same Banking Act within the same framework, as though one had taken determined action that would improve matters.
We have a good system of regulation in the City of London. The Bank of England is a highly acclaimed regulator, and, when mistakes are made, it is for the Bank of England in the first place to act on them. The independent board charged with the purpose has recommended that there is no immediate need to change the Banking Act which this House has put in place.
Sir Anthony Grant: What explanation did the inquiry obtain from Barings senior management about why the extraordinary situation prevailed whereby Leeson was both trader and back office settlement manager? As that most unusual and improper position was apparently known for some time, not only to senior Barings management but to other people, why did not the Bank of England know about it?
Mr. Clarke: First, the internal audit of Barings disclosed that matter in 1994. It must be said, in response to my hon. Friend's incredulity that this should continue, that there is no doubt that Barings failed to take any steps in the light of that.
Although the Bank of England cannot check every internal audit in a bank—that would not be physically possible—nevertheless the report sets out a number of warning signs that should have been heeded. The key matter is whether the Bank should have acted more quickly on the informal concession, apparently given temporarily, on the 25 per cent. limit. The board was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether, had something been done in less than two years on that
1470
informal concession, all the problems, including the failure to separate front of house from back of house, might not have to come to light.
Mr. Peter Hain: Can we be clear that the Chancellor is asking us to accept the following proposition: that a cunning rogue trader hoodwinks the entire management of one of the oldest banks in the country; then lifts two fingers at all the regulatory controls; and then cons the supervising authorities of the Bank of England? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that no policy reforms, not even the tiniest, are necessary to prevent that sort of thing from happening again?
Mr. Clarke: The regulators regulate a bank, acting on the information they receive from senior management and the best information that they can get from that bank. They make proper inquiry, as they should, but the Bank of England cannot be expected to have access to gossip, rumour and details of transactions in all the subsidiaries of that bank.
Mr. Hain: It is amazing.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says that it is amazing. I recommend him to read the report. It is amazing that Mr. Leeson in Singapore opened the account in 1992; and that in early 1995 he had lost more than £800 million, yet the management in London had still not detected that he was trading in an unauthorised way on such a scale.
Mr. Skinner: Do you believe it?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is straying slightly out of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has had his question.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Bolsover asks me, do I believe it? I accept that the report offers a description of the total collapse of management control. I do not see what motive people in Barings in London could have had for ignoring information they had and allowing their bank to collapse, and them to lose their jobs. The fact is that it is incredible that no system of financial control should exist in such a bank.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is not one of the principal lessons of this abysmal episode that the Bank of England seems to have significantly underestimated the effect of the huge increase in derivatives trading, which was mentioned earlier, upon the profitability and viability of banks? That effect was compounded in this instance by the informal concession, which seems to have lain unnoticed for two years. What assurances can the Chancellor give us that such informal concessions will no longer be made by anybody from the Bank of England? What can he say about the extent of derivatives trading and possible control of it?
Mr. Clarke: On the key matter of derivatives trading, the collapse of Barings was not caused because the trading was in derivatives. I think everybody would concede that the rapid and remarkable build-up of the exposure between January of this year and the end of February was no doubt partly because derivatives were being used. I believe that 61,000 separate trades were entered into, all

1471
apparently on the assumption that the collapse in the Japanese market following the Kobe earthquake was about to be reversed. Quite a lot of the bank's money was staked on that assumption.
The kind of unauthorised trading entered into, and lack of financial and management control, meant that the bank could get into difficulties regardless of derivatives. Derivatives deserve serious examination, but the collapse of Barings does not offer a case against all derivatives. Derivatives exist in considerable part to protect against risk. The bank in London did not realise that the derivatives were exposed, high-risk positions. Because of its lack of control, it believed that the trade was almost risk-free, arbitrage business, taking advantage of differences in price which could occur for the same commodity in Osaka and in Singapore.
The report again amazes the ordinary reader, because no one questioned how such enormous and risk-free profitability had somehow been discovered by one trader in Singapore. That failure underlines the fact that one must have in place not only elementary financial controls in banks, but strict and rigorous controls of credit and risk, and a proper line of management responsibility. Those are necessary in modern financial markets, because huge exposures can be run up rapidly if some bank tries to proceed without such controls and management in place.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Chancellor acknowledged that the criticism of the Bank of England contained in the report is even more savage than the criticism contained in the Bingham report. Will he tell the House what is so special about Mr. Eddie George that he is able to survive such harsh criticism, relating to the past three years, and will he tell the House how many of the 17 recommendations made by the report are broadly similar to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Bingham?
Mr. Clarke: I did not describe the criticism as savage. There are 17 recommendations, but they do not go to the regulatory structure of the Bank of England, and they do not go to the management controls of the Bank of England. They go to the way in which the responsible people carried out their obligations, including what appears to be a straightforward lapse of giving that informal concession and, two years later, readdressing themselves to the problem and saying that no further concession could be given. The report is not as damning of the Bank of England as it is of Barings, but it is important that the Bank acts on the 17 recommendations.
On the last point, I have not compared the recommendations in the Bingham report with the precise recommendations in the Board of Banking Supervision's report, but I do not believe that they are the same. At no
1472
point does the board's report say that the Bank failed to act on things on which it had been told to act after the Bingham inquiry.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Is it not significant that the report had to conclude that the Bank of England should find ways of increasing its understanding of non-banking business for which it is responsible, such as financial services business and derivatives? It also concludes, at paragraph 13.61:
"There does not appear to have been any guideline or system in place within the Bank for determining whether the situation…was … such that it could affect the well-being of the bank."
Is that not the ultimate indictment on a central bank, when there are such fundamental failures?
Does not the Chancellor understand that there is a clear public interest in ensuring the integrity of the supervisory system of this country, not only with the Bank of England, but with the Securities and Futures Authority, and that he simply cannot brush off that whole affair as mainly the activities of one rogue trader, or rely on 17 weak recommendations which only touch on the fundamental problems that confront us? The sooner he realises that not only the Opposition but many Conservative Back Benchers believe that a thorough overhaul of the regulatory system is long overdue, the better it will be for this country's international reputation.
Mr. Clarke: I am not brushing off anything; indeed, I keep coming to the House, somewhat repetitively, with full descriptions of what happened at Barings; with announcements that I am setting up inquiries, and producing the results of inquiries which answer almost all the questions on the facts that could conceivably be answered before the Singapore authorities have produced their side of the arrangements; and with recommendations on which we shall act.
The question to which the hon. Gentleman specifically refers covers the position that exists in the real world, where the Bank of England is the lead supervisor for a group that contains banks and other financial services organisations. It is true that we need to keep readdressing the extent to which the necessary skills are there in the Bank when one consolidates those organisations for a regulatory purpose, and the relationships between the Bank and the Securities and Futures Authority, to ensure that those large, complex modern businesses are adequately regulated.
I repeat: we have one of the best regulatory systems in the world, and our openness and promptness in reacting to those problems help strengthen that reputation. It is nonsense to believe that the House must legislate every time and start inventing new organisations, as though that will give a 100 per cent. guarantee that, in the modern financial markets, it will never be possible for a rogue trader to lead to any problems of any kind.

Standards in Public Life
4.43 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House on the Government's response to the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is being presented to the House today as Cm 2931.
My right hon. Friend and distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), told the House on 18 May that the Government accepted the broad thrust of these recommendations. The response covers all the recommendations addressed to Government: 45 of 55 recommendations in all.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is determined to uphold the highest standards in public life. The response details the Government's plans for implementation and action in respect of all the 45 recommendations addressed to Government. It also sets out further proposals for a new civil service code, and for a new introduction to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".
We accept the Nolan committee's recommendation that Ministers should be brought within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The response emphasises the great importance of continuing interchange between business and commercial life and ministerial office. We should do nothing to deter talented people with private sector experience from entering public life, and nothing that prevents those who have completed their ministerial career from applying that experience to the benefit of British industry and commerce.
The Nolan committee strongly supported that principle, and to translate it into action, we shall draw up rules setting out specific criteria, to be administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to establish the circumstances in which Ministers should be advised to delay a particular appointment, or make its acceptance subject to conditions.
We intend to publish a text for consultation before introducing the rules from the start of the next Session of Parliament. We intend to have a debate on that and the White Paper as a whole in the spillover session.
We shall also consult to the same timetable on an extension of business appointments rules to Ministers' special advisers.
On the registration of hospitality accepted by Ministers, our response builds on the arrangements for registration of Members' interests in the House and on the guidance already contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", that Ministers should not accept hospitality that would or might appear to place them under an obligation. In the words of the Select Committee on Members' Interests,
"it is neither possible nor desirable to make a clear distinction between a Minister's conduct as a Minister and his conduct as a Member of Parliament."
We shall act quickly and positively on the Nolan committee's recommendations concerning appointments and propriety in public bodies and the national health service, building on many of the continuing initiatives that the committee endorsed. In particular, we shall appoint a new Commissioner for Public Appointments, to offer
1474
guidance, monitor and audit departmental appointment procedures. That post will be advertised in a matter of days.
We shall extend the use of advisory panels, including an independent element, to advise on appointments to executive public bodies and the national health service. That has been successfully piloted in several sectors. All Departments will introduce their own arrangements as soon as practical to allow the new commissioner to influence the procedures introduced. We believe that, at the outside, that will require no more than 12 months.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service announced last month a review of the legal framework governing propriety and accountability in public bodies, and their arrangements for external audit. We intend to reach preliminary conclusions by the end of the year, well ahead of the timetable envisaged in the committee's report.
We have accepted the recommendations of Lord Nolan's committee that there should be opportunities under the civil service code for a civil servant to express worries about actions in which he or she is not personally involved, and for nominated officials to investigate anxieties expressed confidentially.
Our consultation period on the civil service code will now be extended to mid-September, to allow further opportunities for comment. We accept the Nolan committee's recommendation that implementation need not then await a legislative opportunity, and we intend to have the code in action before the end of the calendar year.
I am confident that the action that we have set out will show the House and the whole country our determination to take practical steps that will uphold and sustain the highest standards of propriety while ensuring that men and women of talent and experience continue to contribute to public life.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and welcome him to his new role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? His statement was brief, as statements should be, but of considerable importance to the conduct of government by Ministers and by civil servants. We welcome many of the details in the White Paper that discuss the 45 recommendations for Government action in the Nolan report. We have detailed concerns about some of the proposals, and we shall pursue them in the promised debate in the autumn.
The Minister should be aware that, while we welcome many of the details, we of course recall that the review has come about only because the Prime Minister was forced to ask Lord Nolan to report because of all the Government abuses of recent years. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Nolan committee accepted many of the specific points put forward by Labour, such as the quarantine on post-ministerial appointments? We made those points despite the outright opposition of the Government, so we welcome this minor U-turn by Ministers today. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stand by the evidence given by his predecessor to the Nolan committee, that there was no problem and no real case to answer?
On the Nolan committee's recommendations on quangos and the actions proposed by the Government, will the Minister confirm that the Nolan report quotes the

1475
National Audit Office figure of £52 billion as the amount of public money spent by unaccountable quangos, with little or no democratic accountability to the public? Will the Minister acknowledge that the Nolan committee's remit on the subject of quango appointments was extremely narrow and did not allow for a full examination of all aspects of quangos? Will he confirm that, while modification of the appointments system is necessary, it will not stop the growth in the quango state, which is one of the fundamental problems undermining the principle of democratic accountability?
Is the Minister aware that we welcome the recommendations on the civil service code? We believe that civil servants who want to raise serious issues should be able to do so with confidence that that will not prejudice their position. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we welcome the time scale that he has laid down for the introduction of a code, we still believe that legislation on the subject is necessary? If the Government were to press ahead with it, they would have our full co-operation.
With regard to the conduct of and procedures for Ministers, is what the Minister has announced today yet another illusion of openness? Does he realise that publishing the code does not guarantee good behaviour by Ministers and that no Government should have a free hand to mount cover-ups at will? Several of the phrases in the new code will cause concern. I am thinking of phrases such as,
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament".
We all know that sometimes Ministers choose not to know. Another such phrase is:
"withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
It is Ministers who will determine whether that is in the public interest.
Does the Minister accept that the spirit of the Nolan report demands not just new codes of conduct, useful though they may be, but a new attitude on the part of Ministers to replace the arrogance that has become the hallmark of the Government after too long in office? The elected dictatorship must give way to an Executive with a sense of service to the people it seeks to serve.
If confidence is to be restored in our parliamentary democracy, and if the Government and the Conservatives are serious about the need for transparency, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider removing the Government's veto of an early inquiry by the Nolan committee into the funding of political parties?
Mr. Freeman: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments on my new office, which were much appreciated.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has a new suit for the job too.
Mr. Freeman: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I normally wear a proper suit.
The Nolan report said that the great majority of men and women in public life are honest, hard-working and observe high ethical standards. The slur that some—I do not necessarily charge the hon. Lady with this—make about the standards of public life, implying that those in
1476
public life, whether Ministers' special advisers or civil servants, are dishonest, do not work hard and do not observe high ethical standards, is utterly wrong. We have probably the best civil service in the world. I was brought up to believe what Professor Crick, then of the London School of Economics, strongly believed—that politics is an honourable profession. I am sure that all those on the Conservative Front Bench would believe that it is right to allay fears that have come about as public perceptions have changed in recent years. That is why the Government have come forward promptly, before the recess, and accepted the Nolan recommendations.
As for the civil service code, we do not want civil servants to have their positions prejudiced. I accept what the hon. Lady said. I am happy to consult the Opposition Front-Bench team on the way forward in terms of placing in statute a new civil service code, which we intend to implement before the end of the year. I cannot promise to give the timetable of any legislation, but if the hon. Lady will join me on further discussions on that subject, it would be appreciated.
On the subject of Ministers' conduct as contained in the guidance given by the Prime Minister to all Ministers, I shall deal with the proposed amendment, which is contained in the White Paper. As to the phrase, "knowingly" to mislead, I am sure that it is apparent to the House that sometimes Ministers who are not fully aware of the facts at the time give answers to the House. That has occurred on a number of occasions—according to my researches, it has occurred over the past 40 or 50 years with Ministers of both parties when in government. The requirement is that Ministers should not knowingly mislead the House.
On the subject of what is not in the public interest, the hon. Lady will know that we have had out for consultation for more than six months, published in "Open Government", Cmnd. 2290, the specific reasons why it is sometimes necessary not to disclose certain facts because to do so would be against the public interest. I believe that the hon. Lady was reminded of what the proposals were by my predecessor in a letter in March—she has yet to respond. I am not aware of any problems that the hon. Lady or the House should have about those categories, which include defence, security, international relations, communications with the royal household, law enforcement and legal proceedings, and operations of the public service, such as setting bank rates. Those are well-established categories and are entirely defensible.
On the subject of what the hon. Lady described as the veto on what Lord Nolan may be doing, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I am sure that he will read the record.
Mr. David Hunt: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion to the Cabinet and his appointment as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I praise him on his speedy and effective response on behalf of the Government to the Nolan committee's report. I thank him for his earlier words and strongly support his determination to implement the important recommendations and bring to an end a sorry chapter in British public life, which has been characterised by allegations, slurs and innuendoes, mainly from the Opposition. Those allegations have subsequently been found to be completely without foundation.

1477
The evidence given on behalf of the Government and contained in chapter 1 of the Nolan committee's report shows that much of the public's anxiety about standards in public life is based on perceptions and beliefs that are not supported by the facts. My right hon. Friend has done much today to restore public confidence in our high standards in public life.
Mr. Freeman: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks and for his personal references. He is correct in what he says about the public's perceptions of the conduct of Ministers, civil servants and hon. Members in the House—and we are to debate that issue tomorrow. The Government do not deny that fact. That is why we have moved positively, quickly and sensibly without jeopardising the essential principle of retaining an interchange of men and women of talent, interest and commitment between the private and public sectors.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognise that his predecessor must be entirely wrong in his assertion that the series of proposals can draw a line through the scandals that led to the investigations of Lord Justice Scott, which will keep alive in the public's mind the systematic attempts by his colleagues to withhold information? Against that background, we must consider the adequacy of the proposal to codify in the rules of ministerial behaviour a provision that allows Ministers to withhold information if they deem it to be in the public interest to do so. Does the Chancellor accept that other countries that pursue openness through freedom of information legislation have always had some independent mechanism for judging whether the public interest is served by Ministers withholding the facts?
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will have noted the Government's commitment to hold a debate in the spillover period, and doubtless he will be able to raise those issues then. The Government took the initiative by publishing the White Paper "Open Government" earlier this year. It set out the issues very clearly and it gave specific and sensible examples of where it would be in the public interest to withhold information. I believe that we pursue open and sensible government in this country.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept my praise for bringing forward such a forthright statement so quickly? I think that he will accept that much of the background work was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) before he left office. We should pay tribute to both my right hon. Friends for the work that they have done in preparing the statement that was presented to the House today. Very few people would have expected such a speedy response from the Government, and I am sure that the public welcome it.
I shall make a personal observation on the matter of "knowingly" misleading the House. As a Minister, I misled an hon. Gentleman quite unwittingly from the Dispatch Box when I was not aware of all the facts. When those facts were pointed out to me later that day, I returned to the Chamber and apologised to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for what I had said. That sort of incident can occur quite openly. The idea that a Minister always knows everything that goes on in his or her Department is absolute nonsense, and we must understand that from the word go.
Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend, like me and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, lives in the real world and I accept his remarks entirely. When he has a chance to read the White Paper, he will see that it deals with the conduct and procedure for Ministers. It states on page 32:
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament … They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public".
It continues:
"Ministers … should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity".
It has long been the tradition in the House to report errors promptly when they are discovered, by statements in the Chamber or by way of written answers.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does not the inclusion of the word "knowingly" invite civil servants deliberately to mislead Ministers on occasion, because they recognise that the whole principle of contempt breaks down in the House of Commons? Ministers simply have not grasped that fact.
Has the Minister seen the hundreds of questions that I have tabled over the past six months, many of which—particularly those about lobbying—have received a reply referring to disproportionate costs? It is clearly not a question of cost: Ministers simply did not want to answer the questions. I have received answers of that nature from the former President of the Board of Trade, who is present in the Chamber. He clearly did not want to reveal information about lobbyist activities in his Department.
Lord Nolan is representing the public interest when he says that Ministers must not mislead Parliament, and that that principle should be incorporated in a code. He understands that Ministers do mislead Parliament under the present arrangements.
Mr. Freeman: I do not think that the House accepts the hon. Gentleman's perhaps inadvertent slur on the civil service. The civil service has a draft code of conduct open for consultation and I repeat the Government's commitment to implement that code, following proper consultation, by the end of the year. If the hon. Gentleman has the chance to read the code, he will see that civil servants are under the same obligation as Ministers to ensure that Parliament is not misled.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the matter of disproportionate cost. I have answered many written questions by referring to disproportionate cost. The solution lies in the hands of hon. Members, who must ensure that their questions are as specific as possible. It is unreasonable to expect Ministers to answer—at great public expense—open questions, which would sometimes take many weeks or months to respond to properly. If the question is specific, it can be answered.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that a public interest immunity certificate is not a gagging device that enables the Executive to withhold information from the courts? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when a Minister signs a public interest immunity certificate, it simply places the matter before the judge, and it is the judge—not the Minister—who decides whether the evidence can be admitted in the proceedings?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Public interest immunity certificates, which were signed

1479
on the advice of the Attorney-General by both Labour and Conservative Ministers at the appropriate times, simply identify to the court documents that the judge may sensibly consider withholding from public scrutiny. The court, not Ministers, must decide what information is made public. In recent cases, the judge has exercised his right to agree or to disagree with Ministers; but the judge must make that decision.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister cannot get away with misleading the House this afternoon. We receive the same answers time after time. I have in my hand a clutch of answers that I received from Ministers this morning, and many of them refer to disproportionate cost. The Minister said that if the question is open, the answer will be "disproportionate cost". However, I asked a very specific question about the Government's aid to Indonesia for a particular project and I received the answer: "disproportionate cost".
I have asked about 150 similar questions during the past six months, and time and again I have received the answer, "disproportionate cost". I once asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the cost of one embassy in one country and I was informed that it had taken 106 hours to find the answer to my question. That is absolutely ridiculous. Members of the public are led to believe that Opposition Members can ask questions and that Ministers are obliged to answer them. The public are being conned by the Minister this afternoon.
Mr. Freeman: I shall try to answer the hon. Lady's question in a constructive manner. I appreciate that there are sometimes problems. I suggest that, in some cases, it might profit the hon. Lady to write or to speak to the Ministers concerned instead of sending in written questions that must often receive a very brief reply. If the hon. Lady has problems obtaining information that can be provided sensibly and at proportionate cost, instead of sending the Ministry a battery of questions, why does she not adopt my pragmatic advice and speak to the Ministry or the Minister direct?
Mr. John Butcher: What is a public figure; and how do we define "influence"? It is argued that those who are paid out of public funds—Members of Parliament, for instance—and who, because of their position, are seen to have influence and are therefore retained by the private sector, should sign a register.
May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a hole in Nolan? There is another group of public figures who have influence, who are paid for out of public funds, and who are sometimes hired by the private sector because of their influential positions—but they never have to declare anything. Entirely at random I think of, say, the presenters of the "Today" programme in the morning. They are paid for out of public funds; they have huge influence; they pride themselves on their quasi-constitutional position: questioning the Executive and taking up the agenda. Should they not also declare their earnings from outside, which allegedly exceed their earnings from the BBC? My right hon. Friend may think that a cynical point; perhaps on investigation the comparison may prove to be more exact than we think.
Mr. Freeman: It is an unfair and unequal life for Ministers as compared with the media, certainly with
1480
respect to registration of hospitality. We suggest that Ministers enter in the House of Commons Register hospitality amounting to more than £160—the rule that applies to Members of this House—when that amount might reasonably be thought by others to influence a Minister, if the Minister actually accepts the hospitality.
My hon. Friend will be well aware that prudent Ministers, taking advice if necessary from their permanent secretaries, do not accept hospitality when it might be thought by others outside the House that their judgment and decision making might be influenced.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the only real way of dealing with this problem of Ministers and Members of Parliament is to ensure that all hon. Members have one job and one job only? That job is to represent constituents, so there should be no conflict of interest. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce some sort of quarantine period for Ministers, does he realise what the problem will be? In come a Labour Government, and 110 Tory Ministers will be looking for plum jobs. We are going to democratise quangos, so all the people who hold those jobs at the moment will be competing with Tory Ministers for the remaining jobs.
I have a suggestion: the quarantine will snap. So it would be better for Tory Ministers to do now what the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) has already done—he got out early to pick up the plum jobs.
Mr. Freeman: I look forward to serving as a Minister for a long time to come—certainly beyond the hon. Gentleman's retirement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Chancellor recall quoting the Select Committee a few moments ago, to the effect that it could not make a major distinction between Ministers of the Crown and Members of this House? No one expects a Minister of the Crown to divulge information or give of his time for an outside consideration. If that is so, and as we are all in another sense public servants, should not the same principle apply in the same way to all Members of Parliament? They should make no contracts, and come to no arrangements relating to information or time, with outside bodies by virtue of the office that they hold. If the Government are saying that, they are right—unless they are applying it only to hospitality.
Mr. Freeman: The responsibilities of Ministers are very different from those of Members of Parliament. The requirements are extremely onerous: no Minister can retain any outside employment except under very limited and specific circumstances. It seems to me right, therefore, that the Government, who have this afternoon accepted in the White Paper the spirit of the Select Committee's remarks on the registration of hospitality, should say that Ministers should register it, but as Members of this House. The tests are different, but the requirement and the responsibility remain the same.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Like many who go into military service, many who enter the civil service and political service do so not because they offer the best earning jobs but because those people think it important to do the job, and to do it well. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the advice for people in the civil service. When I was a junior Minister, I told my civil servants that if I did something they thought wrong or

1481
misleading, they should tell me the first time, tell the permanent secretary the second time, and tell The Guardian the third time. Most of them managed to avoid telling The Guardian.
Finally, may I suggest that people in Parliament, whether Ministers or not, should apply the local newspaper test and ask themselves whether they are doing something that they would not like to see appear in their local newspaper? If the answer is yes, they should either not do it or tell the paper.
Mr. Freeman: In the proposed code of conduct for civil servants, we propose a wider definition of concerns—a wider number of issues—than Nolan recommended. We say that if a civil servant is concerned about the conduct of his or her Minister, initially the matter should be raised with the Department. That is likely to mean the permanent secretary. If the civil servant is still concerned, the matter can be raised with the civil service commissioners, and if they are not satisfied with the response from the Department or the Minister, the commissioners will report to Parliament. That seems a sensible and practical way forward. It protects the confidentiality that must exist between the Ministers and civil servants, while still permitting civil servants worried about certain actions or policies to raise their legitimate concerns.
Mr. David Shaw: If the Government really believe in openness and no cover-ups, what are they doing to ensure that full details are published of the trips to Washington and Gleneagles by the Leader of the Opposition; and of how the Industrial Research Trust finances his office? What are the Government doing about that?
Mr. Freeman: Opposition Front Benchers are not Ministers and are therefore not covered by this response—and long may that remain so.
Mr. Chris Mullin: The Minister failed to respond to the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—that if the Government want to be taken seriously in their desire to improve public confidence in public life, they will have to persuade the Prime Minister to remove the veto on Lord Nolan's studying the funding of political parties. Will he please respond to that point now?
Mr. Freeman: I think I did respond to it—it is a matter for the Prime Minister, not for me.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that it was wholly unacceptable that former Cabinet Ministers, out of office for only a very short time—weeks in some cases—joined the boards of industries that they had been responsible for privatising? Moreover, other Cabinet Ministers, having left office, joined the boards of organisations that had had dealings with the Departments in which those Ministers had served. What is now being recommended is likely also to be unacceptable, because this Government will probably choose the three-month period, not the two-year period. What happened in the past was inexcusable and was, no doubt, one reason why it was considered necessary to let Nolan investigate.
Mr. Freeman: When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity, he will, I am sure, consult pages 4 and 5 of the White Paper, which set out the criteria that the
1482
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments should use when determining whether there should be a waiting period of up to two years before a former Minister takes an appointment. He will note that there are three specific criteria. The first is:
"has the individual been in a position which could lay him or her open to the suggestion that the appointment was in some way a reward for past favours?"
The second is:
"Has he or she been in a position where he or she has in fact had access to trade secrets of competitors or knowledge of immediately impending Government policy which would give his or her company an unfair advantage?"
The third is:
"is there another specific reason why acceptance of the appointment would give rise to justifiable public concern?"
We have left in the criteria the role of the advisory committee to consider justifiable public concern, but we want it to look as specifically as possible at what the objection may be. The intention is not to have a generic ban on returning to certain professions, or to former employment or family businesses; it is to look at the specifics of a case so that there should be no presumption that for former Ministers there should automatically be a two-year ban.
Mr. Tony Banks: I refer the Chancellor to recommendation 21 on page 8, relating to official gifts to Ministers. Why have I been unsuccessful in obtaining from Ministers and the Prime Minister a list of official gifts? What is the big secret about those gifts? How come that in the United States, the President has to publish a full list of gifts, which are put on public display, yet gifts that are given to Ministers in their official capacities by grateful Governments or people overseas remain a state secret? Are Ministers walking around with arms full of golden Rolexes given to them by sundry oil sheiks? What is the secret?
Mr. Freeman: As a former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I was sometimes offered, but sometimes declined, such gifts. The rules are clear and I repeat them briefly for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. If a gift that is given personally to a Minister, which is inscribed or given specifically to an individual, has a value in excess of £125, the Minister may not retain it. If it exceeds that value, he or she can pay for it and there is a prompt valuation by outside experts. The gift will be either retained or handled in a discreet fashion in order not to cause offence to a foreign Government. [Interruption.] Discreet in the sense that offence should not be caused to the donor, not discreet in the sense of trying to cover something up. Those rules are clear. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can pursue his general question. I shall be happy to respond when I have researched the facts. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall respond. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. I have sought to respond to such written questions, including from the hon. Gentleman, on literally hundreds of occasions, as fully and fairly as possible.
Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the public's perceptions is that Members of Parliament should be full time without paid outside interests. That is the majority submission that was put to the Nolan committee by the public, although it did not accept that. Surely the public are correct. They should expect their elected representatives to work on their behalf using the

1483
procedures of the House to further the public's interests, not to seek to serve other interests outside. If they want to serve other interests outside, there are many unpaid voluntary jobs in which they could be involved. It is surprising that the outside interests that are considered are always the well-paid ones.
Mr. Freeman: I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion, although I do not agree with it and neither do many of his colleagues. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself, not for the Labour party. My accountability to the House relates to Ministers and the civil service. I shall be here tomorrow to listen to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. It is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Government. The Government make decisions on the conduct of Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, but the House makes its own rules for hon. Members.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is extremely accurate? He seems to be completely puzzled about what happens to presents given to Ministers. My right hon. Friend is right to say that they are smartly removed by private secretaries if their value is above a certain level. Since two of the gifts that I received as Secretary of State for Defence were a Heckler and Koch machine pistol and a kalashnikov, it may be of reassurance to the House to know that they were swiftly removed from me.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is the real justification for my right hon. Friend's answer about the need for procedures for Ministers and for their eligibility to come under the advisory committee? The hon. Gentleman has repeated precisely the falsehood about the conduct of Ministers retiring from the House and going to work for nationalised industries. The evidence given to the Nolan committee was that not a single Member of the House who retired as a Minister was in breach of the two-year rule suggested by the advisory committee.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Nolan committee.
1484
I am grateful to him for his comments and contribution to the exchanges. With regard to the past record, I agree with him. Too often there is innuendo and smear, not a substantiated charge. Some Opposition Members are in the business of trying to stir up public perception erroneously. Ministers are perfectly happy to defend themselves against specific charges, not the general smear, which has too often been the case in the past.
Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Point of order, Mr. Carlisle.
Mr. Peter Shore rose—
Madam Speaker: I am sorry. I have one more very important right hon. Member to call. Mr. Peter Shore.
Mr. Shore: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In that mood, I begin by saying that I am broadly very happy with the forthcoming statement made by the Minister. But in one particular he should think further and, in particular, in time for the next debate that we shall have during the overspill period. I refer him again to the section on the conduct and procedure for Ministers and the new form of words that says:
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament … withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
We know the difficulties of interpreting the public interest, but a stronger form of words is needed, such as, "only in those very exceptional circumstances when disclosure is not in the public interest," or "when disclosure is clearly and certainly not in the public interest". But to leave that in its present form allows for far more latitude than is healthy for Ministers of either side of the House.
Mr. Freeman: That is a helpful suggestion. I referred to the document on open government, although I got the year of publication wrong—I think that it was 1993. I shall certainly go back and have a look at the cross-references that I was trying to draw out to those cases where public disclosure might not be in anyone's interest. I shall come back to the House during the debate with perhaps more thoughtful proposals on how more generally we can either cross-refer or define those circumstances.

Points of Order
5.27 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that this evening the House will consider the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was considered in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. last Wednesday and rejected on a vote. It was also considered last evening in another place by their Lordships when it was passed but opposition was expressed to it.
Is it correct, Madam Speaker, that the Statutory Instruments Committee having rejected the order, the Government can bring the order before the House after 10 o'clock when no debate is to be allowed, though I understand that a Division may be called, on a matter of enormous importance to the shareholders of Chiltern Radio, many of whom are my constituents? If the Government can ignore what the Statutory Instruments Committee said last week and bring the order before the House, what is the point of having such a Committee in the first place?
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no constituency interest in this, but it seems strange that the Statutory Instruments Committee last week failed to approve the order. It was rejected in the Commons—a point raised eloquently last night by two members of the other place—and the Government used a wheeze to introduce the order: the wheeze that, traditionally, the Front Bench in the House of Lords does not oppose an order of this kind, introduced in this way.
We have just been discussing parliamentary scrutiny. In this instance, parliamentary scrutiny does not exist. The issue is important: the Government have wheedled to get their own way. First they cannot pass the measure by means of parliamentary scrutiny in a House of Commons Committee; then they bounce it into the House of Lords, preventing us from subjecting it to proper scrutiny here. Now it has returned to the House, but we shall not be able to debate it or tell any of our colleagues, on the Floor of the House, what has occurred. It would require a very diligent Member of Parliament to discover that such wheedling insinuations were being made.
Sir David Madel rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is going to make the same point.
Sir David Madel: It is on a constituency matter, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: All right, I will hear it.
Sir David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chiltern radio station to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred is in my constituency; a number of its employees are my constituents, and share my hon. Friend's anxiety. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will be able to rule in accordance with what he has sought.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not absolutely correct. When the statutory instrument went
1486
before the Committee, it did not reject it; it voted—on the Chairman's casting vote—that it had not considered the instrument.
Standing Order No. 101 gives the Committee no power, once the vote has been taken, other than to report the matter to the House, and that is what is taking place. Nothing irregular has occurred. Although the motion may not be debated tonight, it must still be decided, and hon. Members may vote against it if they wish. Nothing irregular has occurred in this place; Standing Order No. 101 requires the procedure that has taken place to be carried out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. I have just answered the point of order, and I cannot change the Standing Orders. I cannot take a further point of order. I am trying to be helpful, but I have already given the answer.
Mr. John Carlisle: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that you should know that the takeover panel has instructed Chiltern Radio not to use any form of political lobbying in relation to the legislation. Indeed, the panel has prevented it from approaching Members of Parliament on that very basis. At the same time, the hostile bidder, Great Western Radio, is employing the lobbying firm GJW. On that basis, is it right for the takeover panel to have banned political lobbying?
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, this sounds very much like a matter of privilege. I hope that he will go no further now, but will immediately write to me about the matter if what he says is correct. If he had said that in the first place, I might have been able to be more helpful. I hope that he will write to me straight away.
Mr. Sheerman: On a fresh point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise it. It is now a matter of privilege.
Mr. Sheerman: The point relates to privilege.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot relate it to privilege. I am sorry; I am trying to be helpful to the House. Points of order cannot be related to privilege. I am waiting for a letter from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), and the hon. Gentleman must not now disturb that procedure.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman understands our procedures.
Mr. Spearing: The whole House is grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for the information relating to a possible Division on motions 6 and 7. If the timed debates that precede those motions are completed at or after 10 pm, will the motions be automatically exempted? If no order applies—either automatically, under Standing Orders, or by resolution—am I not right in thinking that neither motion, if objected to, will be passed tonight?
Madam Speaker: I am advised that that is not correct. The Questions on the motions must be put.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene, but, on the basis of what you have told the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in regard to motion 6, if the hon. Gentleman wrote to you before the motion was reached and you therefore decided that a prima facie breach of privilege might be involved, would you then not put the Questions on the motions?
Madam Speaker: Not necessarily; I would have to consider what the hon. Member for Luton, North had told me. He ought to write to me speedily, however, and I ought to try to deal with the matter speedily, if I am to be allowed to do so. Basically, this is a matter for the Government, but I want to consider what the hon. Gentleman has told me when I examine it in the context of privilege—if I am allowed to do so.

House of Commons (Abolition)
5.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Commons in its present form.
The House of Commons (Abolition) Bill has only one clause, which proposes the abolition of the House of Commons in its present form—and, of course, we have the power to do that. There is no doubt of the extent of the House's power; the debate must be about the use that we make of it. Are we effectively organised to lead the United Kingdom into the 21st century? I do not believe that we are, and I am not alone in that belief. In the past four years, the percentage of the population who believe that Parliament is doing a bad job has risen from 16 per cent. to 30 per cent.
The worst feature of our present state is not just that we have no effective mechanism for examining and reforming ourselves; it is that we do not care a jot about it. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Procedure Committee work extraordinarily hard to improve the workings of the House: they have already altered the hours that we sit and amended the budgetary procedures following the change to a unified Budget, and may well provide us with a creche, in time. I do not belittle those improvements, but I doubt that they are the sort of changes that our critics have in mind.
What do those people have in mind? First, there are our procedures for examining the legislative proposals of the European Union. Every hon. Member knows that our present procedures are a sham. We have decreed that European legislation is decided by Ministers, reported to the House as a fait accompli and, very occasionally, debated, sometimes as long as two years after its introduction. The subordinate legislation goes to two Standing Committees, where my colleagues seek manfully to cope with a flood of regulations in which the House takes little or no interest, except in a handful of cases. No one here believes that that is adequate to protect the national interest; no one outside believes it either. Yet we do nothing to correct it, or even to consider how we might correct it.
This sovereign House of Commons is so careless of our own and the nation's future that we will not even look at the mechanisms that we have to scrutinise and debate European Union legislation whose impact on this place and on the nation grows daily. Any idea that we might copy Denmark, where the Folketing can ascertain whether Ministers have kept to their brief—or Belgium, where Members of the European Parliament have a role to play alongside Belgian national Members of Parliament—evokes contempt. Before we lambast the law makers of Brussels, we might look at ourselves.
Again, we seem wholly insouciant about who becomes a Member of Parliament. The Nolan committee makes recommendations that may radically affect recruitment to this place, and we still do not look at how Members of Parliament arrive here. In my lifetime, there has been a huge change in the attitudes of business to the political aspirations of its employees. Once businesses were often supportive of the ambitions of staff who wanted to enter Parliament: they would give them time off to fight elections, or sometimes offer to hold open a place for them if they were beaten in a subsequent election.

1489
That has all changed. Firms now tell an aspiring politician at an early stage of his career that he must choose between politics and the company. The result is that the House has fewer Members with business experience at even middle management level than for a century. The public, who know that our future depends on our ability to make and sell things, recognise that that is nonsense. It might not matter quite so much if Ministers were not drawn almost exclusively from Government Back Benchers, but they are, and we do not care enough to do anything about it.
Take our relations with parliamentary pressure groups. Fuelled by often colossal subscription income, becoming increasingly sophisticated every year, and able to command wide media coverage, single-issue pressure groups' influence over the House and the Government has risen to the point where one recently wrote to hon. Members to tell us what Bill it would be introducing next Session. I admire the colleague who wrote back robustly to say that she had always understood that it was for Members of Parliament or the Government to initiate legislation, but the pressure group was only stating the truth. Few large ones will have any problem about persuading a Back Bencher to pick up one of their Bills when Members have neither the resources nor the expertise to create a Bill on their own. That is a significant development and we all know it. It may be healthy or it may not, but we do not care enough either way to take the trouble to examine it.
Almost every week, a Member will rise and complain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that some Government statement has been made outside the House, when propriety suggests that it should have been made to us first. It has become a meaningless ritual. We all know that if anyone in this place, a Minister or Back Bencher, wants to create an impact with an announcement, it is better to tell the media first. We know it, we pretend that we resent it, but we will not even consider examining our procedures to fashion a more effective partnership between this place and the media. The meaningless adherence to the shibboleths of a previous era simply brings the House into public contempt. We know it. We do nothing about it.
Take the roof off an ants' nest and one will see a myriad of ants scurrying about, all desperately busy. I have no doubt that, if one could ask them, each ant would say that it had never been so busy. Take the roof off the House of Commons and a similar scene would be revealed: hon. Members scurrying about, carrying heaps of paper, dashing to be on time for a Standing Committee, where they will be discouraged from saying anything at all, talking endlessly down the telephone to resolve a welfare case that in a citizens advice bureau would be pursued by a part-time volunteer.
I have no doubt that almost all my colleagues work desperately hard. I wonder how much of value we contribute to the governance of the United Kingdom. In 1991, the House approved more than 2,200 pages of legislation and 2,945 statutory instruments. That is 13 pages of law and 18 statutory instruments every working day. What a burden for all our citizens, which is largely unexamined in this place and which recently has got worse.
The public are better educated, better informed and more sophisticated than ever before. They sent us here to call the Executive to account, but we allow the Executive more power and less accountability with every passing
1490
year. We have required every institution in the land—universities, the professions, business, big and small, schools, hospitals, and local authorities—to subject themselves to rigorous testing and radical change. They have mechanisms for passing on from one generation to the next the wisdom learned through experience; we do not. They learn from organisations all over the world; we do not. Only here, where their revolutions have been demanded or approved, is no planned change discernible. Only here do we make no provision even to consider whether we should change. No one in here cares. A swollen Executive relies on its existing members, the ambition of its aspirants or the exhaustion of its former members to keep this sovereign House in its posture of supine subservience.
Today, I have not sought to list solutions; those come later. Unless we first demonstrate an interest in self-improvement, there is no point in bothering about detailed proposals.
This sovereign House of Commons, whose power is, to all intents and purposes, absolute, once before got out of touch with public sentiment. On that occasion, an hon. Member came to the Chamber with soldiers and told the Members debating on these Benches:
"You have stayed in this place too long and there is no health in you. In the name of God, go."
If we are not one day to suffer the same fate, we need to ask ourselves how best to fit ourselves for the next millennium.
5.44 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to oppose the motion moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). It is not fair for him to say that none of us cares and that we might as well leave this place. Perhaps he has been listening to the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who said, "If you're fed up with being a Tory Member of Parliament, vote for John Major." I do not know how the hon. Gentleman voted in that leadership election, but it is wrong to say that people do not care about the procedures of this place and about the need to make it more responsive to people's wishes and needs.
I agree with many of the sentiments that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent has expressed and some of the analysis, but I do not agree with his solution, which is to abolish the House of Commons in a one-clause Bill. That is a ludicrous proposal. It is like saying that I have a bad headache and to deal with it I will knock my head off. That seems a rather extreme cure to offer.
Much needs to be changed in this place and in the way in which we organise both government and politics. The hon. Gentleman should have dealt with some of the solutions. He was good and long on analysis, but incredibly short on solution. He said, for example, that we do not hold the Executive to account, but we have spent three hours attempting to do so through questions to Ministers and the Prime Minister. We have had three statements and an opportunity to cross-examine Ministers. Ministers do not like that experience and it is ludicrous that, on Thursday, we will start a summer recess that lasts right through to 16 October. Despite what some hon. Members say, that is not a holiday for Members of Parliament, but it is a rest cure for Ministers because they

1491
will not have to come to the House and account for their actions. It makes a manifest nonsense of the claim that the legislature controls the Executive.
During that long summer recess, government will continue, but without the inconvenience of Ministers coming here to expose themselves to examination. [Interruption.] I am sorry. That is not a felicitous phrase to use in the context of Conservative Ministers these days, but hon. Members on both sides of the House know what I am getting at. We know that there will be press conferences, and initiatives. On Friday, the summit on Bosnia which the Prime Minister was talking about will take place, but we will be safely away in our constituencies and we will not be able to ask the Prime Minister, Ministers, or the Foreign Secretary when he returns from Washington, what is being done and said in Parliament's name. Parliament has no say in those decisions.
We need to reorganise the year, with sittings interspersed with regular and shorter recesses. Even when we are here during a Session, we are often denied the opportunity to debate and decide on issues of national and international importance. That is why Members are forced to raise what are in effect spurious points of order. Before the debate on this Bill, we had one of the most genuine exchanges on points of order that I have heard for many a year in this place, but normally it is not like that. We are forced to use Standing Order No. 20 applications and spurious points of order—[Interruption.] Hello! The mafia has turned up—to raise issues that we feel strongly about.
In this place, I want us to debate what people are debating in the Builders Arms, my local pub. It is ridiculous that people can debate and discuss significant issues outside this place, but that we are denied the opportunity to do so.
One of the main reasons why we are often treated with contempt by the Government is that the Government do not need us; nor do they even need the payroll vote in some important respects. Far too many decisions are taken in the House using royal prerogative powers. The Prime Minister is an elected dictator. Hailsham said that about a Labour Prime Minister, but it could more accurately have been said about Baroness Thatcher, who was an elected dictator. Her majority meant that she had no need to apologise to the country or the House. Had she wanted to
1492
add an eighth day to the week, she had the political majority to enable her to do so. We do not want dictatorial powers being exercised by the Prime Minister through the royal prerogative.
Tomorrow we are going to have a debate on Bosnia. It is only a debate—no one will ask us anything and we shall not vote on what we should do. Ministers can ignore us or heed us, as they please. The decision as to whether our troops should become involved in military activity or withdraw will be taken using the royal prerogative powers rather than following a decision taken by the House. In effect, a raft of decisions affecting every single man, woman and child does not even have to be discussed in the House. The House of Commons is not asked for its permission. [Interruption.] I am disagreeing with the solution suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent. He should have specified ways to change the House to make its operation more efficient. There are so many changes that could be made.
Personally, I believe that we need to change the way in which we vote. Let us have proportional representation; we might then achieve a balance in the House that is far more in keeping with the wishes of the people. Let us have fixed-term Parliaments; let us abolish the House of Lords and the monarchy. Those are ways to make the House more efficient. We should not follow the path outlined by the hon. Gentleman and abolish the House of Commons in a single-clause Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Dr. Tony Wright.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ABOLITION)
Mr. Andrew Rowe accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the House of Commons in its present form: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Metropolitan Railway Grant
5.54 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 15) (Metropolitan Railway Grant 1995–96) (House of Commons Paper No. 470), which was laid before this House on 14th June be approved.
Had my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) managed to get his Bill through all its stages immediately, I might not have had the opportunity to detain the House briefly with this motion.
The special grant report sets out the measures that we are proposing to take to ensure that passenger transport executives in England obtain financial cover for the additional costs that fall to PTEs and passenger transport authorities this financial year—1995–96—as a result of railway restructuring. The House has already considered and approved the Scottish version of this report in Standing Committee on 5 July. That report covered the Strathclyde passenger transport authority.
The restructuring of the railways has changed the basis and level of charges for PTE rail services. Before April 1994, the PTEs were treated as marginal users of the network, under British Rail's charging hierarchy. The new charging systems endeavour to reflect the full cost of service provision in order to maximise transparency.
Railtrack's access charges and the rolling stock companies' leasing charges need to be at a level which will cover the cost of renewals investment and earn a return on their investment. Train operators also need to earn a rate of return on their operations. These adjustments reflect the real economic costs of providing the services in question.
Before April 1994, the Government provided support in respect of the PTE-funded railway passenger services solely by the provision of additional sums within the revenue support grant paid to metropolitan district councils. That support is known as the bolt-on. The total for the English PTAs is apportioned among the metropolitan district councils by formula. Although the sums are not hypothecated, the allocations for individual PTEs are published in the annual revenue support grant distribution report. The PTAs levy their constituent district councils to cover the expenditure requirements of their respective PTEs.
The revised charging regime that followed rail restructuring in April 1994 was unable to provide, at an early enough stage in the calculations of RSG for the year 1994–95, sufficient detail of access charges and rolling stock leasing charges to identify fully the extra charges to the PTEs. Consequently, the Government introduced the metropolitan railway grant as a transitional measure in 1994–95 to meet the funding gap between the bolt-on and the extra costs of the revised charging regime.
Calculation of MRG takes as the starting point the services for which the PTEs contracted in 1993–94, and the amount of grant represents the difference between the costs of providing those services under the old pre-April 1994 and new post-April 1994 charging systems. MRG was paid in 1994–95 by the Department of Transport direct to the PTAs, and the position remains the same under this report. The earlier report instituting MRG in England was debated in Standing Committee in May last year.
1494
Because of the regulator's review of access charges, and the further development of the ROSCOs' and Railtrack's charging mechanisms, sufficiently detailed data on those charges were not available early enough to feed into the calculations of RSG for this financial year. In the circumstances, Ministers decided that, subject to parliamentary approval, MRG should be extended to cover the current financial year. The text of the report has been the subject of consultation with the PTEs and other interested bodies, including BR and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The report outlines the background to the PTEs' past and current funding arrangements, and sets out how the MRG will be calculated and the conditions attached to the payment of it.
Annex A to the report sets out some of the background to the PTAs, PTEs and rail support, and particularly how revenue support was provided by central Government in the past, and why it was necessary to introduce MRG in 1994–95. Annex B simply lists the English PTAs which will be paid MRG. Annex C sets out how MRG is to be calculated in 1995–96. The starting point is an individual PTA's relevant expenditure: BR's gross charges for providing railway passenger services to the PTE in 1995–96.
As the purpose of MRG is to compensate for the financial effects of restructuring, it is necessary first to deduct from the total charges the charges levied in 1993–94 on the old basis, and secondly, to deduct inflation on the 1993–94 cost base. Thirdly, a deduction is made in respect of payments made or to be made in 1995–96 under certain deeds of assumption governing the payment of money to PTEs to cover past capital grants to British Rail by the PTEs. Fourthly, there will be an adjustment—an addition to the grant total—to take account of any underpayment of MRG to the PTAs in the last financial year. The end result of that calculation will be the amount of MRG payable.
In the case of West Yorkshire and West Midlands, there will be a deduction in respect of the cost on the 1993–94 charging basis of service enhancements which followed from improvements in infrastructure. The final annex, annex D, sets out the conditions with which the Secretary of State has decided that the PTAs must comply in respect of payment of this grant.
The report covers this financial year, it ensures that PTAs and PTEs receive the additional costs that fall to them from rail restructuring for this financial year, and I commend it to the House.
6.1 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: This is a very important motion, and I am grateful that we have an opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House.
Being a decent, honourable man, the Minister will never talk about privatisation. It is called restructuring. The Government never talk about artificial markets, but we have charging hierarchies.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will know that last week I was very happy to talk about privatisation. It is a matter of accuracy that this report deals with the consequences of restructuring. As he will know, we have not yet let the first of the franchises for the private operation of passenger services. That will come later this year: he has only to wait a while.
Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for that intervention, which enables us again to realise that the Government are making no progress with the franchising of railways—and thank goodness.
It is important to consider the point about restructuring versus privatisation. We bring this report to the Floor of the House because it is all about privatisation of the railways. It is not about restructuring: it is about the dismemberment of BR into 95 bits. Part of the problem is that there are seven PTAs—one in Scotland, and six in England which are the subject of the motion. We will suffer greatly at the hands of this Government.
We will not divide the House on this issue, because, in a sense, if one creates a crazy situation, one has to pay up. That is what the Government are doing. They are bailing themselves out of a financial situation of horrific proportions, with which I shall deal.
We are concerned about what this money is to be used for. If the allocation was about providing more trains in Yorkshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, or more services, stations, railway stock or signalling, it would be something to debate. This report shows the price of privatisation—nothing more, nothing less. That is why, in tabling the motion, apart from using words to provide a camouflage for what the Government are doing, they will not tell the British people or this House what that money will be spent on. Our case tonight will tackle that issue, because it is germane not only to the motion but to the use of the money voted through tonight.
Of course nobody doubts that the PTAs have done an excellent job. They provide an opportunity to attempt public-private integration, to tackle congestion, and to address an integrated public transport network. So there is no dispute about their track record. The motion is about the cash they will get in the financial year 1995–96, yet huge questions are unresolved about what happens in 1996 and 1997 if this crazy privatisation should proceed to the extent desired by Conservatives Members.
This evening, we do not want to disguise our central proposition. If, as I said, the motion was about services, that would be one debate. Our proposition is that, for the foreseeable future, this Government are willing to squander £250 million every year to pay for privatisation involving the passenger transport authorities. That is worth repeating, because, until now, the PTAs have received regular support through the revenue support grant. That has averaged perhaps £100 million, £120 million or £130 million a year. This year, the PTAs will receive a staggering £380 million—an increase of £250 million.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good way of illustrating the sum involved is by saying that £380 million was three times the amount of money needed to save the York carriage works by building another tranche of some 100 new carriages for use on suburban railways? The Government could have financed the building of 300 carriages for that amount of money and improved service to the public, instead of using it as a financing mechanism for privatisation.
Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The opportunity cost of this folly will become evident this evening, because we will talk about the amount of money involved: £380 million. If it was a once-for-all increase of £250 million, it would still be a staggering sum of money. Ministers who always lecture the Opposition on probity
1496
in public expenditure are about to spend £250 million on simply nothing over the next five or 10 years—if they stay in power and privatisation proceeds on the basis that they want.
Obviously, I and my hon. Friends want to explore this crucial issue. To pay the price of privatisation, the PTAs will receive a 172 per cent. increase in the amount of money that they have to spend.
We have tried time and again to capture the right language properly to project what a monumental piece of stupidity privatisation is. Not only is it destroying the railways and threatening the PTAs, but it is squandering taxpayers' money on a grand scale. I hope that the Minister will address that central point. Will he confirm that we are right, and that money is being squandered, or is there some other reason behind the massive sum being poured into the black hole of the PTAs?
We have talked about the benefits that have accrued to the country of having PTAs, as I hope that all hon. Members would agree, but let us consider what is happening up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) put his finger on what is wrong. Excellent schemes are being developed in every PTA in the country, they are desperately keen to provide integrated public transport, and they are yearning for stability.
The report highlights a policy in contrast to all those aspirations. If we had £300 million or £250 million to spend every year, what would we spend it on? The Government must tell us why, when there are so many priorities on the railways, they want to waste that money in such a way.
It goes without saying that this week, the Secretary of State for the Environment will meet representatives of local authorities. What would local authorities do with a quarter of a billion pounds across their departments? It is vital to stress that point, although it is outwith the report in the sense that other parts of local government are not covered by it. However, I know some chairmen of education, some chairmen of housing and some chairmen of other council departments in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities who would like to get their hands on a quarter of a billion pounds. The money is up for grabs. It is basically the price of madness—the price of privatisation.
The Minister might tell us about the discussions he has had with his colleagues about his being allowed to spend such an amount to support an artificial internal market, while other Ministers are desperate to get money to spend in the run-up to the next general election.
Mr. John Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authority spending may not be as irrelevant to the matter as he suggests? When the bolt-on comes in for the next financial year, the money will go straight to the district councils. They will have the choice whether to spend the money on railway services or hold on to it for other purposes.
Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a point that I shall address in a few minutes, because it is one of the uncertainties that has an impact on discussions about the railways and the PTAs.
My hon. Friend makes the valid point that, if the Government move from a specific metropolitan railway grant to a system in which the money is absorbed into the

1497
revenue support grant, there can be no guarantee that the money, which has been fed in for the railways, will get through a system that is under strain at present. The sum is massive, and the PTAs will depend on the good will of the local authorities to deliver the cash so that they can deliver the services. That is an important point.
Before leaving the question of cost and moving on to the uncertainties, it is worth repeating some of the ridiculous figures. Based on the PTAs' submission to the Select Committee on Transport, we know that South Yorkshire has a 150 per cent. increase to provide the same level of services. Strathclyde region, which is not covered by the report but which is relevant to the debate, will experience a 238 per cent. increase to run the same railway services this year as it ran last year.
The Minister must be alarmed that he is seeking the House's approval to spend a quarter of a billion pounds. Can the Minister be embarrassed?
Mr. Watts indicated dissent
Mr. McLeish: The Minister indicates that he cannot be; I know that he does not mean it: I am sure that he can be embarrassed. We are 20 months away from a general election, and the country is informed that we have no money to spend. Why is it that we have so much money to spend on PTAs that we are talking about not £100 million or £200 million, but a quarter of a billion pounds every year? The Minister listens, and I am sure that he agrees that that is a large sum, which could be put to far better use.
Mr. Watts: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Was he suggesting that it would be better not to spend this money on the provision of railway services in the metropolitan areas, but to spend it on something else? That is not an argument that I have heard from any of the PTEs.
Mr. McLeish: We should not have to spend such a sum if we did not have privatisation of the railway system. The privatisation of the railway system is logically and directly linked to the financial madness before the House this evening, and the Minister knows it. Of course we would like to spend money in productive ways on our railways. Until we stop privatisation—until we halt the madness—that will not be possible.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is obviously concerned about the future. It has on its hands a situation about which it can do nothing. It wants to provide the best services possible, but it cannot improve its services. Yet it still has to process the financial merry-go-round whereby the Treasury will give it extra money.
The Government will pay hand over fist to fatten up Railtrack and the leasing companies for privatisation, and they will, of course, pay money to the train operating companies. The AMA is not happy about the financial merry-go-round, as the Minister well knows. The Government are, however, paying the piper, and the AMA has to dance to the tune.
What about the future? Is the Minister willing this evening to give us a cast-iron guarantee that, beyond 1995–96, there will be no going back on a commitment to fund every extra penny of cost that the PTAs in England and in Scotland will have to pay for this privatisation? That point is vital, because the report leaves matters hanging in the balance.
1498
At present, if the AMA and its constituent authorities accept the 1995–96 settlement, they will have to spend the money against a background of no guarantees about the kind of railway system they will have. They do not know whether the train operators will be franchised. They do not know what charges the leasing companies will impose, and what charges Railtrack will impose. It is important that we, as a responsible Parliament, ensure this evening that the Minister gives the guarantees that will be required if privatisation proceeds.
The next point concerns the transparency of the cash. Everyone knows that, at present, a grant is a fixed sum, it is given to the PTAs, and it can be spent. If it is then subsumed into the revenue support grant settlement, there is no guarantee that it will be delivered to the railways. There is no guarantee that the grant will be transparent in the sense that it can be discussed in the House. If the grant is subsumed in the RSG, there is no possibility that we shall have an order to debate. How can the nation, Parliament and the PTAs be reassured that public finance is being used for the purposes that the House intends?
I have already alluded to the next consideration. We live in uncertain times. The railways are a complete shambles, entirely due to the Government's policies on privatisation. This evening, we are saying to the PTAs, "Yes, you can have this quarter of a billion extra, and just get on with providing services." But the PTAs have no idea what the railways will look like in one month's, two months', six months' or a year's time. That is crass irresponsibility on the part of Government.
The Minister must tell us this evening whether Railtrack charges will be stabilised. Will not leasing companies fleece the train operators and the PTAs? Will we have stability in this so-called "artificial market"? What is the future for the railways, which impinges so heavily on what is happening with the PTAs?
The other important issue in terms of the RSG is capping. We must be reassured that the machinery of delivering special help to the railways through the RSG will not be the subject of capping procedures. We need a hard assurance on that, because it is no good for the Minister to say to the House, "Yes, it is a matter that we are looking at. Yes, it is a matter that we want to have further discussions on." Obviously, this deal will not be worth the paper it is written on if we do not have specific guarantees about what is going on. The long-term commitment of the PTAs is meaningless without long-term assurances about future funding and about the future of the railways.
I hope that the Minister will come clean about what the money is specifically to be used for. Is it really for the railways, or is it merely intended to prop up an artificial internal market to allow the Government to get on with privatisation, which no one wants outwith a small ideological clique in the Conservative party?
How can we ask the PTAs to continue to do such an excellent job, if their whole future is surrounded by uncertainty, by the notion that money may not be available, and by the possibility of the Government being hellbent on putting much of the railways into the private sector? It is worth while for the report to be brought to the Floor of the House, because it is the kind of matter that the Government like to smuggle through in Committee, so that they do not have to explain to anyone what they are doing and why the money is being used in

1499
a particular way. At the end of the day, they are doing no service to this House and they are certainly doing no service to the passenger transport authorities.
6.18 pm
Mr. Keith Hill: As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my interest in the matters before us has already been declared in earlier exchanges—by the Prime Minister, in fact. I am sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. However, at least I and other Members of Parliament sponsored by the rail unions have an interest in and a concern for the future of the railways—a concern that is obviously not shared by Conservative Members, judging by the scandalously empty Benches behind the Minister.
I should begin by welcoming the fact that at least the metropolitan railway grant is being paid. As the Minister said, last year it was expected to be a one-off transitional grant, designed to meet the extra costs of the restructured railway. The passenger transport authorities and the passenger transport executives were left in considerable uncertainty about the funding of future operations this year, until the late decision formally announced on 14 June that the Government would make further MRGs for the current year.
The force of many of the representations to the Transport Select Committee in the course of its inquiry into railway finances was that, as a result of that delay, the PTAs felt themselves to be up against the wire in making decisions about future services, given the long lead times involved in making contracts with operators and then composing timetables.
That is extremely unsatisfactory for authorities responsible for such a major part of the railway network. It is worth remembering that the rail services in PTA areas carry twice as many passengers as the former InterCity part of British Rail, and account for three quarters of those carried by the regional railways. In total, PTAs act as a channel of provision for just under one fifth of the overall net subsidy required by the rail network.
It is therefore vital that the Government get the future funding of those authorities right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, we know that the Government have decided from 1996£97 to return to payments towards the section 20 rail services by means of revenue support grant under the terms of the so-called standard spending assessment bolt-on that flowed from the Local Government Act 1988.
The Minister must be aware that the PTEs have expressed some dissatisfaction with the formula used to calculate the bolt-on. No precise detail about it has ever been made public, and we have no precise information about the way in which the bolt-on is made up, but, according to the PTEs, the money involved appears to be allocated on the basis of a combination of route miles and infrastructure costs. Again, the data involved have not been made public, and there is a strong suspicion within the PTEs that the information base may be flawed.
I am sure that the Minister will recall that, in 1994, the Environment Select Committee's report on standard spending assessments called for maximum transparency in their preparation. It is sincerely to be hoped that the Government will live up to the commitment of the most
1500
recent of many Secretaries of State for Transport to total transparency concerning the section 20 bolt-ons. Furthermore, the Minister himself has made an unequivocal commitment that future funding will match in full the level of support currently allocated by means of the metropolitan railway grant and the bolt-on. The Opposition will want to give that commitment the most detailed scrutiny in due course.
Even if future funding by the Government is at 100 per cent. of the present levels, the method they have chosen for making the grants is still bound to create uncertainty about the long-term provision of local rail services. The Government may make a virtue of the discretion that the grants paid to metropolitan district councils under the bolt-on arrangements offer to such authorities, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has already said, the fact that such grants are not ring-fenced means that they could be diverted from rail services to bus services, or even to non-transport services.
Rail services, by their very nature, involve long-term commitments to investment in infrastructure improvements and, above all nowadays, to rolling stock leasing. It will certainly be regrettable if the inevitable uncertainties arising from the new system of funding for PTE rail services cause their level to decline. There is no doubt that the changes in the funding mechanism, together with the restructuring of the railways under privatisation, have given rise to a series of grievances and anxieties within the PTAs and PTEs.
For example, under the new track access regime, PTEs are now charged for the use of track on the basis of the periods for which the trains they support occupy the track. However, because local trains are slower, more frequent, and stop at more stations than InterCity trains, the PTAs legitimately feel that they are being asked to pay a higher proportion of the total costs, despite the fact that the heavier, faster trains run by InterCity train operating units cause more track damage.
Moreover, there is a general complaint among both the PTAs and the PTEs about the significant rise in the costs quoted by Railtrack for new works. In some cases, those have doubled, and there has been a similar escalation in the fees charged by Railtrack for design and supervision. That comes on top of the added complexity affecting all major new projects that has been caused by privatisation itself.
For example, in the past, a plan for an electrification scheme would simply have been agreed among the PTE, British Rail and the Department of Transport. But now, such a project involves many more agencies and businesses, especially if there is to be a transfer of rolling stock between services on other parts of the network as part of the project.
Even entering into an agreement for the provision of services has become considerably more problematical under privatisation, and PTAs will naturally be more hesitant about incurring substantial loan debt liability as parties to franchise agreements stretching over periods of seven or more years, unless they have firm assurances about funding for both revenue and capital purposes—funding that will be available for the full period of the franchise. However, there is no sign whatever that such a commitment will be forthcoming from the Government.
Underpinning all those anxieties and uncertainties, as my hon. Friend has argued, are the astronomical increases in charges to PTAs arising from the restructuring of

1501
railway finances from April last year. That has meant that the net claim on central Government funding for PTAs has increased from just over £130 million to the present £355 million-plus.
If nothing else, even if the future bolt-on covers the extra costs, it is bound to make metropolitan district councils think twice about passing on such colossal sums to PTAs. Of course, the Government will argue at one level that those are notional figures, and that the new money-go-round means that all the extra expenditure will flow back to the Treasury at the end of the day, at no extra cost to the taxpayer.
That may be true before Railtrack is sold off, but what will happen after the flotation, if it ever happens? There is no suggestion by the Government that there will be any significant decline in the charges levied by Railtrack, other than the marginal adjustments already proposed by the regulator. As we understand it, there is certainly no suggestion that the Government are planning to spend less on what constitutes essentially the same level of section 20 services. If they do plan to spend less, the Minister should certainly tell us about that this evening.
However, if Railtrack is sold off, the money will not go back to the Treasury next time. That money will be going into the pockets of Railtrack shareholders. In pursuit of their madcap goal of rail privatisation, the Government have massively increased public spending on the railways to enrich a handful of privateers at the expense of the rail passenger and the taxpayer. It is a racket and a scandal, and the Government will not be forgiven for it.
6.29 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister made a valiant attempt at the outset of the debate to suggest that restructuring and privatisation were somehow totally different. Perhaps I could remind him of his letter to the chairman of the public transport committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, dated 30 June, in which he said:
"I understand your concern that any additional costs arising as a result of rail privatisation in 1996/97 could have a further impact on districts' budgets."
We would not be talking about the costs of restructuring were it not for the fact that the Government are hellbent on privatisation.
The passenger transport authorities in England which are the subject of the report have calculated the additional costs which they anticipate as a direct financial consequence of rail privatisation. They are as follows: West Midlands, £35.626 million; West Yorkshire, £28.254 million; Tyne and Wear, £3.951 million; South Yorkshire, £12.012 million; Merseyside, £49.894 million; Greater Manchester, £48.162 million. These are huge sums.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was right to indicate the scale or weight of that investment. My only comment on the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate is that I wish that he had been as forthright, both in his speech and in his vote, in support of our motion last week on the sale of Railtrack as many of his colleagues on the Back Benches were. We welcomed their support.
This is an extraordinary chronicle of indecision and imprecision, a result of which will be major costs for the organisations concerned. I have seen the correspondence between the Minister and the AMA in recent weeks, and
1502
the one thing that stands out clearly is that the Department has left it to the very last minute to clarify the essential elements of the package that it is bringing before the House tonight. The status of the capping regime if the report is passed, and its provisions continued into next year, is still unclear. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up this evening.
In terms of the travelling public, there is likely to be a hiatus in the services provided in metropolitan areas by the PTAs and PTEs. Our primary concern this evening should be the effect on the quality of services provided by Greater Manchester, West Midlands or wherever. Is there an implication for fare levels? Most important of all, will there be an impact on council tax payers? Will they have to pick up the bill? It is by no means clear from the exchange of correspondence between the Minister and the AMA that the last point has been tackled.
In a letter dated 29 June, the chairman of the AMA's transport committee specifically asked the Minister to address three points. He wanted clarification that
"the control total for support in 1996/97 is set at an adequate level taking proper account of the outcome of 1995/96 funding including provision through MRG … the additional costs will be supported 100 per cent. by Government funding and that no part of that cost shall fall on the council tax payers of the metropolitan district councils … any future capping criteria applicable to metropolitan district councils will recognise these costs of rail privatisation as reflected in the PTA levy and that due allowance be made in districts' budgets in order that the increased levy can be fully absorbed without impacting on other districts' spending."
The Minister's letter to which I referred was a short one. I do not pronounce him guilty of that—we could all do with short letters at times—but it did not explicitly address those queries. This evening, we should ask the Minister to be explicit.
If anybody is in any doubt about the possible impact of the transitional changes on the areas concerned, they should consider the position of Greater Manchester, where the PTA's charges as a result of the change in arrangements have risen from £40 million to £90 million—a huge sum. Greater Manchester is the second largest metropolitan authority, and must negotiate with 10 districts. This could be very damaging, and potentially dangerous for the whole mechanism of apportioning grant to the public transport system in Greater Manchester. As a result—I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this—all three political parties represented on the PTA have agreed to sever their links with British Rail, and have pulled out of their section 20 agreement under the Transport Act 1968.
The potential for chaos is such that those responsible for trying to make sense of the madness are finding it impossible to do so under the terms of the section 20 agreement. Given that Greater Manchester has the biggest collection of urban rail services of those authorities to which metropolitan railway grant is paid, and given that it has the largest number of district councils for which MRG is available, one can see the complexity of the matter. The Government's last-minute indecision is causing real hardship and confusion, and the impact on the travelling public could be considerable.
I do not think that the last-minute brinkmanship in the negotiations does the Department of Transport or the House any credit. It puts a lot of people who have a heavy responsibility for providing public transport in metropolitan areas at a considerable disadvantage. Inevitably, that will put the travelling public at a disadvantage as well.
6.36 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: As you have taken the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), I am left as the only Member in the Chamber who represents an area covered by a metropolitan railway grant. It surprises me that the Government Benches are so empty. I can think of a number of Conservative Members who represent seats in former metropolitan county areas. I can also think of a number of marginal seats in West Yorkshire.
Mr. Bayley: Does my hon. Friend believe that the almost total absence of Conservative Members suggests that there has been a collapse in support for rail privatisation among Conservative Members, and that they are no longer prepared to support Ministers in this ill-guided venture?
Mr. Gunnell: That certainly is the case. Conservative Members recognise the damage that is being caused by privatisation.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): That is far from being the case. The real answer is that, on a day when amazing rail strikes are paralysing the nation, the benefits of rail privatisation are so self-evident that there is no need for Conservative Members to be present in large numbers.
Mr. Gunnell: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but it is not the view of the majority of the travelling public, and I am sure that he knows that. Many marginal seats will be affected by the removal of the grant, and by the promise that the Minister gave to the metropolitan authorities in a letter to the chairman of the public transport committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He made it clear that the 1995–96 settlement would continue to guarantee additional costs.
I welcome the report because it ensures that services in metropolitan county areas will continue. As I represent a seat in West Yorkshire, I am glad that the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which we built up over many years, is to remain. It must be said that its grant remains at the 1993–94 levels. Will the Minister say what reductions will be made? He referred specifically to reductions that would be made in West Yorkshire as a result of the changes in service there since 1993–94, and I am sure that he could give me the costs.
Mr. Watts: I was explaining that, in calculating the amount of metropolitan railway grant starting from the total cost of current services at current costs, it is necessary to make an adjustment in respect of the West Yorkshire and West Midlands PTAs for the 1993–94 cost equivalent of the enhancement in services that they have made subsequently. They are therefore compensated for the increased cost of services that arise from restructuring. But by not taking account of the cost that they were already bearing and for which they were already supported through their existing level of bolt-on grant, they do not receive the whole of the cost, effectively for a second time.
If I led the hon. Gentleman to believe that I was suggesting a reduction in current funding, which would lead to a reduction in services, that was not my intention.
Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I had understood that the grant was meant to cover services
1504
that existed at the end of 1993–94 but that, where improvements had been made, the Minister anticipated that the cost of those improvements would be borne by the passenger transport authority. Is he saying that, in future, Government grant will cover services that existed on 1 April 1994 but that if any authority has increased its services, that increase will fall on the authority's resources?
Mr. Watts: Not from 1994. The services to which I referred in West Yorkshire and the West Midlands had been planned, and infrastructure investment had been made for them. They came into operation after the end of the financial year 1993–94, and are included in the existing base bolt-on. They are also covered by the metropolitan railway grant, which I hope that the House will approve tonight. Beyond the current year, however, any changes in service that local authorities wish to make will have to be funded out of whatever provision they receive from that level of funding, which I propose should be provided when we move from MRG to the new enhanced bolt-on. Current services are covered by MRG in respect of the effects of restructuring, and will continue to be funded in the future when we take the existing bolt-on plus the existing MRG and carry that forward into an enhanced revenue support grant bolt-on.
Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which enables me to make a point that has not been made in the debate so far. During the period in which I, as leader of West Yorkshire metropolitan council, had some responsibility for transport, we were developing new railway services. We opened stations and introduced new routes, and improvements were made to the service. A big potential for rail in metropolitan areas is not yet being fulfilled. My concern about the additional costs that will arise as a result of privatisation is that they will make it much more difficult for those who exercise responsibility locally to bring about the developments in service that the public want.
Mr. Bayley: In annex A to the report that we are debating, the Government say:
"prior to railway restructuring on 1 April 1994, PTEs were generally charged by BR on a marginal cost basis that did not reflect the full costs of service provision."
When British Rail was a public service, it was right to try to enhance the service to the public by recouping only the marginal costs. But the Government's proposal implies that any future improvement of railway services in metropolitan areas will be charged at full cost to make Railtrack, once it is in the private sector, more profitable. As the leader of a former metropolitan council, will my hon. Friend give us his view on whether the proposed regime will make it harder for local authorities to enhance their local rail services in future and move people off the roads and on to the railways?
Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is basically the same point as I made to the Minister. I was about to come to the phrase about "marginal costs". One of my jobs in the past was to be involved in the negotiations between the passenger transport authority and British Rail. British Rail made sure, on every point where it had any flexibility, that it charged the maximum amount that it could. We had very tough negotiations within the terms of section 20, and the Minister would have expected British Rail to give us a tough time on the costs of those arrangements. So significant charges were paid.

1505
I refer specifically to West Yorkshire, where one can see clearly the cost of privatisation. My understanding of the £28.254 million is different from that of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I understand that we are not at a stage where we can say what the total cost of the bill will be. Only at the end of the financial year 1995–96—in April 1996—will the final bill be known and paid, because it depends on two factors: first, the level of grant; and, secondly, the revenue from train fares in 1995–96.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me if I have misunderstood the report, but I understand that the old section 20 money is covered by that £28 million, less income from what I would call the "fare box", although it is not quite a fare box in the case of trains. In addition, there will be a metropolitan railway grant, which happens to be about the same amount—some £30 million altogether for West Yorkshire. So the total cost of services in West Yorkshire in the current financial year will be a total of £58 million, which is a staggering increase on the figure before privatisation. Indeed, it represents more than double the costs.
In my time, fares covered 27 per cent. of the necessary money. We felt that 27 per cent. was low because ratepayers always compared the amount that came in from fares on the rail system with the amount that came in through fares on the bus system. They may have felt that they were not getting a good deal, but one knew that there were many vital, strategic reasons why it was important to maintain the rail network. We therefore gave that additional commitment.
According to the proposal, fares will account for less than 20 per cent. of total costs. The Minister should spell out clearly where the required additional money has gone. Opposition Members believe that the total bill to be paid as metropolitan railway grant is a not-so hidden subsidy towards the privatisation process.
The Minister is correct to say that the privatisation proposals have not got very far, but he also made it clear that the Government's efforts will continue. He anticipates that franchises will be awarded next year. Passenger transport executives and district councils are worried about the future implications of those changes. They believe that the prices charged will fluctuate.
The Minister has spoken to the PTEs and district councils about Railtrack and the restructuring that has taken place—the preparation for privatisation means that services have been split up in readiness for sell-off. He believes that the additional costs incurred as a result of those changes have stabilised. That may be so, but the rail system is not stable, because of the Government's intention to press on with railway sell-offs. Once that becomes reality, what control will the Government have on the rate of return charged by private companies? If the rate of return is higher than the current rate allowed to Railtrack and the other subsidiaries, the final bill to be covered by the metropolitan railway grant will be larger than the current one. District councils and PTEs are naturally anxious to know whether the 100 per cent. commitment on offer is a 100 per cent. commitment relating not just to bills now incurred, but towards the additional bill that will be incurred as a result of changes in current railway arrangements.
I agree with my hon. Friends that those additional costs are the most staggering and, at the moment, the most transparent and obvious cost of privatisation. I agree with
1506
my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the grant represents appalling expenditure on what is, at present, a theoretical system. It will enable dogma to be put into practice.
The structure of the railways will be changed, but the PTEs are doing their best to ensure that their services will continue to operate effectively in the new system, despite the fact that they will find themselves having to pay enormous extra charges. To date, the Government have been prepared to underwrite such charges because they regard the principle of rail services as important. I am not asking the Government to consider whether those charges should be paid, because it is vital to offer those services, but whether the cost of the proposed changed arrangements is worth it. We are worried about the future and I hope that the Minister can allay our fears.
Unless it is not possible for district councils to do so, they will be extremely tempted not to pass on the entire amount of grant that they receive for the provision of rail services. I know how joint services have been provided in former metropolitan county areas, and if there is no statutory rule, the budget has always been determined by that district that wishes to pay the least for those services. Most of the districts are hard up as a result of Government restrictions on local government finance. If councillors were able to decide to use just a little of the money put aside for rail services for their other services, I am sure that they would be strongly tempted to do so. I want to see how the Government will make the sum in question transparent, because unless they do that and make sure that the total sum is passed on, we cannot be sure that the money will automatically go to the PTEs. If they provide those assurances, why change the system? It will simply make life a little more complex for PTEs.
The Government must explain how authorities that normally are subject to capping will escape it when the grant represents a large increase in expenditure. What is the parallel for the end-of-year adjustments that will be made to the grant? The Minister is aware that, by April 1996, he will be in a position to make such adjustments. The RSG system—the Minister's bolt on-system—is not as flexible as the current system. How will he make such end-of-year adjustments according to the new bolt-on system?
Will the Minister underwrite the costs if, as we fear, privatisation and franchising go ahead despite the fact that costs have not stabilised? I know that he has answered those questions in letters to the metropolitan authorities, but we need to hear his answer tonight.
We have said nothing about fares. At the moment, PTEs have the power to set fares and to specify participation in multi-modal ticketing systems for travel within metropolitan areas. Will the Minister confirm that those passenger transport authorities will continue to hold those powers in the future? At the moment, they make important decisions that relate directly to the level of use of a rail service because there is a direct connection between the cost of a fare and passenger use. Will they continue to exercise that power in the future?
If the additional costs arising from rail development are borne by the passenger transport authorities, perhaps the Minister will be willing to explain to us how decisions will be reached on fares, if that is no longer to be the responsibility of those authorities. It is important that the power to determine fares for local services is held locally.
6.57 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I begin by declaring an interest as the only Member of the House to be sponsored by the train drivers union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, ASLEF.
The metropolitan railway grant is paid by the Government to the six passenger transport executives in England and Strathclyde regional council in Scotland for additional costs which, according to the Department of Transport's special grant report of 5 May 1994, result from
"the restructuring of the railways in Great Britain following the passage of the Railways Act 1993, and the introduction of new charging regimes reflecting re-evaluation of assets, new rates of return to be earned by the railways and revised principles for the attribution of costs amongst different rail services".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) so tellingly said, according to the Department of Transport, restructuring is a euphemism for privatisation. There were at least three more such euphemisms in that quotation from the special grant report.
The metropolitan railway grant has been introduced because of the massive increase in the cost of operating rail services as a result of the introduction of track access charging regimes. In 1993–94, before track access charging was introduced, the public service obligation grant, the grant paid by the Government to British Rail to support socially necessary but non-profit-making services, was £949 million. A year later, with the introduction of track access charging, PSO support had almost doubled, to £1.7 billion. Adding in the metropolitan railway grant payment of £224 million, the introduction of track access charging increased the cost of operating rail services throughout the network by almost £2 billion in a single year.
At present, that money has not been lost to the taxpayer. That is because the PSO grant is paid to the franchising director, who passes the PSO grant to train operators in the form of track subsidy. Train operators then pass the grant on to Railtrack, which, because it remains a nationally owned company, returns that money to the Treasury. That is the money-go-round, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) so accurately called it.
However, if Railtrack is privatised, the money paid by the taxpayer in track access charges will pass from the train operators to Railtrack's shareholders. Similarly, if the metropolitan railway grant is axed and local authorities are forced to increase council tax bills to support existing rail services, that money will go to Railtrack's shareholders. Even if the MRG is continued after 1996, it will simply mean that the taxpayer's subsidy will end up in the pockets of the shareholders of Railtrack and the private train operators.
The Government have said that they will provide MRG funding for an additional year, 1995–96, but that, after 1995–96, MRG funding will cease. At that time, any subsidy to support PTE services will be subsumed into the revenue support grant, when it will no longer be ring-fenced. If MRG funding is cut, councils contributing to the PTEs will have to supplement their contribution by increasing council tax bills or cutting services. Neither will be welcomed by the people of the country as a course of action.
1508
It is not as though people are not only too willing to use their railways if the services are there for them so to do. I take the example of the St. Albans-Watford Abbey Flyer. That was a service funded by Hertfordshire county council, which is not part of a passenger transport executive. The council supported a Sunday service much used by the people of St. Albans. The cost of operating that service was £15,000. The council, however, was informed by North London railways in April 1995 that, as a result of the costs imposed by the new track access charging regime, council tax payers would have to find an additional £50,000 if they wanted that Sunday service to continue.
Another example is the electrification of the Bradford-London InterCity route, at a cost of£40 million. On completion of the project, InterCity East Coast found that the new access regime meant that it was uneconomic to run additional electric units, and it was forced to continue to run diesel trains along newly electrified track.
It is vital to the country, not least on environmental grounds, that we are encouraged and facilitated in using our railways, and that there is expansion of the railways. The PTAs have made a valuable contribution to that expansion and to the use of our railway system. They are more than eager to continue to provide that service, but the Government do not appear concerned to help them in that aim. The Government are concerned to break up our existing rail network system in this benighted attempt to privatise. As my hon. Friends said, the support for the Government's proposals among Conservative Members would appear to be nil, because the Conservative Benches are almost empty.
One can understand why Conservative Members would back off from the Conservative Government's proposals for Railtrack. A recent national opinion poll showed that 55 per cent. of the Conservative party's supporters oppose rail privatisation, one in six Conservative supporters are considering abandoning the party on that issue alone and 42 per cent. of Conservative supporters believe that services will become worse after privatisation.
Overall, 69 per cent. of all those questioned said that they opposed the selling off of our railways. That is the opinion of the majority of people in this country. The excesses which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said, the Government have entered into in spending a quarter of a billion pounds on increasing the metropolitan railway grant—grand not to provide better services to the travelling public, not to support overstretched metropolitan authorities, but simply to fatten up our railway services for privatisation—is something that we should vote against.
7.3 pm
Mr. Watts: In their speeches, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and several of his hon. Friends appeared to be under the misconception that new costs, and indeed new money, were involved in the arrangements. The figure of a quarter of a billion pounds was bandied about.
That is not the case. The costs were always there. It always cost money to provide the infrastructure over which services ran and to provide rolling stock. In the old arrangements, those costs were hidden, and covered by cross-subsidies. In the new structure of the railway, the various elements of costs are identified and attributed where they fall.

1509
That applies to the instance cited by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). The costs of running the service supported, I think, by St. Albans, were always there, but effectively they were covered by the subsidy from general taxpayers, not by those for whom the additional service was provided.
Mr. McLeish: That is an ingenious method of trying to camouflage the real costs. Is the Minister arguing that, in the old system, the quarter of a billion pounds worth of costs to which he is now contributing was lost in the system, and a generous British Rail picked up the bill for all those costs? That seems astonishing, but I shall leave the proposition to discover whether the Minister agrees.
Mr. Watts: What happened was that the costs of the use of the track, for example, were being, I suppose, attributed to other operating units within British Rail. They were not being attributed to PTE services. In a sense, it did not matter. That was all simply taxpayers' money being put in and there was no intention in the industry to identify what anything cost. The purpose of the restructuring is to ensure that there is transparency—I shall discuss transparency in the matter of grant later—so that costs can be identified and attributed where they belong.
Mr. McLeish: There has been talk that the public service obligation grant nearly doubled; the increase in the metropolitan railway grant is now a quarter of a billion pounds extra. Are we to believe that those figures are not a cost to the taxpayer? Are we to believe that, before the so-called restructuring, all those costs were there but hidden, or paid for by some benevolent despot sitting in British Rail? That must be nonsense.
We are witnessing—as the Minister will surely agree—a naked attempt to fatten up certain elements of British Rail for the private sector and the creation of an artificial internal market, being supported by my money and the taxpayers of Britain. Is not that the case?
Mr. Watts: No, that is not the case. The costs were always there. The way in which they have been accounted for has changed, so that they are identified separately and can be attributed properly.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about costs for the future. In future years, as I believe I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), the funding that is being provided through metropolitan railway grant will be continued into the new bolt-on revenue support grant enhancement. The difference is in the method of distribution, which will be through the revenue support grant mechanism, not by direct grant from my Department.
I found it unusual to hear Opposition Members argue that central Government should have more control and more direction of the way in which local government spends money. I understand the anxieties that some Labour Members may have that the constituent authorities of PTAs might not spend railway money on railway services. As I believe that the Labour party controls most of those authorities, if Labour Members have those anxieties, I suggest that that is a matter for the brethren to take up among themselves. I find it extraordinary that that argument should be deployed in this debate.
The hon. Members for Fife, Central and for Morley and Leeds, South raised issues that have been the subject of detailed discussion, correspondence and meetings between myself and my officials and the members of the PTAs and PTEs.
1510
The first of those issues, to which I referred earlier, involves transparency. Due to the way in which the grant is to be paid in future, through the revenue support grant, the members of the PTAs and PTEs, quite reasonably, want to know whether there is a way in which that funding can still be identified so that they can argue their corner with the mean-spirited Labour authorities, to ensure that the money being provided by taxpayers to support passenger services in the metropolitan areas is fed through to the PTEs so that the services can continue. We had discussions and correspondence on the subject. Councillor Dowd, on behalf of the members of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' PTA committee, agreed with me that the detail of how to achieve that aim could be left to officials to determine. We had agreed on the principles by which it would be done. My understanding is that the authorities are satisfied that a method can be found. Our undertaking is that we shall advise each PTA and each of its constituent authorities of the precise amount provided to them through the bolt-on enhancement for their rail services.
A more important concern is whether the continued funding will be adequate. I believe that, through the way in which MRG has been developed, we have found a way of identifying the additional costs of restructuring or in preparation for privatisation—I am not shy of using that word. As has been said, at the end of the financial year we are able to make any adjustments necessary to arrive at the precise level of grant that should be paid in respect of those additional charges.
This financial year is one in which we have reached a steady state on charging. The regulator has completed his review of track access charges and told Railtrack the amount by which those charges must be reduced this year and in ensuing years. Therefore, that major element of cost is settled. Similarly, as contracts for the leasing of rolling stock between the rolling stock companies and the train operating companies are in place, those costs are determined. The PTEs and the franchising director will be entering into contracts with train operators to supply the specified services. For all those reasons, I believe that we shall have reached a steady state. We have also agreed that, if significant additional costs arise and are identified, we shall take steps to make good that shortfall. I gave that undertaking in a letter dated 30 June this year to Councillor Dowd.
Mr. McLeish: While I accept the Minister's assurances that he is trying to work out a formula to ensure that the PTAs will be in no worse a position in future, I cannot resist the temptation to ask a final question. If the metropolitan railway grant costs £350 million this year, is it right that the Government are willing to spend £2 billion over the next five years to support the so-called restructuring of the industry? That restructuring will produce no extra services, but will fatten up the elements of British Rail, as my hon. Friends have suggested.
Mr. Watts: I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman is using. In 1994–95, MRG amounted to £146 million for the PTEs. In 1995–96, the figure is £145 million, or £103 million net of the payments under deeds of assumption. I am willing to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we intend to continue funding PTEs at that level, so that they can continue to provide the services that are provided now.

1511
We reached an early and amicable agreement with representatives of the PTAs on matters of principle. I do not think that they are left with any doubts about the good faith of the assurances that I have given to them in meetings and letters, and which I have been happy to repeat. We shall work together constructively to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to deliver what I have undertaken to do.
Clearly, with the substantial sums involved in the grants—whether we use the figures of the hon. Member for Fife, Central or the ones that I have given—there is a justifiable concern that, if no adjustment is made to the capping regime and the authorities merely do what they should and pass on the money so that rail services can be provided, they could end up with capping difficulties. I have had discussions with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment and there is agreement that there will be an adjustment in the capping regime to take account of the extra funding being provided to the constituent authorities of the PTAs. As a consequence, they will be in no better or no worse a position as regards capping.
I have had further and recent correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration following the most recent letter from Councillor Dowd. We are in the process of agreeing that an adjustment can be made to capping principles to reflect any further identified costs that arise in 1996–97. We have gone as far as the PTAs have asked us to do in meeting their concerns. I continue to be ready to discuss any matters that cause them concern. We wish PTAs to continue to fulfil the important role that they play in the provision of passenger rail services. We do not wish any matters of detail to stand in their way.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said that track access charges go straight into the pockets of Railtrack shareholders. He is assuming a heavy rate of profit. The major part of track access charges will be used to fund the running costs and the track repairs and, importantly, to provide the funds for investment in the core network, to maintain its integrity.
Hon. Members who were here for the debate last week will recall that I explained that the rail regulator had agreed on a track access charging regime to ensure that Railtrack had funding of about £600 million available for reinvestment. A small element that represents profit will go to the company, and it may distribute it to its
1512
shareholders. But it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that a figure of anything like a quarter of a billion pounds will end up in the pockets of shareholders.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked me about the withdrawal of the Manchester PTE on the instructions of its PTA. I have had no explanation from the PTA about why it made that decision. Of more importance is the fact that that decision will have no impact on the services provided for passengers. If Manchester thinks that it can take its ball away, it will quickly find that it does not own the ball; it is my ball and I shall take it away and give it to the franchising director. He will act, in place of the PTE, on behalf of passengers if the PTA does not wish to continue to participate.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked me about the fare-setting powers of PTEs. Those are not affected because, under the arrangements, PTEs continue to take the revenue risk and the grant regime covers the increased costs that they incur. The hon. Gentleman also asked why more of my right hon. and hon. Friends were not present in the Chamber. There is a simple answer to that question: they have confidence both in the arrangements that we are putting in place and in the skill of the experienced members of the PTAs, who I assure the House are very good at fighting their corner and defending their position.
One reason for moving away from MRG to distribution via the revenue support grant is that, if we stuck with MRG, it would have the effect of ossifying the services that are provided. We would continue to have to look back to costs that were incurred in 1993–94 and to compare them with current costs. Through the move to the revenue support grant as the main support mechanism, PTAs and PTEs will regain the flexibility that they had, prior to restructuring, to make changes to the services that they provide, but within the same quantum of available funding.
I hope that I have allayed the concerns that hon. Members have expressed on behalf of the PTAs and on their own behalf. I assure the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South that I shall write to him about the fairly detailed financial points that he raised concerning the breakdown of the budget of the PTE in his area. I would rather do that than conjure figures out of the air. I hope that the House will approve the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 15) (Metropolitan Railway Grant 1995–96) (House of Commons Paper No. 470), which was laid before this House on 14th June be approved.

Sea Fisheries
7.21 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1609), dated 28th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1610), dated 4th July 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
Mr. Baldry: This is the first occasion on which I have opened a debate on fisheries since moving to my new position as Minister with responsibility for fisheries. I am glad to take over that important responsibility from my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). He gained a lofty reputation for the care and skill that he devoted to the interests of the fishing industry and I hope to sustain that standard during my tenure in office. I also hope to maintain close contact with the industry and with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have particular interests in the fishing industry.
I appreciate that the industry faces some challenges and I recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about their constituents who are involved in the industry. Fishing is an important industry, which makes an important contribution to the economy of the coastal areas around fishing ports. It is also a hazardous industry, and we all respect the fishermen who go out in all weather to bring in the much needed catches.
I am glad that today's debate gives me an early opportunity to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members at first hand. It also has the more immediate value of allowing me to introduce the 1995–96 decommissioning scheme. The importance of decommissioning is very clear. Yesterday I had my first meeting with the fishing industry when I visited Grimsby and met representatives of the national fishing organisations from all over the country. They are in no doubt that overcapacity lies at the root of many of the industry's problems.
Striking a better balance between capacity, the quotas and other fishing opportunities will make our industry more efficient and viable. The need to tackle overcapacity is also recognised in our obligations under the European Union multi-annual guidance programme targets. The decommissioning schemes that have been in place for the past two years—and which will continue for three more years—are designed to make a key contribution to achieving the targets.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the new Minister to his post and I offer him an early opportunity to make a name for himself. He will have noticed from the scheme that one part of the decommissioning proposals excludes shell fishermen from taking advantage of the new scheme. Does he concede that that exclusion might have the perverse effect of encouraging shell fishermen to diversify into whitefish stocks in order to qualify for the next decommissioning tranche? That is a possible, if not probable, outcome of
1514
the measure that is before us. Will the Minister re-examine that aspect of the scheme, bearing in mind the fact that, as he is new to his post, he will be willing to listen and consult about such matters?
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. As he knows, the multi-annual guidance programme was divided into 10 segments. We have met our obligations under some of those segments, including the nephrops and shellfish segment. I am conscious of the fact that vessels could move between different segments and that each year we will have to examine the various segments and take measures that are appropriate in that year. But we have met our obligations for the nephrops segment and, as I shall explain in greater detail later, it would not be sensible to spend money on a segment when we have already met our commitments in that regard.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That is an extremely important point in the debate. The Minister must accept—I think that he has accepted it implicitly—that the nephrops prawn fishery is interchangeable with some of the pressurised whitefish stocks. Although he is unable to make any changes because the orders for the 1995 scheme cannot be amended, did I detect a slight opening of the door with regard to a change in the exemption for 1996?
Mr. Baldry: That was both implicit and explicit in what I said. Each year one has to gauge the progress that one has made in relation to the scheme. At present, we have met our commitments for the nephrops segment and so this year it does not make sense to spend money on that segment. The hon. Gentleman and I cannot predict what might happen in future and therefore one must respond to matters as they develop year after year.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on the Minister's appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role. I hope that he will visit the inshore fishermen at Hastings and Rye.
My hon. Friend may be aware that most of the vessels in the Hastings fleet are smaller than 10 m. According to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, there is an 11.7 per cent. overcapacity in that sector. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether he has any proposals to assist vessels that are smaller than 10 m?
Mr. Baldry: We are assisting those vessels that are set out in the scheme. There is a finite amount of money; I am sure that that is self-evident. We must use that money as best we can to take out capacity where we believe that that can best be achieved. That is why the scheme is described in its current terms. My hon. Friend can rest assured that I look forward to visiting Hastings and meeting with industry representatives to hear the problems of the inshore fishermen and to consider whether any more assistance can be provided for them.
Decommissioning is not a cheap option and we must ensure that we get good value for what we spend. The MAGP target requires a 19 per cent. reduction in the base line set for 1991. We initially committed £25 million to decommissioning. The first two schemes have shown that we can achieve worthwhile reductions in capacity. So far, we have taken out 297 vessels, representing more than 10,000 tonnes or 4.6 per cent. of the fleet.

1515
This year, and for the next two years, we will increase the amount available each year by 50 per cent. to £12 million. That should increase the impact of the scheme substantially and the licence aggregation penalties should contribute further to the target. We are also looking carefully at the accuracy of the fleet register to ensure that it represents active fishing vessels. With all of those contributions, I am sure that we will make good—and, I hope, faster—progress towards the MAGP targets.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Can the Minister assure the House that with the additional money for decommissioning, the MAGP for 1996 will be met? If not, what is he going to do about it? If we do not meet those targets, which are to be enforced by the EU, the British fishing industry will face a disaster in 1996—it will have to make sudden and massive reductions.
Mr. Baldry: It is premature to speculate about the position that we will reach. Our determination to make good progress is demonstrated by the increase in funds from £25 million to £53 million—significant sums of money. But we need at the same time to be ready to back up the fleet reduction with the necessary controls and quota management measures. Quotas must be managed effectively, along with the various technical conservation measures on gear types, net sizes, minimum landing sizes, closed areas and so on. There must also be proper enforcement so that fishermen of all member states comply with these rules. I already know from my conversations with the industry the justifiable strength of feeling that there need to be uniform standards for all. Progress has been made on that, and I aim to ensure that we keep up the pressure to make further headway.
An important aspect of decommissioning is that we want it to contribute to a reduction in fishing effort. It is the reduction in effort which in future years will bring dividends for our fishermen, with increased fish stocks and the potential for bigger quotas. For that reason, we shall continue to monitor the fishing effort of the fleet remaining after decommissioning. If it became evident that the effort was increasing, and so undoing the benefits of decommissioning, we would need to take action to contain effort. We made that clear when we introduced the 1994–95 scheme; and the signs so far are that there has been a real reduction in effort.
The 1995–96 scheme is similar to its predecessors in providing for a tendering system to ensure best value for money and in continuing the requirements for permanent scrapping and the surrender of licences. The main criteria for eligibility are also unchanged; that is to say, vessels must be seaworthy, over 10 m in overall length, over 10 years old and, of course, UK-registered and licensed.
We retain the requirement that vessels must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips in each of the past two years. This ensures that we are spending money decommissioning vessels which are genuinely active. There is little point in taking out vessels which scarcely fish. In calculating days fishing, we have provided for account to be taken of fishing in Norwegian waters south of 62 deg north. That reflects the wishes of the industry and is reasonable, given that such fishing is, in effect, on a par with fishing in Community waters. Distant-water fishing remains excluded because the distant-water fleet has already achieved its MAGP target.
1516
We have reviewed the licence eligibility for this year's scheme in the light of changes to the licensing regime introduced earlier this year. Instead of a requirement to hold a full pressure stock licence, we have decided to widen eligibility to vessels holding most other whitefish licences. That reflects the fact that some of these stocks, which were not considered to be full pressure stocks, are now facing difficulties—reinforcing the need for a reduction in fishing effort.
An important part of securing good value from this scheme is to ensure that it is correctly targeted on the right segments of the fleet. For the setting of MAGP targets, the fleet is divided into 10 distinct segments. Some segments of the fleet either have achieved or can be expected to achieve the targets without further intervention. The distant-water fleet and the under-10 m vessel segment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned, were excluded from eligibility last year for this reason. Because the target for nephrops vessels has also now been met we have decided that they too should be excluded from this year's scheme. It would not be right to use funds from this scheme to decommission vessels in a segment that has already achieved its target.
The Government do, however, recognise that there are particular structural problems in Northern Ireland, where over 50 per cent. of the fleet consists of nephrops vessels and over 50 per cent. of these are more than 30 years of age. In view of these structural problems, my noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister, is proposing to introduce a separate Northern Ireland scheme with the objective of tackling the particular structural problems in the Northern Irish nephrops fleet. Details will be announced as soon as the scheme has been finalised.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister also consider the Western Isles and west coast nephrops fleet, which has a profile very similar to that of the Northern Irish fleet, being heavily dominated by the nephrops fisheries? The majority of the boats are over 30 years of age. As the Government have recognised that the nephrops fleet has met its targets, would it not be right and sensible now to introduce a scheme allowing for the modernisation of that fleet?
Mr. Baldry: It is entirely understandable that the hon. Gentleman should argue that case on behalf of his constituents. I have to consider the fact that there is a finite sum of money, which has to be used as effectively as possible. The simple fact is that in respect of certain segments—under-10 m, distant-water and nephrops fleets—we have met the requirements; and I could not therefore justify spending more money on those segments.
As I have said, my noble Friend intends to implement a separate Northern Ireland scheme that reflects the structural problems of its fleet.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I join others in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. I hope that we will have many brisk exchanges across the Floor of the House. I welcome what he has just said about Northern Ireland. While I am by no means hostile to the claims of the Scottish fishermen and their representatives here in this House, I would like to thank the Minister and his noble Friend for their efforts. Given the special problems of Northern Ireland, slightly different as they are from those

1517
just referred to, we are most grateful. It will give great encouragement to, and be much appreciated by, the hard-working fishermen of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope too that we will maintain a brisk dialogue. I hope that throughout the House there will be great understanding of an industry that faces a great many challenges that we want to try to meet together.
For each of the 1993 and 1994 schemes we made it clear that once a vessel had been accepted for decommissioning, we would expect decommissioning to go ahead. If a vessel owner failed to stand by the commitment, the vessel would be excluded from the next scheme. This rule was adopted to discourage speculative bids which were in practice unlikely to be carried through. Too many such bids would disrupt the scheme and make it difficult to manage.
We are continuing with this rule. However, after one year's exclusion from the scheme we think it right to allow a vessel to be re-entered. This is to take account of the fact that circumstances can change. A vessel might, for example, have a new owner, or business circumstances could be quite different. This means that a vessel which was accepted for decommissioning in 1993 but was withdrawn from the scheme can now be entered again in 1995. This provision will affect only a few cases, but I hope that it will be seen as a useful sign of our wish to be flexible.
I should like to say a word about the implications of the increased amount available for decommissioning this year. We have £12 million, and we intend that it should enable a substantially increased number of vessels to be decommissioned. The tendering system that we have used is well understood by fishermen and we have seen that it can give good value for money. We shall be looking at the bids carefully this year and will not accept bids unless they give good value. If necessary, we reserve the right to spend less than the full amount available. The residue could then be used for a second tender later in the year.
I am sure we will get a good response, with competitive bids. But we have the option to have a second round if that seems likely to give better value. The closing date for applications is 8 September 1995 and application forms will soon be available in local fishery offices.
I now turn to the second scheme, concerning fishing vessel safety grants. Safety at sea is a matter of deep concern to all who are involved with the fishing industry. It is a hazardous industry and I am pleased that we have a grant scheme which can help somewhat towards ensuring the safety of fishermen.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that, under the terms of the grants scheme, an owner of a vessel can purchase survival suits for all the members of his crew or crews, and that the grant will cover the total cost of such a purchase? I am not talking here about survival suits that can be worn while fishermen go about their work, but about those suits in which, following the foundering or capsizing of a vessel, men can survive for several hours. I want to say something about this later, but I seek an assurance from the Minister that the safety improvements grants scheme will allow for the purchase of such essential safety equipment.
Mr. Baldry: The grant is available for equipment which is necessary in order to obtain the safety certificate. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point, but one must understand the genesis of the scheme.
The new scheme replaces the 1993 scheme and applies to fishing vessels which have to obtain a Department of Transport safety certificate under the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975. The new scheme follows the 1993 scheme in that grant will be available for meeting the requirements of the Department of Transport's safety certificate which applies to vessels with a registered length of 12 m or over. Grant will be available for equipment which is necessary to obtain the safety certificate. That includes life rafts, UHF radios, rockets, flares and radio beacons which broadcast the position of a vessel if it founders. Those are all important for safety although I do not pretend that it is an exclusive list.
The Marine Safety Agency continues to investigate practical solutions to the problems of effective in-water thermal protection for fishermen in the event of falls overboard or evacuation. In connection with falls overboard, the Marine Safety Agency has established a minimum specification for a constant-wear buoyancy aid which, in conjunction with other measures, will improve a fisherman's chances of survival until a recovery from the water. The agency is at present conducting trials of such aids, but it is not necessary to have such aids to fulfil the requirements of the safety certificate. For those reasons, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.
The scheme has been modified so that items such as engines and structural work will no longer be eligible for assistance. Those are not safety requirements in the usual sense. One needs to understand that this is a grant with a specific focus. It seeks to ensure that vessels meet the requirements of the Department of Transport's safety certificate.
Dr. Godman: The Minister himself said that the safety of our fishermen is an important matter and I readily take his point that the primary responsibility for the occupational safety of our fishermen lies with the Department of Transport. But despite his regrettable answer, fishing vessels from certain other member states of the European Union are not allowed to put to sea unless they carry a survival suit for each member of the crew. Surely that is what we should be aiming for in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Baldry: When I met representatives of the industry yesterday I made it clear that I hoped that we would meet at regular intervals. When I was in the Department of the Environment and had responsibility, among other things, for the construction industry, I had meetings with its representatives every three weeks and sometimes more often. During the course of those meetings we regularly discussed a range of subjects. I have no doubt that one of the subjects that the industry will wish to discuss with me is safety in all its aspects.
I make no specific response to the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a broader aspect. One of the points representatives of the industry made to me yesterday is that they are concerned about the weight of regulation that is bearing down on the industry. The temptation to take the totality of all the regulations of every other EU member state and say that they should apply in the United Kingdom would place an intolerable burden on the industry.

1519
If there are concerns about aspects of safety, of course it is important to consider them. But within the context of the scheme and the money that is being made available, I am sure that the House and the industry will welcome the extra money for safety targeted at the specific purpose of ensuring that vessels meet the requirements of the Department of Transport's safety certificate.
Mr. Ainger: I accept that the scheme concerns vessels of more than 12 m, but the Minister will know that the industry is concerned about vessels of under 12 m. In letters that I exchanged with his predecessor, the impression was that the Government were considering that and recognised that there was a problem in that area. Can he assure the House that he will continue to consider the matter and possibly bring forward a scheme to assist vessels of under 12 m?
Mr. Baldry: The 1975 safety code does not require significant safety measures for vessels under 12 m. Once the new safety code for those vessels is finalised, of course I shall consider carefully whether there are any implications for the safety grant scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the industry will be reassured by that.
Grant rates are unchanged. Vessels between 12 m and 33 m will receive 30 per cent. and those above 33 m, 10 per cent. In due course, some of those eligible under the present national scheme will be able instead to receive EC grant for safety work under the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations 1995 which will implement the European Commission's financial instrument for fisheries guidance. Those regulations will provide EC grant for exactly the same purposes as the national safety improvement scheme.
I hope to make an announcement about the EC grants as soon as the detailed financial and administrative arrangements have been finalised. However, until the EC scheme is launched all applications will be considered for grant under the motion that we are discussing today. That means that we can thereby avoid any delay in providing assistance to the industry for safety works. The scheme will operate until the end of 1999. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to make fishing a safer occupation for all those who take considerable risk to supply us with fish for our tables.
I hope that the House will agree that the two schemes represent useful measures providing real benefits for fishermen and the fishing industry. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to the fishing industry and our desire to put it on a sounder and safer footing for the future. I commend the motions to the House.
7.47 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I, too, welcome the Minister to his first debate on the fishing industry. I am sure that, from the representations that he will already have had from the industry and those Members who represent fishing interests, he will be aware of the problems that the industry has been facing. As a new Minister with a new team, he has an opportunity to take a fresh look at some of those problems, and I hope that he does so.
The Opposition clearly support the way in which the instrument dealing with the safety grant is structured. In particular, I endorse the sensible points made by my hon.
1520
Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about flotation suits. With his family connections with the industry, he will know of their importance, and of the risks that fishermen take.
It is strange that flotation suits made by British companies are exported to Canada because it is compulsory for Canadian fishing boats to have such equipment, yet apparently such equipment is not eligible for grant under the scheme. I am glad that the Minister says that the matter is being considered, but the issue has been raised for a number of years now. I wonder how long it takes to make a decision. I should say, for the record, that the company that makes the suits is in Scunthorpe, so I have an interest.
The Minister must be aware of the years of delay that elapsed before the introduction of the scheme. To be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed the Minister about the need for a decommissioning scheme at a time when the fishing fleets of other member states have benefited from such schemes. I believe that it all goes back to the mistakes that were made in the decommissioning of the Humber deep-sea fleet. The trauma that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) seems to have suffered as a result of those mistakes has pervaded the Ministry, and has made the introduction of a scheme difficult.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the Government and the fishing industry would not be in their present position if the Government had listened earlier to our advocacy of a decommissioning scheme. The Minister will be able to avoid numerous problems now if he listens to our further proposal that the scheme should pay compensation to fishermen who lose their jobs—for they will be out of work as surely as the fishing vessels. We also propose that the money should become not just a dole or burial grant to make room for Spanish vessels, but a means of restructuring the industry to make it more efficient and effective.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has made his points consistently for many years, and previous Ministers would have done well to listen to them.
The Government's increase in the decommissioning grant followed the risk of a rebellion in January. That was the most expensive vote in the House for some time, but the money was welcome as far as it went. Nevertheless, having accepted the arguments about the need for the decommissioning scheme to make progress, the Government would surely have done better to accelerate the provision of existing funds rather than spreading them over a number of years, in order to make progress in the reduction of fleet capacity and the meeting of multi-annual guidance programme targets.
I wish to raise four important points. The first is the one I have just made about the need to accelerate the scheme. The Minister's reference to the possibility of a second round if money is available this year is welcome, but I feel that, in future, the scheme should be front-loaded to provide the money as quickly as possible. Secondly, the scheme should be linked with structural aid for communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out. Thirdly, the effect on the boat-building sector should be recognised; and, fourthly, the rules should be reviewed.

1521
The lack of progress has been mentioned several times to the Minister. Our fishing fleet has been at a severe disadvantage as a result of the delay. Our fleet is aging, and while we remain so far from our MAGP targets, no grants for rebuilding are available from the European Commission—hence the problems facing the shipbuilding industry.
Figures provided by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation show how far we have fallen behind in the utilisation of European structural grants. The federation points out that, since the beginning of decommissioning, Spain has received £208 million and France £55.3 million, while United Kingdom fleets have received£19.15 million—2.8 per cent. of the total.
That is a very small amount. It hardly puts our country's interests first, and it certainly does not demonstrate that the Government put those interests at the heart of Europe. Other countries are getting a far better deal, mainly because they are not so slow in making their contribution to European grants, and because they have been less negative about working within the European Union.
Secondly, we must recognise the effect of decommissioning on communities that depend on the fishing industry, such as in Northern Ireland, parts of Scotland and, indeed, Grimsby. Decommissioning affects not just direct but indirect employment, especially in the fishery supply industry. There are schemes such as Pesca, but that is a modest programme.
There are also schemes such as objective 1 and objective 5b. As the Minister will know from his time in the Department of the Environment, however, those schemes depend on contributions from local government—and, in the present circumstances, local government finances are far too tight. I know that the Minister has received representations from local authorities about that.
The Commission has proposed socio-economic measures that would allow early retirement schemes for fishermen, but the Government's response has been very negative. The Minister should recognise that fishing crews of decommissioned boats should be given support.
That brings me to my third point: the effect on boat building. I know that the Minister has recieved representations from the boat-building industry, and I urge him to pay careful attention to them. I believe that there is a case for a "scrap-and-build" scheme within the licence aggregation policy, which aims to reduce capacity. The industry is willing to discuss the possibility of such a scheme. I hope that the Minister recognises the pressure on that industry, and the fact that many parts of industry depend on it for jobs. I particularly hope that he will reconsider the rule that requires scrapping of vessels.
As I have said in previous debates, there is a demand for decommissioned boats, particularly in developing countries. I have told the Ministry that private interests in Sri Lanka are willing to enter into a scheme to obtain such boats; I also know that aid agencies in Mozambique would be willing to use them as part of an overseas aid programme. That could involve refitting in boat yards, and provide jobs as part of an Overseas Development Administration scheme.
I see no logic in scrapping the boats. As the Minister knows, now that the licensing schemes are in place, there is little chance of decommissioned boats returning to the fleet and causing the problems with which scrapping is
1522
intended to deal. I shall write to the Minister again, so that he can consult the ODA about whether such a scheme is feasible.
Fourthly, a number of concerns have been expressed about the rules of application of the scheme. I shall concentrate on one, which involves the use of fleet segmentation and the exclusion of nephrops trawlers in the current round. That has been raised by Conservative Members. The logic is very shaky; it is based on the use of segmentation as an adminstrative tool.
The Minister must be aware that most boats involved in nephrops fishing are involved in a mixed fishery. Northern Ireland and the Western Isles have particular problems. I welcome the fact that a special scheme is being considered for Northern Ireland, but the Minister should also consider the Western Isles, where 90 per cent. of the fleet is involved in nephrops fishing. Why should the whitefish and nephrops sectors not be combined? The two types of boat tend to be involved in the same fishery.
The Minister should also reconsider the one-year cut-off for the reference period, which is unduly restrictive. Many of the boats have been fishing for whitefish over a three-year period. Such an approach would encourage nephrops boats to pursue whitefish fisheries even more, just as a form of guarantee.
If the Ministry accepts that the nephrops sector has reached its targets under the European Union rules, should not that sector reapply for building grants and restructuring aid? If he is still excluding that sector from grant applications, there is no logic in excluding it from applying for the decommissioning scheme. I hope that he gives some thought to that as well.
The whole point of decommissioning can be seen only as part of an overall fishing strategy. The problem is that this Government do not seem to have such a strategy. What we have within the common fisheries policy is deeply flawed and does not enjoy the fishing industry's support, as I am sure the Minister will have heard.
The time is well overdue for a fundamental review of the CFP. Labour Members are fully committed to that, although we will continue to argue not only for a generous, effective and efficient decommissioning scheme, but for an overall strategy that guarantees a sustainable fishing industry and the future of our fishing communities around our coast, because nothing less will be acceptable.
8 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I join others in welcoming not just my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but other Ministers who have taken over responsibility for fishing in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. In doing so, I pay tribute, as I did at Question Time the other day, to the previous Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who did a marvellous job in transforming relationships between the Government and the industry, especially by his open-door policy, and by the way in which he did his utmost to rebuild relationships between Whitehall and fishermen's organisations.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
Mr. Baldry: Our right hon. Friend.
Mr. Harris: I beg his pardon. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. It is nice to see

1523
him back on the Back Benches. I am sure that in some ways he is relieved to be here, and I look forward to his taking part again, as he always did in the past, in fishing debates.
There has been a change in personnel outside Whitehall. The chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, Mr. Richard Banks, has left that post. I am sure that I speak for all the English Members in saying how much we value all the help he gave us, and that we welcome his successor, Mr. Barrie Deas, to that important post.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that yesterday he visited the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. Again I speak for all Members who have the honour to represent fishing constituencies and ports when I say that we all lean heavily on fishing organisations and the NFFO, and I am sure that Scottish colleagues do likewise with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. If there are common threads running through our speeches, perhaps, sparing their blushes, some of those threads have been spun by those fishing organisations.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech, and I endorse what he said not just about the Minister, but about the change of personnel in the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. In view of the hon. Member's previous trenchant criticisms of the tie-up provision that still hangs over the industry, does he agree that the best possible compliment that the new Minister could pay to the NFFO would be permanently to remove that sword of Damocles from over its head?
Mr. Harris: Yes. I said just as much at Question Time last week, when I told my hon. Friend—I followed this up in private discussions with him last week—that that was what I personally thought should happen.
The first of the statutory instruments before us today relates to safety improvement grants. After receiving representations from Elizabeth Stevenson, secretary of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, I wrote to the Minister's predecessor about one aspect of the statutory instrument: the exclusion for grant purposes of any work done on fishing boats of a structural nature.
I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said on that point, but I ask him to reconsider it, bearing in mind the fact that some structural work is directly related to safety measures. I refer especially to such fixtures on boats as shelter decks, wheelhouses and other structural aspects of a vessel which enhance the safety of the vessel and the fishermen who sail it.
Of course, our main attention tonight must be on the second statutory instrument, relating to decommissioning. I agree with what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, when he briefly reviewed the history of the decommissioning issue. I well remember the campaign that hon. Members on both sides of the House fought, joining forces.
I remember in particular the contributions in that regard of the late Alick Buchanan-Smith. We urged, pressed and kicked the Government on that issue, because those who represent fishing constituencies all recognised that
1524
decommissioning had a vital role to play in trying to achieve the essential balance between capacity and availability of stocks.
Of course, decommissioning is not the complete answer, and it is certainly not a panacea. No magic wand can be waved that will suddenly make all the deep-seated problems of the industry disappear. There are dangers in too much reliance on decommissioning. If some boats are taken out without controls on the fishing effort of those that are left in the industry, we will be back to square one, but decommissioning is an essential component in a package of measures, and I am delighted that, belatedly, the Government have recognised that. Perhaps it took the threat or, in my case, the actual event of a revolt on these Benches, to bring about an increase in the amount of money available for the decommissioning scheme.
The decommissioning scheme brings certain problems, and I support the points that have been made by the Opposition spokesman and that will no doubt be made by others on the exclusion of the prawn boats. The Minister must reconsider that, and the segmented approach. I understand the reasons that he has given, but frankly, I am not convinced by them.
The points about the unfortunate effect in recent years on the boat-building industry are valid. Perhaps the question of an aging fleet is the most important. In some parts of the country, including some ports in the south-west, the fleet is geriatric, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know, because you are no stranger to some of those fishing ports, particularly the Barbican. The way in which our fleet has aged is extremely worrying. While controlling capacity, we must find a sensible way of improving the age profile of the fleet. That is essential.
We must never lose sight of one reason why we are in this mess. I am afraid that it goes back to that constant refrain that I have voiced in the House, as have many others: the diabolical way in which Spain has transferred so many vessels to our register. We hope to meet in large measure our multi-annual guidance programme when we remove those vessels from our register through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. By the perverse judgment of the European Court of Justice, many of them have returned. To a large degree, that sabotaged our attempt to reduce the capacity of the fleet.
Is it not ironic that the figures which have already been mentioned reveal that, from 1987 to 1993, Spain one way or another—through construction, modernisation or decommissioning grants—received £208 million, whereas the United Kingdom fleet received a paltry £19 million, yet so much of our trouble has been caused by boats from Spain?
I also endorse what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said about the Government's insistence that vessels should be scrapped. About a fortnight ago, I was pleased to attend a ceremony at Land's End at which one decommissioned boat—the Confide—was preserved, albeit on land, as a fishing exhibition. I hope that it will play its part in stimulating further the tremendous interest that exists—thank goodness—in the fishing industry.
However, I am sure that we could save many more vessels. I was saddened that my request for a vessel from Penzance to be saved was rejected. It could have been used to train youngsters under the auspices of no less a person than the Bishop of Truro. I do not think that he was going to skipper it himself, but the Church's Fund

1525
for Social Responsibility in Cornwall would have made good use of it. Sadly, the request was denied, and the vessel had to be destroyed.
I always understood that the scrapping of vessels was done at the insistence of the Commission itself and to meet the requirements of the scheme. However, I was told today by Mr. Bob Allan from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that that is not the case. If he is right—I am sure he must be—one has to ask why on earth we are following a policy that is different from that of other member states. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. I am sure that we could make sensible use of some of these vessels without their returning to the fleet.
I conclude my remarks at this point, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I welcome the increased money for decommissioning, but urge Ministers to consider the various points that have already emerged in today's debate and which will no doubt be reinforced. I also endorse what the Opposition spokesman said about finding a better way to provide security for what remains of the fishing industry. In that regard, I warmly welcome the review that the previous Minister started, which I know is being continued under the present Minister—the review of the common fisheries policy and our attitude to it.
8.12 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I, too, welcome the two new Ministers to their posts. I especially congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on his first ministerial post.
When the two new Ministers come to deal with the fishing industry, they will find that there has never been such disenchantment with the common fisheries policy. There is a ground swell of antagonism and distrust. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will know that many sections of the industry are arguing very strongly that we should have nothing more to do with the CFP, that we should simply get out and take back control of our industry.
In the fishing debate earlier this year, I recall saying that the above suggestion was not feasible, although I appreciate that it makes it very difficult for Ministers to tackle the problems of the industry when there is such division in it, about the CFP at least. Fishermen are crying out for some new lead and some new policies.
The fact that two new Ministers are now at the Dispatch Box—one from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and one from the Scottish Office—means that there is the possibility of a fresh approach and some new thinking. Some might say that that is rather naive on my part. I am certainly not saying that all previous Government thinking is to be cast aside, but I think that there is the possibility of a fresh approach. The Minister of State certainly showed that he was willing to listen. He said that although we have to accept or reject the current statutory instruments, they were not set in stone and could perhaps be changed. I therefore join those who welcome the new decommissioning scheme, as far as it goes.
It is clear that there are problems with the way in which the scheme is formulated. Anyone who speaks to those working in the fishing industry will know that individual sectors have different problems. This is beginning to sound like a tea party at which we all congratulate
1526
Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Invite them over."] I think that some of my hon. Friends behind me are getting worried and might put their jovial interventions in a different light when they come to speak.
The Minister of State said that in his previous job he regularly met representatives of the construction industry and hopes in his new job to meet representatives of the fishing industry. In doing so, I hope that he will meet not only our good friends in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations but people from the trade unions who represent workers in the industry.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that there are probably now more jobs on land in the processing and production side than there are at sea. The processing side of the industry should be involved in any discussions. Some of us have been working for many years to put an end to the age-old antagonism between those who caught the fish and those who bought the fish, and the two sides now work more closely together. We need to foster not only the interests of one sector of the industry but the best interests of the whole industry.
The Minister said that he would reconsider the exclusion of the nephrops fleet from the decommissioning scheme, which is to be welcomed. I do not want to get involved in a welter of self-congratulation, but there is no doubt that Back Benchers of all parties—I pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in this regard—compelled the Government to accept a decommissioning scheme.
Mr. Baldry: I would not want my earlier comments to be taken as more of a concession than they were. In response to several interventions from Scottish Members, I said that of course it was true that vessels could move into nephrops fishery and that if sufficient moved that the nephrops target was in doubt, we could include nephrops vessels in the scheme in later years. My point was that the scheme would have to examined year on year, not that I was going to review the decision that this statutory instrument is set for this year.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing me back to the harsh truths of reality. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I expected the current proposal to be changed. I of course accept that we have to take it as it stands, but the Minister said that this scheme is for this year, that next year he would examine the circumstances again and that the point made about the nephrops fleet might be taken into account. Incidentally, I welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Front Bench and to his new post. We shall await with bated breath the Minister's conclusions, but I take at face value his comment that these matters will be re-examined.
Although decommissioning is valuable, one of the phrases used this afternoon—I forget by whom exactly, but I think that it was a member of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—was that we should be thinking beyond decommissioning. That is a good way to put it. We need to do exactly that and bring some stability to the industry so that fishermen know where they stand. The problem is that we have gone from crisis to crisis, not knowing where we were going from one year to the next. If the decommissioning scheme enables us to get a better look at the future, it will be valuable.

1527
It has been pointed out that the difficulty with the decommissioning scheme is that it is a scrapping scheme to get vessels taken out of service. It was suggested that it would be valuable if decommissioned vessels could be allowed to go elsewhere, either to serve some useful purpose outside the fishing industry or to go to Mozambique or Sri Lanka, for example, where they would be useful. The Government seem to think that if all the vessels were taken to Sri Lanka or Mozambique for decommissioning, they would somehow find their way back into the UK fishing fleet, which is beyond any reason.
We need a scrap-and-build policy. Since there has not been decommissioning and because we have not met the multi-annual guidance programme, no grants have been available to build new vessels for a very long time indeed. The fleet is aging. While I welcome the marine safety grant scheme, an unsound or old vessel can be unsafe despite the fact that it has modern radar, or whatever equipment is needed, attached to it.
We should look at a scrap-and-build policy because to compete and be a viable industry in future, even with a limited fishing effort, vessels have to be up to date. We know that other countries are modernising their fleet like there is no tomorrow and we will be left with a fleet under such tremendous pressure that it will not be able to do the job that it wants: catch fish in reasonable numbers and at a reasonable price.
These matters spread beyond the fishing fleet itself and into the fishing communities. Since the Minister made the point in his press release, I would expect him to say in his winding-up speech how valuable the Pesca scheme is in aiding the fishing communities. We are told that the £1.1 million going to the north-east of Scotland will have to be matched by £1.1 million from local authority funds. When the authorities asked the Government about that, the Government said that the authorities already had that money, which is very odd because the local authority grants were finally settled before the announcement of the Pesca scheme. How could the local communities or the Government predict the scheme—with a crystal ball? I hope that the Government will consider that carefully.
I want to raise with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the Government's attitude to the socio-economic measures brought forward by the European Commission. The Government's behaviour in this matter is the worst possible example of holding in national hands a policy with which they disagree in Europe. Many people in the fishing industry want control of their own affairs with as much leeway as possible in European Union policy, yet the Government say that they will vote against the Commission's proposals to allow for early retirement of fishermen and lump sums to be paid to fishermen who lose their jobs, and that even if they are outvoted and the proposals go through under majority voting, they intend to do absolutely nothing about the proposals and will not implement them.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will take a much more robust attitude. I hope that he will say that there are people in desperate trouble. He will have had, as I have had, since we occasionally exchange constituents' letters—constituents do not always know which constituency they are in—many letters from trawlermen who have had difficulty getting money out of the Department of
1528
Employment's ex gratia scheme. He will know, therefore, of the hardship of people who have lost their jobs in the trawling industry. That hardship will be mirrored—indeed it is already being matched—by those who lose their jobs because of decommissioning and the reduction of fishing effort. He will therefore bring experience to his post and he should be much more sympathetic towards the socio-economic measures.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not rest on some nationalistic idea—I had better not use the word nationalistic in relation to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. I hope that he will have much less of a national interest factor and recognise that some European Union proposals are good and that we ought to implement them. This short debate has given us the opportunity to say which parts of the Government's policy we agree with and which parts we wish to see an advance on. I hope that the Government will realise that, provided that they take an open approach to their responsibilities, they will have our support. If they do not, they know perfectly well that they will have to face the wrath of this House, and it will not be pleasant.
8.24 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome both the new Fisheries Ministers. I am slightly disappointed that the Scottish Under-Secretary is the junior of the two again, and I hope that the Fisheries Ministers from other Departments will not take advantage of their hon. Friend's inexperience. That hope relates to two matters: first to the European negotiations at which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) might well be the only Scottish representative. In the last six months of last year, the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is a very experienced Member of the House, represented Scotland on three occasions—the only three occasions on which Scotland was directly represented by Scottish Office Ministers out of a total of 48 Council meetings.
Secondly, during a number of years, Scottish Office civil servants, Opposition Members and even a few rebel Conservatives, as we have heard earlier, were advocating a policy of decommissioning which was frustrated and halted by what I thought were the largely personal prejudices of the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, based on his unfortunate experiences in his early ministerial career over the previous decommissioning scheme. We are now paying the price, as has become evident in this debate, for those wasted years.
I took a careful note of what one of the fisheries representatives said to me in the briefing earlier this afternoon. He said that the fishing industry is still
"wallowing in the broken water of do nothing years".
I understand that the statistics which have been quoted to Ministers from Opposition and Government Members were supplied to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation by my colleague in the European Parliament, Winnie Ewing, the Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands. I am sure that my hon. Friend in the European Parliament will be delighted that the statistics have been put to such good use in this debate.
They are shameful statistics from a European and United Kingdom point of view. Of total funding from 1987 to 1993, 2.8 per cent. has come to the UK, in contrast to the huge amounts, as the hon. Member for St.

1529
Ives (Mr. Harris) rightly said, which have gone to the Spanish fleet. The UK fleet has been at a substantial competitive disadvantage over that period as funds have gone elsewhere. Not only that, of course, but the lack of a decommissioning scheme in those years has imbalanced the whole fisheries policy so that funds are nowhere near the targets for MAGP or anything else—not just because of the flags of convenience vessels, although they were important, but because of the failure of policy and the failure to act.
The points made in this debate are very important and interrelate with the two schemes before us this evening. If there is a combination of older fishing vessels and probably younger skippers, since that is the trend in the industry at the moment, going into deeper waters, there is a key safety consideration. The lack of reinvestment in the fishing fleet means that the average age of the vessels is increasing. Ten years ago, the average age of UK vessels, especially Scottish fishing vessels, was much less than the European average. Now it is greater than the European average. We have one of the older fleets in the EU and that raises implications for safety in fishing as well as for the competitiveness of our industry compared to others.
We have about five member companies in the British Boatbuilders Association, of which only two are currently building boats. The arguments for a scrap-and-build policy are very important. It is not a question, as the Minister seems to think in following his predecessors by saying, that we cannot have a decommissioning policy on one hand and a reinvestment policy on the other. That is exactly the policy being pursued in our competitor countries across the Union. If we do not have such a policy, the Government will be putting our fishing vessels at a grievous disadvantage compared to the other fishing fleets. I am sure that the Minister would like to change that policy direction in his first days in the post.
I shall make three brief points to amplify some of the detail in the debate. The case made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was very good. Given the legacy of the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the crucial years of the 1980s, there surely would be a good argument for a catch-up policy to accelerate the commitment in the early years of the scheme to try to get back to something like the targets that we have to meet. That policy option must be available to the Minister and surely should be one for careful consideration. Should the scheme be front-loaded to catch up and try to redeem some of the mistakes of the past?
The Minister has qualified the flexibility that he seemed to show earlier in the debate. His point about the nephrops fishery does not stand up to a moment's serious examination. There has already been an increasing shift in capacity into the nephrops fishery in the North sea from the Fladen fishery in the current year. The two fisheries are heavily interrelated. The idiocy of the regulations is shown if one compares a nephrops fisherman with a scalloper. If a scalloper had a pressured stock licence, he would be eligible for the terms of the decommissioning scheme. Yet if that person qualified for decommissioning, he would not put any whitefish back into the pool to be available for the other fishermen who are under such pressure from quotas at present. A prawner boat would put whitefish back into the pool, yet that prawner is excluded from taking advantage of the decommissioning scheme.
1530
We must understand the interrelationship between the fisheries. One cannot close off one option and expect that the position will stay still; closing off one option has an impact on the other cross-fisheries. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider being more flexible as quickly as possible. If he does not, he will find that there is more effort in the nephrops fishery, and that the situation has changed again for next year. I hope that he will pay attention to that point.
The Minister's immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in a fairly critical fishing vote which was closely contested in the House, made a declaration to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. He said that he would not stand for fishermen from Scotland or England being put at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets with the onset of fisheries regulation. Even now in the decommissioning scheme, that is happening. We have heard of the scrap-and-build policy which is available to fishermen across the Community, but not to fishermen here.
We have had examples of boats for alternative use. I am grateful to Bill Farquhar from the Macduff shipyard for giving me an example. The Jean de la Lune was chosen to lead the parade of sail in the recent tall ships festival in Leith. It was actually a converted French fishing boat which had been commissioned out of the fishing fleet. Given the experience of the early 1980s, I can understand ministerial caution on this aspect. I am, however, certain that the Scottish Office inspectorate and the MAFF inspectorate are quite capable of telling the difference between a tall ship with sails and a working fishing boat. Some flexibility in this aspect would bring us into line with our European colleagues and would generate some much-needed work for our hard-pressed boatyards.
I hope that the Minister will look at boat building as an issue in itself. For many of us from the western approaches of Scotland and from the north-east corner of Scotland, fishing is a dominant part of our communities. In one village in my constituency, 65 per cent. of employment is generated by the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister understands why we cannot tolerate our fishermen, in what are hard times anyway, being placed at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets. Although we welcome the decommissioning scheme, we ask that some effort is made by the new ministerial team to redress the errors of the past and to allow our fishermen the support to which they are entitled.
8.33 pm
Mr. David Porter: I shall concentrate on decommissioning. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has already flagged up the issue. Before the Government belatedly and rather grudgingly introduced the decommissioning scheme, I advocated that there should be such a scheme. Like other hon. Members, I recall that the entire House was in favour of the scheme, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who opposed it. I felt that if we had to obey multi-annual guidance programme rules, which were bizarre enough at the outset, the whole scheme seemed superficially appealing, especially if 70 per cent. of the grants were recoverable from Europe. In other words, the Community was giving us back our own money. What I advocated was a whole industry scheme, which we have not got.

1531
The miners got £35,000 a man; we do not have anything like such a scheme, which compensates all parts of the industry. There could be a trickle-down effect if boat owners pay some money to ships' crews, to land staff, to fish merchants and, yes, to boat builders as well—in other words, to the whole industry. However, it is the owners who have had the investment and the risks, so, realistically, that is not very likely to happen. What happens to the other men whose jobs are destroyed when boat owners take decommissioning grants? Not only are they directly out of work, but their likelihood of further work is reduced because the fleet in a port becomes smaller. It is a vicious circle.
So the whole nightmare of the common fisheries policy, with all its hideous consequences, goes on, using taxpayers' money to put people out of work so that our competitors can better fish us out of more work. That is exactly how people perceive the problem in the ports.
To come this year with a new tranche of decommissioning and to claim that it is the solution would be laughable if it was not tragic. As a result of previous shortfalls, unattached licence entitlements and an attempt to fine-tune the system bureaucratically, we are left, in the words of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, with
"a collection of contradictions and anomalies. Almost every boundary in fleet segmentation is open to challenge on grounds of illogicality, inequality and irrelevance."
One cannot fine-tune a leviathan. The idea that one can part-buy out an allegedly excess fleet pushes out any idea that fish stock shortages can be addressed by some other method. The mechanism has become untouchable, just as the grotesque concept that all fish stocks are a common resource open to all has become untouchable.
Decommissioning, like all aspects of the CFP, is not succeeding. If the fleet is reduced by 4.5 per cent. tonnage while the actual tonnage goes up by 3.3 per cent., that is hardly success. Discards remain a problem and quotas are becoming a blunt instrument that cannot legally leave a man making a living in most cases. So what do we do? Should we scrap the CFP and start again? Oh no, we just come up with some more schemes and mechanisms to destroy the market in a naturally renewable resource.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his new job. However, he faces a task that he cannot win. He already knows that the fishing industry has more regulation than the nuclear industry and that most of it is unnecessary. If he does not take steps deliberately to swap fish out of Lowestoft, as his predecessor did, I look forward to working with him. I have submitted a paper to his CFP review panel on how we can negotiate reform of the CFP by negotiating to leave it. My hon. Friend has not ruled out that option for consideration, yet his parliamentary answers, one given to me only yesterday, are sticking to the old line of, "All is well and just one more tinkering and we'll be there."
My hon. Friend the Minister says that international co-operation on conservation management is essential. I agree; we can all agree on that. However, the CFP is not an example of good international co-operation. The scheme tonight is just another piece in the whole discredited policy, and because it is not a whole industry scheme, if it is put to the vote, I could not in all conscience vote for it.
8.37 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall be brief because I know that the Minister needs at least nine or 10 minutes for the wind-up; that is right and proper. The schemes should be approved, but in so saying, I hope that the Minister—I accept that the tone in which he opened the debate was sympathetic, which is much to be welcomed in view of his new responsibilities—will not take it from the tone of the debate, in which I have concurred with just about everything that has been said on both sides about some of the wider issues, that these matters are not urgent and important.
I shall concentrate on the shorter-term question of the nephrops fishery, which is an immediate and urgent matter for re-examination, for the reasons that have been explained. In the longer term, we shall look for reconsideration of the historically negative view that the Government have taken of decommissioning schemes and some of the wider European Union schemes.
My local fishing industry believes that it has paid a high price as a result of that historically negative attitude. That attitude has left us, as has been said, with a fishing industry that is short on the construction, modernisation and commissioning grants that have been available to our competitors. I, too, think that it is a scandal that the Spanish fishermen have pocketed £208 million to rebuild their fleet while we have receipts of a mere £19 million—only 2.8 per cent. of the total funds available. That means that, inevitably, our fleet cannot stay safe, modern and competitive. I hope that the Minister and the new ministerial team will consider that as a matter of urgency.
There is one thing that I want the Minister and his team to consider more than anything else, although I know that it will be difficult to try to persuade the Treasury. I want them to bring forward some of the money, because £12 million over three years is not nearly as useful as releasing the money in one block, so that it can be drawn down as necessary to provide the essential cash flow for the scrap-and-build policies and for the yards that are suffering difficulties.
The nephrops fishery is important too, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to meet some of us with individual local concerns in the course of his reconsideration. If the 1995 scheme is ruled out because the schemes are unamendable, I hope that he will see his way clear to listening carefully to the representations by Members with legitimate concerns.
I have a plea from the Eyemouth and District Fishermen's Association, saying:
"many boats have gone to the prawn fishing over the past two years due to the shortage of white fish inshore and the poor prices."
I am sure that that is right. There is suspicion that the figures that formed the basis of the decisions that Ministers have taken on the 1995 scheme may be out of date. Indeed, I believe that the decisions were based on 1993 figures. There is evidence that over the past two years there has been a substantial shift to nephrops out of whitefish pressure stocks, and that is a matter of real concern.
What has been said about the development of the Fladen grounds persuades me that there has been a substantial change, and that, too, needs to be considered as a matter of urgency. I also hope that, over the next year or two, when the wider issues concerning some of the elements of the scheme—such as the fact that we do not

1533
allow decommissioning to take place when boats go out of European Union waters, or when boats have been taken out of the fishing capacity—are being considered, urgent attention will be paid to those problems.
Better provision for decommissioning, together with rebuilding grants paid for with EU funds and even-handed access to Community assistance, are essential if the United Kingdom fishing fleet is to remain viable and competitive in Europe.
8.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I begin by paying tribute to the work done in his three years as the Minister responsible for Scottish fisheries by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Everyone involved in the industry will agree that he was indeed a doughty fighter, and I am aware that his combination of experience mixed with guile will make him a difficult act to follow. I also thank hon. Members for their kind remarks about my appointment.
We have had a useful debate. Decommissioning is an issue of great importance to the fishing industry, not least because it forms a crucial part of the Government's strategy for tackling the problems that we currently face—principally the fact that too many boats are chasing too few fish.
We are not alone in that. The problem is widespread. Within the European Union, we are addressing it by setting targets for the reduction of fishing effort, so everyone in Europe is heading for the same goal. We are committed to meeting the targets, and decommissioning will help us towards that goal. As is equally important, it will help us to achieve a more secure future for the fishing industry, which is what I believe all hon. Members who took part in the debate want.
It is surely right that we should be prepared to make sacrifices today to secure longer-term prosperity. That is why in January the Government announced a further £28 million for decommissioning over the next three years. To respond to a question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that £.12 million would be available each year for the next three years, not £12 million overall for the next three years.
The 1995 scheme represents an attempt to achieve a better balance between the number of fishing vessels and the number of fish. Some hon. Members have said that we should be prepared to provide more money overall, but that would require savings to be found elsewhere, and suggestions for that were rather thin on the ground during the debate. I hope and believe that we have the balance about right; £12 million of taxpayers' money this year and in each of the next two years is a significant and realistic contribution from public funds.
As has been said, that is only one part of the Government's on-going financial commitment to the fishing industry. We are spending large sums on monitoring fish stocks and on enforcing regulations, both of which we do in order to protect fishermen's incomes. We have also committed about £10 million to help with development at three Scottish fishing harbours, and there is the Pesca money, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned. I can tell him that it is not only local authorities that can come up with the
1534
matching funds. Others can come in too, notably local enterprise companies. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that in Grampian we have been able to secure the lion's share of the Pesca money.
Some hon. Members have said that we should be prepared to fix a higher level of compensation for vessel owners. However, the scheme is designed neither to provide social security nor to facilitate reinvestment. We ask fishermen to tell us how much they need to buy themselves out of the industry, and each person gives us a figure. We pick those that offer the best value for money so as to achieve the maximum reduction in capacity at the minimum cost.
Some people—such as the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—have criticised us for excluding nephrops. Of course, I recognise that there will be disappointment for vessel owners who would have liked to apply for decommissioning grants this year. But the bottom line is that we have met, and indeed exceeded, our European target for reducing capacity in the prawn fishery. We have reached that position because so many nephrops boats were successful in earlier rounds.
It would not be sensible—
Mr. Macdonald: I accept what the Minister is saying, at least with regard to area VI, but is not the logic of that that the fishery should now become eligible for reinvestment and rebuilding grants? If that is happening in the Northern Ireland fishery, will the Minister examine the case and find out whether the same terms could be applied to the west coast fishery?
Mr. Robertson: I shall come back to that, but Northern Ireland is a special case.
It would not be sensible or right to divert funds to achieve more decommissioning in the nephrops sector generally when other sectors are still so far short of their targets. For example, the important demersal trawling segment still has to be reduced by 17 per cent. to meet its multi-annual guidance programme target, while the beam trawler segment has to face a reduction of more than 35 per cent. to meet its target.
During the debate on the decommissioning scheme last year, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that the scheme should be more carefully targeted. He said that the scheme
"needs to be considered on a sectoral basis, where the pressure is."—[Official Report, 14 July 1995; Vol. 246, c. 1209.]
I find it odd that now he is criticising us for being more focused and considering quite carefully how best we can meet our MAGP targets.
It would be wrong for the Government to continue to reduce nephrops fishing capacity in a general way. Equally, we must have regard to the local impact of our decision to withdraw grants for decommissioning nephrops boats. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the position of the fleet in Northern Ireland requires more careful thought. The industry in Northern Ireland is in greater difficulty than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, with about half the fleet, which is much older than fleets elsewhere, in the nephrops sector. As my hon. Friend also said, the Government have concluded that Northern Ireland warrants special treatment to help with the process of restructuring.

1535
However, I make it clear to the House that I listen to what the industry says. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has suggested that because some whitefish vessels may move into the nephrops sector, the MAGP target for nephrops may not be met next year. I give the House a firm commitment that we shall review all the eligibility criteria next year in the light of vessel movements between sectors, and of the current round of decommissioning.
I assure hon. Members that if the MAGP target for nephrops is not met next year, the Government will be prepared to reintroduce those species into the scheme. I want hon. Members on both sides of the House to be clear that the exclusion of nephrops vessels this year in no way sets a precedent for 1996. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and his hon. Friends want to come to see me this time next year, when we sit down to prepare the initiative, of course my door will be open.
We should not allow the industry to wither on the vine. The Government share the industry's concern that its future profitability should lead to healthy reinvestment in modern vessels. Some hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, have said that we should reintroduce a scrap-and-build scheme aimed at ensuring that the age profile of the fleet does not become distorted. I fear that we cannot contemplate such a move while we are so far adrift from our capacity targets. To encourage investment now would increase rather than reduce our fishing effort.
However, I share hon. Members' concern that unsafe vessels should not be forced to sea by economic circumstances, placing the lives of their crews at risk.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Most of us want to see the introduction of a scrap-and-build policy because of the importance of making our fleet competitive. But if the Government are ruling that out totally, would it be
1536
possible to abolish the scrap-only policy and allow our boatyards to convert decommissioned vessels into, for example, pleasure boats, which provide employment in many coastal communities?
Mr. Robertson: On my first day as a Minister, I said to the industry what I shall say to the hon. Lady now—my door will be open for anyone to come in with constructive proposals for the future of the fishing industry and the fishing fleet. If the hon. Lady wants to come and see me with some of her constituents who are involved in the industry, she will find that my door is open.
We are committed to assisting in improvements to the safety of the fleet, and I commend to the House not just the decommissioning scheme, which will take out some of the older boats, but the safety improvement grants scheme, which will help upgrade the facilities of those that remain.
In conclusion, we have covered much ground in the debate. Some see the common fisheries policy as the source of all our ills, but there is no doubt that we would in any circumstances need to agree with our neighbours to share the common resources of the sea or the necessary means to avoid their decimation. Our targets are, I believe, equitable, and the costs of achieving them are borne in part by the EU. The Government are committed to working towards a more financially stable and secure fishing industry. I believe that the two schemes before the House will make a substantial contribution to that end, and I commend them both to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1609), dated 28th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1610), dated 4th July 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister to open the debate, it might be helpful to make it clear that the debate may cover all matters for which the Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
8.51 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £3,437 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £6,142 million, an increase of 4 per cent. on the 1994–95 provisional outturn. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1993–94.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office for law and order services are not covered by the order.
As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £155 million. In vote 1, some £21 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom.
In addition to the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £6 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants. Some £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
In vote 2, some £133 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £38 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services. Some £23 million is for central administration, and £5 million is for the rural development programme.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, some £135 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable the board to continue to support and assist industrial development in Northern Ireland, mainly through the provision of factory buildings and selective assistance to industry.
The terrorist ceasefires announced last year, coupled with overseas interest in Northern Ireland as an attractive investment location, have significantly improved the prospect of achieving and sustaining higher levels of economic growth in the next few years. The board will continue actively to assist firms to set up and expand in Northern Ireland, and has set itself a target of securing 20 inward investment projects, involving some 4,500 job promotions during the current year.
1538
In vote 2, some £95 million is required. Some £33 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will allow the agency to maintain its excellent track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of small firms in Northern Ireland.
Some £16 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, primarily to promote the competitiveness of local companies through increased industrial innovation, research and development and by technology transfer. This underlines the importance that the Government attach to helping Northern Ireland industry to grasp the emerging technological opportunities which underpin successful economic development.
Finally in this vote, £13.6 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. While 1994 saw the sixth consecutive rise in visitor figures—with a record 1.29 million people coming to Northern Ireland—the prospects, with the continuing ceasefires, for this year and beyond are very encouraging, with increasing interest in what Northern Ireland has to offer as a holiday destination.
In vote 3, £203 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This will enable the agency to continue to provide a range of comprehensive training and support measures, and includes £77 million to fund almost 16,000 places under a new job skills training programme, and for on-going expenditure on a new training facility in west Belfast.
Some £55 million is for the Action for Community Employment programme, which will provide some 10,000 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £18 million spread over a number of programmes is to assist companies improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their work force, and to provide training for those intending to pursue management careers in industry.
In respect of the Department of the Environment, in vote 1, £180 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes some £150 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. Emphasis continues to be placed on the maintenance of the road system, with expenditure of almost £1 million more than in 1994–95.
The maintenance programme is complemented by new road construction, and local minor road improvement and safety schemes. Construction work on stage 1 of the Belfast cross-harbour road bridge project was completed in 1994. Work on the second stage of the project linking the M3 Lagan bridge to the Sydenham bypass is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997.
Vote 2 covers housing, where some £203 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be some £593 million. That is an increase of £20 million over 1994–95, and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Vote 3 covers expenditure on water and sewerage services, on which gross expenditure is estimated at £202 million. Some £94 million is for capital expenditure, and £108 million for operational and maintenance purposes.
In vote 4, £142 million is for environmental services. That includes some £35 million for urban regeneration measures, which continue to be targeted at areas of social,

1539
economic and environmental needs. As in previous years, it will generate much higher overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector. Provision for the new Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Agency, launched in April 1995, is also covered within this vote.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,380 million, an increase of 4.3 per cent. over last year's provision. Vote 1 includes £842 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £39 million over 1994–95. That includes £794 million for schools and colleges of further education, which will help maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels. Some £48 million is for libraries, youth services and administration and £41 million is for boards' capital projects.
That includes the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. Some £143 million is for voluntary schools, and £15 million is for integrated schools, an increase of some £4 million over 1994–95.
In vote 2, £119 million is for local universities, to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some £124 million is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including some £16 million for arts and museums and some £3 million for community relations.
Mr. Roy Beggs: How much of the money allocated to education in Northern Ireland is contributed to meeting the cost of educating in Northern Ireland students from the Irish Republic? Does the United Kingdom manage to get that money back from the European Union?
Sir John Wheeler: I cannot supply an answer off the cuff on how much money from the estimates is spent on educating persons from the Republic of Ireland, but if I can give the hon. Gentleman more detailed information in the fulness of time, I shall ensure that he has it.
Mr. William Ross: I have listened carefully as the right hon. Gentleman has detailed the sums to be spent on various aspects of education. He will be well aware that a large school building programme was launched in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of those schools had a fairly limited design life, and are now coming to the end of it. What provision are the Government making in future years to replace those schools?
Sir John Wheeler: I am indeed aware that many of the school buildings erected in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s, as was common elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in other countries too, have perhaps completed their useful cycle. That concern is borne in upon me by the Minister of State who is responsible for the Department of Education. He urges upon me the necessity of finding ever-increasing sums of money to meet that particular difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall attend to it when the coffers permit.
In vote 3, gross provision of some £224 million is for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £122 million for the Social Security Agency, £19
1540
million for the Child Support Agency, and some £13 million for the health and personal social services management executive.
In vote 4, £1,463 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 5.8 per cent. on last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1995, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In vote 5, £406 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living fund, housing benefit, the social fund and payments to the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Finally on the Department of Finance and Personnel, within votes 1 and 3, some £5.6 million is for the community relations programme. Together with the expenditure by the Department of Education, total spending on the community relations programme will be some £8.7 million. That reflects the importance which the Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the points raised. I commend the order to the House.
9.7 pm
Mr. John Spellar: A couple of weeks ago the House considered the renewal of direct rule. That debate necessarily concentrated, although not exclusively, on political issues and the peace process. Today's appropriation debate traditionally allows us, as the Minister made clear, to consider the day-to-day economic issues facing Northern Ireland. Some of those are problems shared with the rest of the United Kingdom, while others are more specialised and unique to Northern Ireland. Although I wish to be comprehensive in my coverage of those issues, I am aware that a number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want to participate in the debate and raise particular issues of concern to their constituents.
I should like to deal first with the economy. We greatly welcome the recent reduction in levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland, especially among the long-term unemployed. We also welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgement in his speech to the House on 5 July that that rate is still too high. We note the extremely high levels of unemployment in some especially deprived areas. Although we record the significant progress already made, we must do more to reduce the appalling level of unemployment, which, let us remind ourselves, is still officially around 12 per cent. We must especially try to reduce long-term unemployment, which is one fifth of that total—a far greater proportion than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those levels of unemployment are economically disastrous and socially damaging, as I am sure that we are all aware. We want action to target social need and to tackle the relative deprivation of specific areas and pockets in Northern Ireland. Measures to tackle unemployment must be accompanied by enforced fair employment legislation. In that, I commend the proposals recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
The recent reduction in unemployment also reflects the encouraging fact that Northern Ireland industry is enjoying similar growth to the rest of the country in the

1541
manufacturing sector and is ahead of the game on export-led growth. As the Minister and the House will be aware, that was reinforced by figures in yesterday's Financial Times, showing that Northern Ireland had the fastest growth this year of any region in the United Kingdom.
We should also acknowledge that, since our last appropriation debate in the Chamber, there has been welcome news of new orders for Shorts and for Harland and Wolff—both important employers, and key parts of the sector employing skilled and technical labour in Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff received an order from British Petroleum for a floating production system, which is especially welcome as it may well offer access to a whole new world market as oil production moves further and further offshore.
The Ministers will remember that both Opposition Front-Benchers and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have pressed that case, and the need to secure the future of Harland and Wolff, very strongly in the Chamber, and I am sure that we all welcome the news.
We are awaiting the follow-up from the Washington conference and hoping for new investment for other industries from that. We need to echo tonight the concerns expressed by Baroness Denton that the recent disturbances should not discourage inward investors and frustrate the strenuous efforts that we have all put in on behalf of Northern Ireland and inward investment there.
Inward investment—increased investment from the United States and elsewhere—will provide some new job opportunities, we hope a considerable number, in the medium to long term. However, as Labour Members have repeatedly emphasised from the Dispatch Box, Northern Ireland urgently needs a new economic strategy, including an immediate action programme for jobs and longer-term measures focusing on investment, innovation and training. I notice the figures in the Minister's report emphasising the work being put into training, but we must ensure that, for example, the modern apprenticeship ends up with real apprenticeship leading to real skilled work, instead of being regarded as a make-weight training measure.
Northern Ireland needs a change of direction and a new economic strategy that includes measures to help small businesses, which comprise a considerable sector—indeed, a far larger sector of business in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK economy—a unified framework for skills training, incentives for businesses to take on long-term unemployed people and to focus on long-term unemployed people, and improvements in nursery care to help in that process.
I say in a slightly stronger tone that we are worried that the Government might be seen to be undermining some of those efforts by ignoring their own guidelines on fair treatment. I shall refer to those later.
However, the fruits of that endeavour are more in the future, and other sectors have considerable difficulties now. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I once again draw attention to the plight of the construction industry and, more, that I accuse his Department of complacency in its response to the industry's difficulties.
Let us be frank. The problems that confront the industry partly result from a welcome outcome of the peace—the reduction in property damage, in the work undertaken to rectify that and in insurance claims. The Minister will know that I mentioned the problems of the construction
1542
industry in the appropriation debate on 8 March 1995. Since then, we have suggested to the Department many measures that could alleviate the crisis. Not only have Opposition Front Benchers drawn attention to that, but the Northern Ireland construction employers have lobbied Ministers and the Department. I also know that that concern is shared by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who see the situation unfolding. From here, the response seems to be complacency and inertia. The main priority seems to be dogma-driven administrative reorganisation—perhaps arranging a trade sale from the Highways Agency. We are seeing political gestures rather than ways of dealing with the economic realities.
It is not as though the need does not exist. When we discussed appropriation measures in March the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)—I see that he is present tonight—raised the need of Lame harbour and the transport system in his constituency. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) highlighted the problem of more rural roads in his constituency. The auditor general has put the backlog of road maintenance at £60 million, while the Minister referred to an extra £1 million for road maintenance. The question one must ask is how far that will go to rectify the £60 million backlog?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has announced a welcome, if slightly over-hyped, expansion of the school-building programme. That lies behind the question by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). We have pressed the Department to accelerate the programme. We should remember that the money has already been committed and budgeted for in the Northern Ireland budget. The replies have been extremely complacent. That complacency was to some extent reflected in what we heard from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), tonight. The money has been budgeted for and, by bringing forward the programme, we could start stimulating the construction industry.
There is a similar picture in housing. There were only 567 new starts in the public sector in the first quarter of this year, in the face of increasing housing need. There are 22,000 people on the waiting list in Northern Ireland—7,000 in the Belfast area alone. The result of all that in the industry—not my figure or the construction employers' figure, but the figure in the Government's own press release of 10 July—is a 14.5 per cent. drop in construction activity in Northern Ireland over the past year. That is the reality facing the industry and those who work in it. That reality also faces the thousands of young men who hoped to work in the industry, but who now have idle hands.
Unfortunately, for the Government, the dogmas of competitive tendering, hiving off, market testing and—a new word to have entered the political vocabulary—agentisation, are a higher priority. Not only does that distract from the urgent tasks in hand, but it is extremely worrying for the future of Northern Ireland.
The Opposition know the commitment of local councillors and local councils to working for their communities. Today, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), has been in Ards attending the sixth in a series of economic conferences with local councils, industry, unions and the community. My hon. Friend the Member

1543
for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has also been over there. We know the impressive commitment of those local councils.
The Government, for their part, have stated their objective clearly. They say that they wish to restore greater power and responsibility to Northern Ireland's locally elected representatives within a framework of new political agreements which would attract widespread support and take account of Northern Ireland's wider relationship with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. But the question that underlies that is: what will those locally elected representatives be left to run?
At an accelerating speed the Northern Ireland Office is forcing the pace of breaking up and contracting out, even at the expense of its own fair employment guidelines. It seems to be trying to run a scorched earth policy in Northern Ireland. The philosophy seems to be that if the Northern Ireland Office cannot run it, none of the locally elected representatives can. That is a profoundly undemocratic approach and is extremely worrying for the future and development of local authority work in Northern Ireland and attempts to give responsibility and decision-making powers to those representatives.
That approach can be demonstrated even more graphically in the health service, where the fanatical commitment to compulsory competitive tendering has united opposition across the political spectrum and the communities, not least in the Down and Lisburn area. Here the Government have chosen to allow trusts blatantly to ignore their policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines. Yet, in response to problems raised by some of the American legislative representatives, they use those guidelines to reassure the American Administration of their good intentions in the area of equal opportunities. The Government have ignored the unequal manner in which cuts will affect women employees who face reductions in wages and conditions.
The opposition to the changes goes far beyond the immediate work force and its unions—Unison and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. It extends throughout the community, including local councils—I have met local representatives from all political parties—and Members of Parliament, most notably those from the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party.
The Government seem to have learnt nothing from their disastrous experience of changing the health service in Great Britain, which has caused massive disruption and a huge increase in bureaucracy. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to some of the unfortunate results of the changes that have taken place in England and Wales. Instead, the Government are moving at break-neck speed to establish the same system in Northern Ireland, against the overwhelming wishes of the people and of their elected representatives.
Popular opposition has had some success in slowing down the Government's drive in one area. That opposition, combined with some administrative difficulties, has slowed down the drive towards privatising water. As a consequence, the Government made the welcome announcement that there would be no privatisation of water this side of the next general election.
1544
However, it is also true that the Government's attempts to strip the water authorities of most of their functions will make them a very easy target for privatisation in the unlikely event that the Conservatives win the next general election. It will make the water authorities very vulnerable to a trade sale and, in the meantime, the water industry will be undermined considerably.
We have learnt from the privatisation of water in England and Wales that the certain outcomes are that water charges will increase, metering will be installed, and the fat cats in charge of the water industry will get even fatter. But the people of Northern Ireland do not have to look to England to see what privatisation means in practice. Electricity privatisation has not narrowed the gap between electricity prices in Northern Ireland and in Britain, which has widened to an estimated 30 per cent. That is obviously of enormous concern to hard-pressed householders in Northern Ireland as well as in terms of inward investment.
I understand that representatives from some of the Northern Ireland parties have met the Minister to discuss the issue. They have expressed their concern at the dramatically widening gap in electricity prices. They are extremely worried that, despite some expressions of concern, the Government have taken no action in that area. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will be able to give those Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland some idea of what will be done to close that substantial gap, which has widened even further.
We have put forward some specific proposals. But when Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and I pressed for the transfer of sulphur quotas from England to Northern Ireland, the result was yet more inertia. It is quite astonishing that the Government can transfer carbon dioxide quotas within the European Union from the northern European countries to Spain and yet find it impossible to transfer sulphur quotas from England to Northern Ireland. That is a disgrace. The Northern Ireland Office should press the Department of the Environment to ensure that that transfer takes place.
As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could refer to a host of other issues—I see the relieved look on your face now that I have indicated that I do not intend to pursue them. I recognise the state of play in this parliamentary Session—I hope to be called by the Chair to speak next Session—and I also recognise the need for Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to put their constituents' cases.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to pay greater heed to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and to draw back from the application of rigid dogma, of which I hope that I have given some examples tonight.
9.24 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps the small number of Northern Ireland Members here tonight pinpoints a certain insensitivity on the part of the Northern Ireland Office—arranging the debate to suit itself—or of the business managers. Someone, it seems, was unaware that this is the high holiday period in Northern Ireland. Others can take their holidays in August with their families, but this is our holiday time. Hitherto, this debate has always been held in the last week of June. I repeat: we are right in the middle of the main holiday period in Northern Ireland.

1545
I should like to mention another sort of insensitivity as well. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) mentioned a meeting of representatives of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party with the Prime Minister, to deal with economic issues. I confess that we sometimes wonder what the agenda really is.
That meeting should have made the headlines, but, as certain people emerged from the meeting with the Prime Minister, they carried with them—furtively—the announcement that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was to shake hands in Washington with the erstwhile Member for Belfast, West—who never sat in this place but who, when he did not win a seat, wanted to come and speak here.
As a result, we have witnessed a charade which has meant that the wrong headlines in the newspapers displaced one of the most important developments in Northern Ireland for some time. I mention that merely because I believe that the House should be aware of some of the problems. We are sometimes told that, if all the parties in Northern Ireland will work together for the good of all the people, things will happen. Latterly, it has appeared to us that there is a different agenda. Things do not happen when we work together, as the hon. Member for Warley, West said of council co-operation.
In June last year, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), winding up the debate, chided us for not talking up Northern Ireland. He said that anyone listening would have heard only laments and groans. I said then that part of our task is to pinpoint areas of need, but today I want to record some of the promising developments in the Province.
There has been reference to cuts in the construction industry. Earlier, the Minister referred to the cross-harbour bridge. The contract for that was completed within time and within budget—one of the few occasions in the United Kingdom when such work has been completed within the contract time and budget. The construction industry could have been rewarded by being allowed to get on with the much needed second-stage development.
In Northern Ireland, we await the arrival of supermarkets which have spotted an opportunity there. Some of us have been telling them about the opportunity for a long time. They did not need the so-called peace process to give them the dividend they want. Entrepreneurial people in Marks and Spencer, British Home Stores and other groups have already discovered better returns on their investments in Northern Ireland. In the worst possible times they were prepared to do the best possible things—and they succeeded.
I hope that those who come in future will make equally successful investments; but the infrastructure could already have been under way in North Down and the cross-harbour reaches. I look forward to an early start on completing the project.
There are other important matters. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked the then Minister how many pure visitors there were in total. We were later given a figure of one in five. I wonder whether the purity has increased, or whether the ethnic people are still coming back.
We are always accused of having showery weather, but this year we have had outstanding weather and have sent many a person back to the homeland blistered and burnt
1546
because they did not expect that it would be so warm in Northern Ireland. It is a good place for tourists and visitors. I have to be frank and admit that, as in some other places, there is a "not in my back yard" approach, because we want the beaches for ourselves. However, we welcome tourists and visitors.
As the Minister has responsibility for the environment, I hope that tonight he will help us on questions that have been regularly raised about Orlit houses. Last time, they were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). Will Northern Ireland and its people continue to be disadvantaged when others have been helped along with that poor housing which was built in the past?
I come now to the vote for the Department of Education, and in particular a thorny problem which is causing deep concern. I admit that we are told that it is only for discussion at this stage, and that the Minister has not yet made his decision. But we have been down this road many times, and it has been rare that Ministers in Northern Ireland have gone back on a discussion document and overruled the thinking that has come forth from the Department.
I refer to the wonderful decision that the best way to reform education provision in Northern Ireland is to cut the number of boards from five to four, and to amalgamate the Belfast education and library board with the South Eastern education and library board. That is supposed to save about £2 million. But when one takes into account the redundancy payments to those who will be laid off, I suspect that that figure will be neutralised, so that cannot be a valid reason.
The consensus among those involved is that the amalgamation is a bad idea, and is on the table only so that the Department can save face. It was not even an option in the first consultation period. It became an option only when the Department found out that its other proposals would not work. The South Eastern board represents a massive, largely rural area. The proposal has been brought forward by a Department which has meddled in a sectarian way with the administration of education in the Province.
The five boards supervised the controlled schools, the maintained schools and the integrated schools right up to the Department. As I understand it, they have worked remarkably well, but, at the behest of one branch of the Church, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools was brought into being. As a result, the mainline Protestant denominations, who in the past were pioneers in the provision of education facilities in Northern Ireland, transferred their schools with the understanding that there would be an education system for people in Northern Ireland. They were given transferrers' rights, and, bit by bit, those rights have been eroded. Why?
I want to put it on the record that I have been invited on 2 September as a former student in Magee university college to mark the 150th anniversary of the Martha McCrea Foundation. That was a liberal arts college in Londonderry with a theological faculty attached, which was open from the outset to all students irrespective of where they came from. In my day, it was attended by members of the Roman Catholic community.
Because the administration of Northern Ireland observed the letter of the law as laid down in the Government of Ireland Act 1921, as I went to that college,

1547
I was not given a scholarship. I was qualified to attend either Queen's university, Belfast or Trinity college, Dublin; had I attended either, I would have been eligible for both scholarship and grant.
We are told that Northern Ireland has discriminated against the Roman Catholic community in favour of the Protestant community. It seems to me that discrimination at that level began only under so-called direct rule. I believe that more than £2 million has been set aside this year for the administration of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Is that why one of the boards—where both Roman Catholics and Protestants are employed—must be got rid of? Is it to finance that departure in the education system?
Will the Minister reconsider the foolish suggestion that has been made? The proposed amalgamation is likely to affect the education of children in both border areas. It will create a super-board much larger than the others; administration will be unwieldy, and it is feared that the less well-off areas will siphon off a disproportionate amount of the available funds.
My hon. Friends have already raised the issue of the fabric of our schools. I am talking not only about maintained schools, but about controlled schools—schools that were built just after the war. I went to a grammar school whose prefabricated buildings were erected after the first world war; I visited the same classroom 30 years later. We are now asking young people to attend classes in prefabricated structures, 40 or 50 years after those structures were built.
One such building is in what is now known as Wellington college, in south Belfast. In an attempt to meet the Government's demand for co-education and rationalisation, Carolan grammar school—a girls' school—was amalgamated with Annadale grammar school, a boys' school, to form Wellington college. Development was promised, but it has not taken place. Now the intention is to move Deramore high school—which was a secondary modern—to Larkfield, leaving the inner city of Belfast devoid of secondary state education.
We have argued against it, but the intention is to move the growing enrolment of young people at Wellington college to the Deramore buildings. That is intended to happen in September, but no money is available for the improvements that are required to bring the school up to the standard that is needed for modern grammar school education, particularly in science. That is a scandal and a disgrace.
Other avenues must be considered. One school has had financial provision for the employment of an additional teacher this coming September. The school, however, is bulked out and no accommodation is available. When the case for the additional teacher was made, surely the school's plea for additional accommodation funding should have been heeded. Here we have an extra teacher with no place. If this summer weather continues, perhaps she will go back to teach in the old hedge schools, out in the hedges of the country.
The irony is that, one year ago, a school not five miles away was allowed to dispose of a mobile classroom for £150.
Mr. Beggs: I know a little about the disposal of mobile classrooms. The fact that that mobile was disposed of for
1548
£150 would suggest that it was in the same state as many of the mobiles in the North Eastern education and library board region, where we could not even get an offer of £150 for one mobile, because of the poor and dangerous state into which it had developed over the years.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but the my point is that, if that mobile was available and had been used at that school, but was surplus to requirements, and if the school could not afford either a new mobile or an extended building, surely better housekeeping arrangements should have been made than disposing of the mobile for £150, and leaving a school with an extra teacher and extra children, but no place in which to teach them.
May I turn to health? A problem is developing in Northern Ireland which I have discovered has also developed in England and Wales and in Scotland. That problem involves the closure especially of geriatric facilities and statutory homes. Ostensibly, the reason for closing and disposing of many of those homes is that they are out of date, and that it would cost too much to modernise them.
Too many residential and nursing homes have been provided in the private sector. Sooner or later, we will come unstuck on that one, as the owners will not be making the profit that they should be making, and we do not have the statutory provision.
What I have discovered is causing a great deal of concern where health needs exists. Who pays for health need in a residential nursing home? Is it, as here, the local authority, under social services, or is it the health service? In Northern Ireland, that should not be a problem, because there is an integrated health and social services system. However, an elderly person was put into a nursing home not because that was the family's choice—remember "patients first", and that "patients' choice" is the cry—but because the doctor could not get the lady into a hospital. No bed was available, so they had to put her into the nursing home, and of course the family must pick up the tab.
I understood that, in the national health service, we have treatment free at the point of delivery. When that matter was raised with the Minister, the answer came back that the general practitioner was acting as the agent of the family; but the GP was acting simply as a doctor who had a patient who needed hospital care, which was not provided or available, and which had to be provided in a nursing home. That argument is false.
Having said that, I put it on record that the South and East Belfast community trust is one of the most progressive community trusts in the United Kingdom. In fact, it has been taking part in a European experiment, and will in all probability be the United Kingdom's centre of excellence for care in the community. I pay tribute to the trust's board, executive and staff, who are pushing ahead to get the best possible care for people in the community. That is the thrust of our community care programme.
People discovered, as some of us on the Select Committee said some years ago, that it may not necessarily be cheap care. Some went in for community care because they thought that it would save money on long-term care, but, if the average person is looked after in his own home, he will find that, no matter where he roams, there is no place like home. That notion is being found helpful in the south Belfast area.

1549
I now raise a subject that affects everyone, and certainly those involved in looking after young people under five who have special needs. The bureaucratic approach is to state that a child under five can be wheeled in a pram. I remember that, when I was a lad, my mother wheeled me to school, then to hospital, and then back to school for five or six weeks, but I am not speaking now of such a situation. I am thinking of a child who might not even be expected to live beyond five years but who, at three years old, needs to be lifted and led, as they say.
I received a letter from a Minister saying that it is not the diagnosis but the effect that is the deciding factor. Therefore, a youngster who is unable to walk, who is partially sighted and who has other problems, is supposed to be left at home. I disagree entirely, because someone will have to be at home to look after him. The parents will then have to take the youngster with them, but the youngster cannot go on public transport. He needs a private taxi, because the parents cannot afford a car and do not qualify for a mobility allowance, because of a bureaucratic decision that children under five do not need it.
The Northern Ireland Office has experimented in other spheres; perhaps it should now lead the rest of the nation in acting more humanely. One may be taught the theory of social care, and one may even be involved in hospital work, but unless one is faced with a child such as I have described, one cannot understand the real problems. I ask the Minister to think again about the problem.
I shall conclude, because my colleagues want to speak. I am, however, aware that we have a bit longer than usual tonight, because of the absence of some who might have spoken for an hour if they had had the opportunity. We have been talking about building a complete European network and building tunnels, so may I ask whether any consideration has been given to bridging the most expensive expanse of water by building a tunnel from Portpatrick to Donaghadee?
9.48 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We tend, in these debates, to go round the houses, the street lamps and the pot holes, but my hon. Friends and I will do our best to keep our comments reasonably to the point and try to stick to the important issues that we can think of.
I want to mention just one constituency matter that is relevant to the Department of the Environment vote 3 on water and sewerage services. I had the unfortunate experience of making representations to have a drainage pipe fitted in Ballycorr road, Ballyclare, so that flooding of houses there, which had gone on for years, would cease. I am glad to say that, eventually, the work was done. I was assured that everything was under control and that I would not need to bring my plumbing expertise to bear any longer. Unfortunately, there was flooding again last month and there has been more flooding this month.
I raise the point for one reason. I was informed by my constituents that, when they asked why the problem had recurred, they were told quite bluntly by those who came to see them that it recurred because there was not enough money to fit the proper pipe. Will the Minister tell the House whether that was indeed the case and whether piecemeal work was done—not to solve the problem, but to keep a few people quiet? Is not that a waste of money? If the money is not supplied at the beginning and the proper size piping is not fitted, public money is wasted.
1550
I again put on record my and—I am sure—my party's objection to water privatisation in Northern Ireland. We are glad that it is not going ahead, but we would still oppose such a proposal if it were to be presented some time in the future.
I shall move on to the Department of Health and Social Services vote and raise a matter that is dear to the heart—perhaps that is the wrong expression—of some of my hon. Friends. I refer, of course, to the Child Support Agency. As I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security and since I have a little experience of the subject, I receive an awful lot of the complaints made to my hon. Friends which need investigation.
I had a case recently of a working wife. A court decided that payments were to be made to her. She has three children and had been receiving a very small amount of family credit, but when those payments came to the notice of the CSA, she was immediately put on its books. Unfortunately, when the assessment was made, the court order was stopped by the CSA and she received no money from the courts. Not only did she not receive court order payments, she did not receive any money from the CSA either. The CSA simply said, "Hard luck, that is the way that it works. We are afraid that we cannot do anything for you." Naturally I am raising that matter in other places, but I must put it on record that, if that is the way the legislation works—I understand that it is—it is a disgrace.
I have said before in the House that every party agreed with the child support operation and that it should work for the benefit of children and those who look after them. When the House passes legislation that creates a problem such as I have described, the sooner it is cleared up the better.
Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, such is the stress and strain being put on many young men in Northern Ireland who are setting up second homes, but who feel a real duty to children by a former wife, they are almost on the point of nervous breakdown? As an alternative, they are contemplating giving up secure employment because they cannot afford to live on what is left of their earnings after the CSA payments are taken out.
Does my hon. Friend agree that greater allowance must be given to responsible fathers who seek to provide overnight stays for their children, sometimes for as many as 100 days a year, so that they can keep the family relationship going? Those men get no relief from payment and some change must be made soon.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I know that such things are happening not only in Northern Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom. The legislation does not allow for certain expenses, so problems occur. I am sure that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department concerned are examining the problem to see whether things can be made a little easier. The object of the exercise was to look after the children. It would be most unfortunate if those who are in employment were to give up their job to look after their second family.
Leaving the legislation to one side, we find that there are still incorrect assessments. We also find that, when assessments are made, they are not being paid—sometimes for good reasons. It takes too long to make assessments, and arrears may go back some time to when assessments were first made. Those who want to pay and to look after their children, and those who need the money

1551
to look after the children, find themselves heavily in debt, which causes great problems. I hope that the Department is still considering that problem, which applies—unfortunately—to the whole of the United Kingdom. Child support is an example of a very good idea that seems to have gone wrong.
In Northern Ireland, the attendance allowance board has to decide whether an allowance should be paid in certain medical cases. It made decisions about young children with diabetes, but, sadly, its decisions were different from those taken in Great Britain. When I asked the Minister about those decisions, he simply said that they were a matter for the attendance allowance board.
I should like the Minister to tell me—he can write to me if he does not have the answer now—who made the policy decision that the attendance allowance board in Northern Ireland would not treat young children with diabetes in the same way as they were being treated in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a simple question. To say that the Northern Ireland attendance allowance board treated children in Northern Ireland differently from children in Scotland, in Wales and in England is not an answer. I want the Minister to tell me who made the policy decision that children with diabetes in Northern Ireland should be treated differently from children in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am also rather worried about planning, where changes are proposed. Although we like changes in planning if we think that they will mean an improvement, the situation is not satisfactory if we still find different decisions being made in different parts of Northern Ireland. Planning permission is given for golf courses all over Northern Ireland, yet other applications which seem to have a good case are disregarded. There must be a lot of golfers among the planners; we certainly have a lot of golf courses.
For example, planning permission was given for a golf course in part of my constituency but, for whatever reason, the scheme did not go ahead. Quite nearby, a church required its manse to be extended but, because the existing building could not be extended, there was an application for planning permission for a new manse close to the church. When the people there inquired about the application, they were told that they had no chance of getting permission for the much-needed manse even though it was for a minister who encourages many local activities other than golf—including some sport and all sorts of other things—which are good for the rural community. I hope that, although the initial inquiry was frowned on, good sense will provide an answer.
Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the cases in which the agricultural requirement for planning permission in rural areas should be set aside. The matter has been overlooked in the past. Can we rest assured that planners will be instructed to treat dwellings for clergy on the same basis as agricultural buildings?
Mr. Forsythe: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister is listening. I am sure that he is. As he is a sympathetic Minister, I am sure that he will give us a good answer.
I hope that the Pensions Bill will be introduced in Northern Ireland as quickly as it is in Great Britain—even simultaneously, perhaps. There are still some aspects of it
1552
with which we disagree, such as the lack of pensioner trustees. None the less, I hope that it will be introduced in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the Eastern health board, which looks after Muckamore Abbey, a hospital for mentally handicapped patients that lies in the Northern health board area. Unfortunately, the Eastern board—or, rather, its successor—is thinking about making changes or, perhaps, even closing it.
It would cause great sadness if all the dedicated and expert staff were pushed to one side and disregarded. Many patients in Muckamore Abbey need to be in such a hospital. Although the hospital is funded by the Eastern board, the patients come from all over Northern Ireland. The hospital has a tremendous reputation and has been doing a wonderful job for years, so I hope that that it and the expertise there will not be lost to the whole community in Northern Ireland. It should not be beyond the scope of the Department to make its views known, and to say that the abbey should be updated to continue to look after those who are unable to go into the community. There are still many people who are not able to do that.
The last thing that I want to mention is the statement made today in the House about the Nolan report. Can the Minister tell us what the situation is with regard to the report's application in Northern Ireland? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today:
"We shall act quickly and positively on the Nolan committee's recommendations concerning appointments and propriety in public bodies".
In other words, quangos. He went on to say:
"In particular we shall appoint a new commissioner for public appointments to offer guidance, monitor and audit departmental appointment procedures. This post will be advertised in a matter of days."
Will the commissioner cover Northern Ireland? Will he be responsible for the quangos that are created in Northern Ireland? Are we to have a separate commissioner in Northern Ireland? Will we have a committee, as is mentioned in recommendations 36 and 37 in the Government's response to the Nolan committee? The recommendations say that all appointments to such bodies
"should be made after advice from a Panel or Committee which includes an independent element."
Recommendations 34 and 35 of the Government's response to the Nolan committee really hit home as far as Northern Ireland Members are concerned. Recommendation 34 talks about merit, and says that
"The Government welcomes the recommendation which reflects, as the Committee recognises, a long-standing and continuing practice which is 'deeply ingrained in British public life'."
Members of my party would certainly agree with that, although there have been a number of occasions when we have felt that that has not been applied in Northern Ireland.
Recommendation 35 talks about the skills and balance of those who are appointed to such bodies. I am afraid that there has not been a great deal of balance in those appointed to be members of such bodies in Northern Ireland. Even if the Minister does not tell us that all of the measures are to be applied in Northern Ireland, I hope that he will have read the Government's response to the Nolan committee report and that he will see that it is

1553
implemented as soon as possible in Northern Ireland. I can assure the Minister that that would be one case when he would have our full support.
10.8 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Vote 2 addresses expenditure for housing services, including certain grants in aid. Throughout my constituency, the right to buy introduced by the Government has encouraged and enabled many former tenants to purchase their homes from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. These new owner-occupiers have made impressive improvements to their homes. Many of those who have recently purchased their homes do not qualify for any modernisation grant. Neighbouring properties still owned by the Housing Executive are undergoing extensive renovation and refurbishment, so those who recently purchased their homes and do not qualify for a grant feel, to some extent, let down. Another concern is replacement grant, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will deal.
I appeal for greater priority to be given by the Housing Executive to providing adequate heating facilities in all the older Housing Executive properties. Many of those properties are more than 30 years old and still have only one heating point. In many, the high cost of electricity prohibits sufficient heating to prevent dampness and mildew on walls and ceilings, which even causes dampness to bedclothes. The provision of adequate heating could contribute significantly to improving the general health of adults and young children in many housing estates throughout Northern Ireland.
Therefore, will the Minister endeavour to ensure that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has sufficient funds available to approve grants to applicants who seek to carry out much-needed improvements to their homes? Families in my constituency are living in mobiles because the old farm accommodation is not up to public health standards and people have been waiting for months for approval from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but apparently insufficient money is available. If work is started before approval is given, no grant is payable.
So here is an opportunity, at a time when we need to assist the construction industry, to protect thousands of jobs and create hundreds of new ones, to make money available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable it to grant approvals so that people can get on with home improvements.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be even more helpful if the Housing Executive collected all the details required at once, instead of spinning it out over months and then, rather than simply allocating on the date of application, give priority to those with greatest need for weather proofing or whatever else is required in their homes?
Mr. Beggs: I endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion. When people make an application, it is important that the officer who visits the home takes a little time while he is there to offer guidance so that the applicants know precisely all that is required of them. Sadly, the Housing Executive makes too many repeat requests to applicants for additional information. Regrettably, it does not start consideration within the grant approval queue until all the information that it requests is available. I hope that
1554
managers will exercise good sense and, where it is urgently required, keep a roof over people's heads by granting approval at an early date, but if the Housing Executive's regional office does not have the funds to release, nobody can benefit.
I mentioned the priority that should be given to upgrading heating in people's homes and the difficulties experienced because people cannot afford the expense of electricity in Northern Ireland. I was disappointed that the Minister of State who opened this debate, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), made no reference to anything being done in the immediate future to reduce the high cost of electricity to both domestic and industrial consumers. I simply ask when we can expect a significant reduction in electricity prices in Northern Ireland.
The water service staff of the Department of the Environment have been responsive to the cries for help from my constituents of Fernagh drive, Fernagh gardens and Fernagh avenue of Newtownabbey, County Antrim, when their properties and homes have been flooded. It is an absolute disgrace that the occupiers of those houses should lose carpets and all their household furniture on the ground floor every time there is a heavy rainfall. That occurred most recently on 11 June, when heavy rainfall draining into the sewage and storm drain disposal system resulted in a foul mix of rainwater and sewage flooding backyards and entering sub-floors through ventilators. Because that water could not get away, it built up and entered homes underneath back doors. Those unfortunate householders have lost everything, and not for the first time. The Department is aware of the problem. Help is what is needed now, not sympathy from officials.
The roadway at Fernagh gardens does not even have a single gulley to take rainwater away. If there ever were any gulleys on that roadway, they have been tarmacked over for a long time. It is obvious that the existing sewerage and rainwater drainage system cannot cope, so I appeal to the Minister to take steps to see that that nuisance does not happen again. My constituents deserve to be protected from future flooding and that will be possible only when a proper drainage and sewerage system is put in place.
Can the Minister tell the House whether any provision is being made to enable area boards to build new nursery schools or to adapt empty classrooms in primary schools to create nursery wings? Are any additional training courses being funded by the Department of Education to provide the trained staff who will be required to cater for those children who will benefit from the increased access to pre-school nursery education that has been announced for Northern Ireland, commencing in the school year, 1996–97?
Is there sufficient funding in the allocations that have been announced tonight to address the urgent need to replace old school buildings, some of which are in a dangerous condition? Is there sufficient funding to replace mobile classrooms across Northern Ireland with permanent accommodation? Will funding be made available to help voluntary grammar schools, such as Dalriada in North Antrim, where parents have already contributed to raise their share of the necessary funding for new modern facilities to enable the national curriculum to be delivered? When those in the private sector have spent years fund raising and collected the required amount, it is a great pity that progress,

1555
redevelopment and new improvements are delayed because the Department of Education cannot match that private funding.
I would like an assurance tonight that, subject to a suitable site being obtained in the Millbrook-Larne area of my constituency, such expenditure as is necessary will be made available to the North Eastern education and library board to enable Millbrook primary school to be relocated to a safer and more secure site.
In common with the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), my colleagues and I welcome the steady decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, we have a long way to go in tackling the problems of long-term unemployment.
At this time of great expectation of increased inward investment, may I again place on record the growing perception that my constituency, as a mainly Unionist constituency, has been and is being discriminated against, and is not obtaining a proportionate share of new investment? We have lost many large employers over the years—Imperial Chemical Industries, Courtaulds, Carrera Rothmans, GEC Alsthom, Klingers Yarns and many more.
I welcome recent investment, but not enough jobs have been created to make up for jobs lost to date, in spite of the excellent record of good industrial relations throughout Northern Ireland and the fact that we have a well-educated, highly skilled and willing work force.
I endorse and fully support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) regarding the Department of Education's proposals for change. I emphasise yet again the cross-party commitment to opposing the removal or abolition of the South Eastern education and library board. That proposal has caused widespread worry. In the proposals, it was suggested that, in future, the education and library boards might be responsible for funding the voluntary grammar schools. It would be helpful if we were told tonight what advantages are likely to accrue to voluntary grammar schools, should funding responsibility be transferred from the Department of Education to the area boards.
There is already evidence of a tourism boom in Northern Ireland, but also evidence of a serious shortage of bed accommodation. It was encouraging to hear the recent welcome announcement by the Minister responsible for economic development of new hotel developments that we can expect in the near future. May we have an assurance that the Minister will request the Northern Ireland tourist board to speed up assessment of proposals for grant aid to provide new bedroom accommodation, and to provide active help to local hoteliers instead of repeatedly moving the goalposts and delaying projects, some of which might have been completed months ago but have not started?
The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned recent difficulties in Northern Ireland. In conclusion, I remind the House that the very limited recent disruption in Northern Ireland has been less damaging to the Northern Ireland economy than the daily cost to the United Kingdom economy of the recent rail stoppages. There is good will throughout Northern Ireland. The best way to secure the peace is to continue to attract and support inward investment and to locate new manufacturing industry in places where it is accessible to all sections of the community.
10.23 pm
Mr. William Ross: Whenever our debate is held somewhat earlier than this one, usually several Members from Northern Ireland and several Labour and Conservative Members take part. This evening, we are confronted with acres of green leather with very few inhabitants.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is the marching season.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has experience in Northern Ireland. No doubt, whenever I sit down, he will express his point of view about what should be done, as he takes a keen interest in those matters.
There is one notable figure missing this evening: Jim Kilfedder is no longer with us. He was an assiduous attender at such debates and always fought his case well for the people of North Down. He is sadly missed in the House. Although we on this Bench did not always agree with Jim, we have always been prepared to admit that he was active in pursuing his constituents' interests, not least in debates such as tonight's. One hopes that his successor will, on future occasions, adopt the same approach. He has conspicuously failed to do so this evening. Jim Kilfedder defended the interests of the people of Northern Ireland with honour and he deserves a word of praise from this Bench in tonight's debate and I am glad of the opportunity to make a few remarks about him.
There are a number of subjects that we can talk about in the debate, which involves the second tranche of Northern Ireland expenditure. It is the second bite of the cherry that we have every year. The debate is important to Northern Ireland. It is the time when we bend the Minister's. We not only ask him about expenditure for the current year, but to look forward to succeeding years so that the mistakes and problems of expenditure, which we see appearing, and which have appeared, as they always do, can be attended to. The Minister can then take steps to alter course before he makes his decisions about who will receive the money and how much they will have to spend next year and the year after.
The Minister has already heard from this Bench this evening and on former occasions what our priorities are in each aspect The priorities are sometimes party based—in relation to strategic spending in Northern Ireland—and, on many occasions, they are constituency based. The debate gives us the opportunity to make our case to the Minister.
There is deep concern on these Benches about the proposed reorganisation of the Department of the Environment. We see that as the continuing mushroom growth of quangoland. There are far too many quangos in Northern Ireland. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), shaking his head. When he replies, he will probably say that that has to do with next steps agencies, but next steps are just that—only steps, one following the other. The next step invariably leads to a quango, if that creature can be created. We know where that has led: Northern Ireland is being run more and more by people who have never dared to put their name on the ballot paper, and never will because they know what the result would be. Such people are totally untouchable by the electorate; their activities and power in Northern Ireland are resented by the entire population of that place. It is no good the Minister shaking his head.
Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene? I know that he has strong views on the subject and I am happy to give way to him.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. Does he accept that it is not a valid argument for a Minister to say that the Government are following through the pattern in this place when they regularly tell us that Northern Ireland is different and we must do other things there? Is it not time that they returned to accountable democracy so that civil servants are accountable to people who know about the issues?
Mr. Ross: I accept what my hon. Friend says—if he had let me continue for a minute or two I was about to say it myself. As it happens, I go further: we have seen the end result of such moves on this side of the Irish sea and we have no particular wish to feed the fat cats as there is not nearly as much cream in Northern Ireland as there is here. I fear that whenever they got the cream, there would be precious little left for the ordinary man or woman. I am surprised that we have not heard some hurrahs from the two Labour Members—no doubt they will get round to it when they think about it.
Many of the matters that are in the hands of quangos would be far better and properly run by Government agencies. In Northern Ireland we have a long tradition of running such matters efficiently. If we had democratic control, we would be even more efficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) expressed regret that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who opened the debate for the Government, did not refer to the cost of electricity. I did not hear him talk at length about the Washington conference either and the benefits that will supposedly flow from it; nor about the money—the peace dividend—that was to come from the European Community. No doubt in his wind-up speech the Minister will tell us what advances have been made in that area and what inquiries have resulted from the conferences in Belfast and Washington.
The Minister should also confirm whether a rush of people from the United Kingdom and the United States have inquired about the possibility of expanding their activities to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, will he assure the House that when investors appear they will be taken not only to West Belfast or Londonderry but to many locations in my constituency, East Antrim, South Antrim and to other parts of Northern Ireland which need more job opportunities, but which were largely ignored in the past 25 years whenever money and investment came to Northern Ireland?
There is a myth about rich Protestant areas. One has only to look at the unemployment figures in places such as Coleraine to realise that the people there face real hardship. There is migration out of those areas and, if we are to keep our best young people at home, we must provide investment and employment opportunities. We have seen precious little of that in recent years.
Do the Government recognise the need to support home-based industry? Home-based industry must receive treatment that is as generous as that given to foreign firms. When incoming firms seek skilled workers, will the Government ensure that there are training facilities available in Northern Ireland? We do not want to repeat
1558
the experience of the Benelux factory at Limavady, which recruited its first 10 or 12 highly skilled workers from Sligo.
There is not much point spending British taxpayers' money building a factory in Limavady to provide employment for people from the Irish Republic. Many of my constituents would have been happy to seek training and obtain employment at the factory. It is interesting that the factory managers went to Sligo and that they did not recruit their highly skilled workers in England. I have also been informed that the factory advertised for shop floor workers in the Irish Republic before advertising in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will inform the noble Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for that area, that I am totally dissatisfied with the civil service answer that I received from her a few weeks ago on the issue. I shall take up the matter with her in the near future.
Will the Minister confirm that the purchase of the Apache helicopter from the United States will be accompanied by the most strenuous efforts to ensure not only that Starstreak is fitted to those helicopters destined for the United Kingdom armed forces but that every effort will be made to sell it to the Americans to be fitted to the 800 helicopters that the United States already has in service? That would be a tremendous boost to the Starstreak programme in Northern Ireland. The massive benefits that would accrue to Belfast and technological advances in the field that would flow to the United Kingdom would be very welcome indeed. We talked to people in the United States about that matter when we attended the conference. We did not spend all of our time wandering around and listening to others; we went out and did our best for the people of Northern Ireland and for our highly skilled work force at home.
Over the years, we have seen the large-scale removal of civil service jobs from the provincial centres mainly to Londonderry. That is greatly resented. We hope that when civil service jobs are moved around the Province other places will again be given some consideration. There seems to be a definite effort to shift incoming employment to certain areas to keep the natives peaceful. The view is that Protestant areas are nice and quiet anyway, so they do not need to be given anything. There is rising anger about that, some of which boiled over in Portadown a week ago.
There has been reference to restoring to the people of Northern Ireland some measure of democratic responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned that. We face the problem, however, of where any elected representatives might sit, since the Government were so good at looking after the Commons Chamber in Stormont that they let it burn down. Perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to tell us what progress has been made on the refurbishment of the Chamber, and whether it will be restored to its former glory. It was a very important public building in Northern Ireland, and there has been a remarkable silence about the whole affair for many months. We have waited long enough for firm decisions to have been taken, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make an announcement this evening. The next time water hydrants are checked over, and no water is found in them, perhaps someone will attempt to find out why.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: And the Senate Chamber.
Mr. Ross: I fully appreciate that; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech when I sit down.
As the House knows, I own a farm—although it is a long time since I turned a furrow with a plough. That is sad in some ways. The work is sometimes better than here: at least 76,000 constituents cannot ring one up and issue a telling off, six days a week. There is some concern in Northern Ireland about possible changes to tenancy law. Certainly, the Department of Agriculture was asking for people's views on it. What on earth are the Government trying to do? What is the intention behind such possible changes? The system that we have has worked perfectly well for many years. It is very flexible, and there have been no problems with it.
We have another problem, too, related to agriculture. I wrote recently to the Minister about Ballinahone bog. I hope that he understood some of what I said in that letter. I hope that he realises that the matter will not rest there. I want to come and see him, as do others concerned with that area of scientific interest. It is an important bog, and there are important implications for those with peat-cutting rights in the bog. Their interests are being overridden, with no consideration given to their case. I hope, when I come to see the Minister, that those responsible for the decision will be present to defend what I regard as indefensible. People have cut peat there for centuries, and the small-scale cutting going on will never do that massive bog any harm at all.
When trees are cut down after about 35 years on bogs in the hills, a great deal of wreckage is left behind. That problem needs dealing with rather more carefully than it has been dealt with hitherto.
I turn briefly to the system of Housing Executive grants, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East. Formerly, such grants were related to the condition of a house. The system has now changed from that sound Conservative principle to the much more socialist principle of means testing. Perhaps this is a case of the Tories stealing some unsuitable clothing from Labour—rather than the other way round, for a change. The consequence that flows from that change has been a grant system that is totally at variance with what is needed in Northern Ireland.
We had a good system but we now have a bad system. We must look at it carefully again and try to achieve a sensible system which gives a reasonable amount of help to a large number of people rather than, as is now happening, large amounts of help going to a relatively small number of people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East referred to the long delay from initial application. I do not want the Minister to stand up at the Dispatch Box tonight and tell me that it takes only X months. If he does, I shall point out that that is not the time taken from the initial inquiry, which is where it should be, but from about two thirds of the way through the procedure. That is when the Housing Executive clock starts ticking in order to give a completely false impression of the speed with which all the applications for grant aid are being processed.
That is nonsense; we all know that it is nonsense. It is an abomination that any Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and defend the indefensible in that matter. It is just not good enough. I hope that he will not start feeding me the nonsense that the Housing Executive has tried to feed me in the past over this matter.
1560
The Minister knows that since I came into the House 21 years ago, I was one of those who advocated a replacement grant as opposed to a repair or improvement grant. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has advocated a similar policy since he entered the House. But we did not get that. We asked that whenever a dwelling was in bad condition the Housing Executive should have the choice of paying a repair grant or paying roughly the same grant to replace the dwelling. What we actually got was a means-tested grant, which can run up to £40,000 in some cases—a ridiculous sum. The end result of that is that many people now cannot get a grant at all because of the large sums that are going to individual houses.
If a replacement grant on really poor-quality rural housing that should have been knocked down, for which we had asked, and equivalent to the grant paid towards repairing a house, had been implemented, the problems that we now face would never have come about. It is because of the way in which the Housing Executive has manipulated the whole thing over the years that we have the present dreadful situation.
Mr. Beggs: Is it not the case that to qualify for virtually the full cost of a replacement dwelling, individuals will ensure that they have no assets to declare and that they will contrive to be unemployed for a sufficiently long period in order to qualify for what is a full 100 per cent. gift from Government, more than could have been saved through a lifetime of hard work?
Mr. Ross: What my hon. Friend says may well be true in some cases, but I personally have not come across that. Anyone that I know who has applied for and been given a replacement grant has been in poor health and poor circumstances. But I can see that what my hon. Friend says could be done, and if it could be done we can rest assured that humanity will do it. Of that I have no doubt whatever.
My final point concerns the problem with Housing Executive allocations to pointed cases. In the town of Limavady one or two dwellings have gone to pointed cases in the last two or three years. All the others have gone to priority cases. That is quite a large number of houses every year. I feel sure that the situation in the rest of my constituency is very much the same, especially in urban areas. The largest percentage of those priority cases seems to be made up of young girls with babies.
A social problem is not being addressed. We are merely applying some ointment by giving those people houses and allowing the state to keep them. We are leaving young married couples who want to start a family in poor accommodation. Will the Minister examine the "points" and "priority" system of letting houses in Northern Ireland, and consider what can be done to give people a fairer crack of the whip than they have been given for many months and, in some cases, years?
The non-fossil fuel obligation entered into by Her Majesty's Government has led to a messy situation. I have considered the matter in some detail, because of the hullabaloo surrounding hydro-electric schemes in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the Minister's officials, and to officials in the Department of Economic Development. The Government seem to have signed up to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources—wind, water and wave power, for instance—before anyone could quantify what was available from those sources on a sound economic basis.

1561
Having entered into that obligation, the Government are trying to produce a certain amount of electricity by some means, regardless of cost to the environment or financial cost. I believe that they have started from, as it were, the wrong end. We are probably trapped, but we should not allow that to run away with our common sense. I am talking not about windmills—although I hope to return to the subject in a future debate—but about the whole question of the generation for sale of hydro-electric power in Northern Ireland, which will have a wider application throughout the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland contains a good many rivers that are valuable fisheries for migratory salmon and sea trout. The fishermen, and the owners of the fisheries, have rights; they have economic assets that should be protected. Those who want to generate electricity also have rights, because they own the water-power rights on the river. They have a legal entitlement to develop such sites and make use of them. As it happens, I own such a site—although it has not been in regular use for some years, for reasons that I need not go into. Until a few years ago I ran my own domestic electricity supply from it, and I hope to do so again in the future.
The Government must find a way through the problems involved in those interlocking rights and benefits. When I spoke to officials, I was gratified to discover how much work and thought had been expended. I hope to talk to the Minister and his officials again. I know something about the matter, as an angler who has netted migratory fish in his younger days on a commercial basis, who owns a water mill and whose family has used water mills for centuries. I want a proper balance to be established. If we do not find a solution now, the problem will create headaches for many years.
Mr. David Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about electricity generation. No doubt he is aware that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is considering electricity prices; has he submitted his views to the Committee? If not, would he be willing to do so? The Committee is anxious to find the cheapest way of generating electricity in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ross: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but most of the schemes that I am dealing with this evening and that are available in Northern Ireland are small, run of the river schemes. They are a tiny proportion of the whole. Of course, I would be happy to talk to the Select Committee about the matter at any time, but I want to get my own mind clear on what can and cannot be done on this issue because it is important, although small scale in the generality of electricity generation. It is important to all individual interests in each individual river and site involved. A number of different interlocking issues are to be addressed and resolved before we go on.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend raises the question of non-fossil fuels. Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland are paying the ransom because the Government decided to ignore the advice against privatisation that we gave in Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Committee. Now no one can develop alternative sources of generation for some more years, and the cost of electricity prices rises. Belfast West power station could be turned to waste disposal and would be an amenity to the city, yet it cannot go down that road because of undertakings given to the purchasers of the generating stations.
Mr. Ross: Of course the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says, with regard not only to the possibility of generating electricity from waste, which has not been fully explored, although I know that some people are considering that, but to the fact that a huge quantity of lignite is sitting in the ground in Northern Ireland and could be used for generation. By doing that, instead of importing electricity from Scotland, England and Wales, we could export it down the line and make a bit of money out of it. I agree with what my hon. Friend says.
The reality is that we could touch on an enormous number of subjects such as this in Northern Ireland in this debate. I am sorry to keep a number of hon. Members sitting around just in case there is a vote; we will not divide, so they can go home if they like.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have the Adjournment debate to come.
Mr. Ross: I know that the hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate. Hon. Members will probably stay and listen to him as well. [Interruption.] I promise that I will read the debate.
This debate is a chance for the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to put forward the concerns that each of them has, and we have tried to make use of that this evening.
I finish by asking one simple question of the Minister. We recently had a letter from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security telling us about the huge amount of social security fraud that has been detected, and what steps have been taken to detect even more of it. Will the Minister assure us that similar steps are being taken in all parts of Northern Ireland, and will he quantify the level of fraud that has been detected and stopped?
10.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): This has been a wide-ranging debate. I shall attempt to answer as many as possible of the questions posed to me this evening, but, for the vast majority, I shall be writing to the hon. Members concerned.
I should like to take the opportunity, as did the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), to consider the Province's economic prospects. The distortion and dislocation that the local economy has undoubtedly suffered in the past 25 years or so may never fully be measured, but, despite the terrorist campaign, the Northern Ireland economy has performed remarkably well, especially in recent years.
The recent news on the economy is extremely encouraging. It is growing relatively faster than the national economy. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figure has fallen in 11 of the past 12 months and, in the year to December 1994, the output level of Northern Ireland production industries has risen by 5.8 per cent. In manufacturing industries, it has risen by 6.8 per cent. That optimistic picture contrasts sharply with that painted by the hon. Member for Warley, West.
As on a number of other occasions, the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the so-called plight of the construction industry. In the first quarter of 1995, some reductions have taken place in construction output compared with 1994, but the main factor in the decrease

1563
was a drop in the private category of construction work—the category that includes retail and office developments—and not a drop in construction work funded from public expenditure. In fact, the estimated value of construction work from planned public expenditure in 1995–96 is £861 million, some £18 million higher than in the previous year. The redevelopment of the Royal Victoria hospital, at a cost of more than £64 million, which I announced recently, is only one example of how public sector projects are benefiting the construction industry.
We are, of course, helping the industry in appropriate ways by, for example, promoting a training ethos and improving skill levels among the employed and the unemployed. I am glad to be able to report that the number of unemployed construction workers in the Province has fallen by 2,058 over the year to May 1995.
The hon. Members for Warley, West and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) continued to mislead the House and themselves with regard to the process of agentisation. Agencies will remain accountable through their chief executives to Ministers, and Ministers in turn are responsible to Parliament. The relationship between agencies, Departments and Ministers will be governed by a published framework document, which a future national or local administration would be able to amend. Agentisation does not prejudice how a devolved administration would exercise its responsibilities. Some time ago, I wrote to all Northern Ireland Members inviting them to meet me to discuss agentisation but, as yet, I have not had the pleasure of a reply from them.
The hon. Member for Warley, West also mentioned policy appraisal and fair treatment, or PAFT. He alluded to a dispute—
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Moss: If I must.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I wonder whether the Minister misunderstood the letter that was sent to us asking us to discuss development in Belfast, because we have not received any information about an agency.
Mr. Moss: I was referring to the process of agentisation in the Department of the Environment, which I know exercises the minds of hon. Members. I repeat the invitation for hon. Members to come and talk to me about it, because they seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that agencies are non-departmental bodies. They are not; everyone working in an agency within the DOE will be a civil servant.
The hon. Member for Warley, West spoke of a dispute in the Down Lisburn trust. I must tell him that the dispute was engineered by Unison to further its campaign against the Government's market-testing policy. Unison took the matter to court and lost the case. However, in the absence of a written judgment, I do not feel that it is appropriate to comment on the details of that case at this juncture, other than to say that I fully support the Down Lisburn trust in its competitive processes.
The current situation is likely to release some £700,000 each year over the next five years, a total of some £3.5 million. That is in addition to the £500,000 a year already being saved in that trust as a result of the first round of
1564
market testing, which began five years ago. To put the figures in context, let me tell the House that the £700,000 a year of savings from competitive tendering equates to a total of more than 450 elective surgery cases each and every year.
The question of water privatisation—
Mr. Spellar rose—
Mr. Moss: I must press on. Time is short.
The hon. Members for Warley, West and for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) mentioned water privatisation. I am happy to confirm once again from the Dispatch Box that there will be no water privatisation in the lifetime of this Parliament. I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) knows the words and can repeat them.
If we are to make progress, however, we need to facilitate a more commercial approach to the provision of water and sewerage services, by establishing more direct customer billing to separate funding from the overall local taxation arrangements. While detailed proposals have yet to be produced, a consultation document will be issued in advance of any change to existing arrangements. I again confirm that routine metering of purely domestic water supplies is not under consideration.
Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate and right that health trusts should apply the PAFT guidelines in considering bids for compulsory competitive tendering?
Mr. Moss: I am happy to confirm that we have written to the trusts to say that they should consider the PAFT guidelines, but initially, because it was policy appraisal, we deemed it appropriate that those guidelines should be the responsibility of the health boards and the management executive, and not at the operational level of trusts.
The hon. Member for Warley, West also raised the question of sulphur quotas. We are looking carefully at that, but at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that it will lead to lower electricity prices. It will depend on the relevant price movements of the sulphur oil, as he well knows, but we are looking into it.
On electricity, raised by the hon. Members for Warley, West and for Antrim, East, prices in Northern Ireland have in real terms been fairly stable since privatisation. The problem we face is that prices appear to be rising rapidly because they are falling in Great Britain. Price regulation is really a matter for the industry and the regulator, but the Government are certainly prepared to help by, for example, allocating large amounts out of the European programme to the cost of the gas and electricity interconnectors. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the provision of additional assistance, to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers will enjoy equivalent benefits to their counterparts in Great Britain when the nuclear levy is abolished in 1996.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned Orlit dwellings. I repeat what I have said in correspondence to him and his hon. Friends, that we could not justify new legislation or any spending of public money to help people who purchased Orlit dwellings in the private sector. He also mentioned the cross-harbour bridge, and I am happy to say that work has recently commenced on the first part of the direct link

1565
between the M3 Lagan bridge and the Sydenham bypass and is scheduled for completion in April 1996. That will be followed by a second contract to reconstruct the Ballymacarrett flyover and complete the link to the Sydenham bypass before the end of 1997.
The reorganisation of education boards was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South and others, including—I think—the hon. Member for Antrim, East. We announced proposals for changes on 10 April. The two-month consultation period ended on 9 June and the Government are now considering the various representations received before the final decisions are made. It is important to say that any proposals made for such changes were based on sound educational reasons and not the reasons that the hon. Member for Belfast, South inferred.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to the Child Support Agency and the attendance allowance, which he has already written to me about. I shall write to him on that and on the Pensions Bill and implications for Nolan.
The hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Londonderry, East raised with me issues relating to the Housing Executive and grants. There were some teething problems with the introduction of the 1992 grant schemes, which resulted in a slower uptake of processing than had originally been anticipated. However, those difficulties have now been overcome and the grant approval rate increased significantly, with expenditure in 1994–95 exceeding the allocation of £32.5 million. An additional £1.6 million funding was approved. Faced with increasing demands on grant expenditure, the allocation for 1995–96 has been increased yet again to £38 million.
The hon. Member the Antrim, East mentioned some problems with flooding on a housing estate. I ask him to write to me with details of that, and I shall certainly look into it. The issue raised on nursery education and the construction of new schools is another matter that I can take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister seems to be in a desperate rush, yet he has until 11.51 pm to speak, so he has plenty of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair until we reach that time.
Mr. Moss: So many questions have been fired at me in the past 20 minutes that I could not possibly have detected the answers in my brief. I promise, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to write to hon. Members on the matters that I do not cover.
The time taken to process renovation grant applications was also raised and I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member for Antrim, East showing him that, in fact, our performance in that area has greatly improved.
I now come to the contribution by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East. I have here a long list of questions that he posed to me. I know that he endeavoured on the trip to Washington with his colleagues to talk to the American counterparts on Starstreak. It may well be that some of his work there has borne fruit. I take on board his comments about speaking to our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the Americans are apprised of the value of that piece of equipment.
The Stormont Parliament rebuilding and refurbishment is well under way. I shall issue a statement in the near future on the matter. The hon. Gentleman is due to come to visit me to discuss Ballinahone bog and I look forward to seeing him in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6), That the Bill be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Statutory Instruments, &c.
11.6 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We now come to motion 6.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may have been made aware of the exchanges that took place earlier between Back-Bench Members on both sides and Madam Speaker in respect of the next two orders and in respect of the fact that the Daily Mail and other bidders are engaged in mopping up the radio stations in the Chilterns and elsewhere. Madam Speaker said that she might be able to make a statement on the question of privilege in view of the fact that, although the matter has been spoken about in the House of Lords, apparently Members of the House of Commons have not had a chance to debate it. The only way in which hon. Members can do anything at all tonight is to make an attempt to challenge the payroll vote. Did Madam Speaker convey anything for us to hear in respect of the two motions? Will the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage withdraw them?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I was aware of the situation. Madam Speaker has not given me any information on the matter.
Mr. John Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may help the House if I tell hon. Members that I have received a reply from Madam Speaker about whether there was a breach of privilege by the takeover panel on the basis of the lobbying of Members. Her reply was that in her view, there was no breach of privilege by that body.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not concerned with the privilege issue. It has come to my knowledge, since the comments by Madam Speaker this afternoon, that there is a serious constitutional matter. We have been discussing with Members of the House of Lords the fact that a precedent has been set in the past few days. A motion that went before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and was defeated, rather than coming to the Chamber for scrutiny, was then tabled in the House of Lords, very unusually, for debate last night on a motion that, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was not contested by the Opposition, so it had a relatively clear run. It is now back this evening, but not to be discussed. Not many Members would know, if we had not raised the matter today, that the motion had been defeated in Standing Committee—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is turning into a debate. Hon. Members will be aware that this matter has to be decided forthwith. It is, of course, open to hon. Members to vote either for or against, according to their choice.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Corbyn: My point of order is this. How did this statutory instrument ever get to the House of Lords if it had not been to the House of Commons first?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It can go to either.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Sheerman: I have been in the House since 1979. I have never seen such evidence of obvious chicanery. Hon. Members are being prevented from discussing an issue. This influences your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as others. A monopoly run by the Daily Mail will take over the franchises—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can operate only according to the rules in this House at this moment. I have told hon. Members that if they wish to vote against the motion, they can do so. I am now going to put the Question.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

BROADCASTING
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 39.

Division No. 208]

[11.09 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Amess, David

Forth, Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

French, Douglas

Bates, Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Beggs, Roy

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Booth, Hartley

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Boswell, Tim

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Heald, Oliver

Burt, Alistair

Hendry, Charles

Butcher, John

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

Butler, Peter

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Carttiss, Michael

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Jack, Michael

Clappison, James

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

King, Rt Hon Tom

Congdon, David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Conway, Derek

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Cran, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Day, Stephen

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Legg, Barry

Devlin, Tim

Lidington, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lord, Michael

Dover, Den

MacKay, Andrew

Duncan, Alan

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Merchant, Piers

Forman, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

1569

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Page, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pickles, Eric

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Thurnham, Peter

Richards, Rod

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Trend, Michael

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Waterson, Nigel

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wells, Bowen

Sackville, Tom

Whittingdale, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Willetts, David

Sims, Roger

Wilshire, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wolfson, Mark

Spink, Dr Robert

Wood, Timothy

Sproat, Iain

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stephen, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sweeney, Walter

Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Gary Streeter.

Sykes, John

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Loyden, Eddie

Barnes, Harry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Beith, Rt Hon A J

McAllion, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McKelvey, William

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Corbyn, Jeremy

Maclennan, Robert

Dixon, Don

Mahon, Alice

Donohoe, Brian H

Michael, Alun

Etherington, Bill

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Miller, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Foster, Don (Bath)

Sheerman, Barry

Fry, Sir Peter

Spellar, John

Hood, Jimmy

Timms, Stephen

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Tyler, Paul

Hoyle, Doug

Welsh, Andrew

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Wray, Jimmy

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. David Hanson and Mr. John Carlisle.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion 7.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Members understand that the same method was used for this order—
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Stop playing to the Gallery.
Mr. Sheerman: I am not playing to the Gallery. This matter is far more important than the hon. Gentleman understands or will ever understand; it is about public and parliamentary scrutiny and honesty in British politics.
This order is similar to the previous order and enables the Daily Mail, Capital and GWR to take over and monopolise radio stations in the south of England for political purposes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I can do nothing further from the Chair.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 31.

Division No. 209]

[11.20 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Amess, David

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Arbuthnot, James

Legg, Barry

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Lidington, David

Beggs, Roy

Lord, Michael

Booth, Hartley

MacKay, Andrew

Boswell, Tim

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Burns, Simon

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Burt, Alistair

Merchant, Piers

Butcher, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Butler, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Carttiss, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Clappison, James

Page, Richard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Congdon, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Conway, Derek

Pickles, Eric

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Richards, Rod

Cran, James

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Day, Stephen

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Devlin, Tim

Sackville, Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Shaw, David (Dover)

Dover, Den

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Duncan, Alan

Sims, Roger

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Spencer, Sir Derek

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Sporat, Iain

Fabricant, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Stephen, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Streeter, Gary

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Sweeney, Walter

Forth, Eric

Sykes, John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gillan, Cheryl

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Thomason, Roy

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Thurnham, Peter

Harris, David

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Heald, Oliver

Trend, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Waterson, Nigel

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

Wells, Bowen

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Whittingdale, John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Widdecombe, Ann

Jack, Michael

Willetts, David

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Wilshire, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Wolfson, Mark

Kirkhope, Timothy

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Knapman, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Knight, Mis Angela (Erewash)

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Bates.

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Hood, Jimmy

Barnes, Harry

Illsley, Eric

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lewis, Terry

Dixon, Don

Loyden, Eddie

Donohoe, Brian H

Lynne, Ms Liz

Etherington, Bill

McAllion, John

Hanson, David

McKelvey, William

1571

Mackinlay, Andrew

Timms, Stephen

Mahon, Alice

Tyler, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Welsh, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wray, Jimmy

Simpson, Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Barry Sheerman.

Spellar, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1666), dated 29th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1668), dated 29th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Raymond S. Robertson be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Bill Walker be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS
Ordered,
That Sir David Lightbown be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Sir Sydney Chapman be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Timothy Wood be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Paris Club (Naples Terms)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
11.31 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to get this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Naples terms of membership of the Paris Club. That important subject concerns the debt of the poorest nations in the world to the richest, and their ability to get any write-off of that debt.
By way of background, I shall open by quoting from an excellent document that was recently produced, "The Oxfam Poverty Report", which sets in context the discussion that we are about to have:
"The richest fifth of the world's population, living in the industrially advanced countries, have average incomes thirty times higher than the poorest fifth.
The poorest 50 countries, mostly in Africa, have seen their incomes decline to the point where they now account for less than 2 per cent of global income. These countries are home to one-fifth of the world's people.
One in four of the world's people exists in a state of absolute want, with millions more living close to this perilous state.
Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 35,000 children every day
Half of the world's population is systematically discriminated against from the cradle to the grave for the 'crime' of having a female chromosome.
Half-a-million women die each year from causes related to pregnancy and inadequate health care.
130 million children are denied the right to primary education …
Approximately 1.3 billion people have no clean water or sanitation."
Many of the countries where those people live are desperately in debt. They are forced to pay huge amounts of their export earnings straight back to the banking systems of western Europe and north America to meet that debt crisis. To understand that, we have to understand how the debt came about.
"The Oxfam Poverty Report", which puts the case so well, states:
"During the 1970s, international capital markets transferred around $20 billion a year to developing countries".
It also states that, after the oil price rise in the 1970s
"Northern governments responded…with monetarist policies which forced up interest rates‖Between 1983 and 1989, creditors received $242 billion more from these countries than they provided in new loans."
In that period, the poorest countries started to have to pay more and more of their income towards the banking systems of the north, because they were having to pay high interest rates on loans to finance industrial and agricultural development. They had seen the income from commodities fall as a result of the policies of the northern countries. By the end of 1992, the poor countries owed $269 billion in debts to the countries that make up the Paris Club. That in turn is only a small proportion of the total outstanding debts of poor countries, which, according to the World bank, reached $1,812 billion by the end of 1993—and that figure is still rising.
In order to qualify for entry to the Paris Club, any poor country that wants to have any of its debt written off has to accept the terms and conditions laid down on its economic development by the International Monetary

1573
Fund. The IMF, which is a heavily western-dominated organisation, imposes the strictest conditions imaginable on any poor country.
In effect, those countries are asked to surrender their economic sovereignty and adopt structure adjustment programmes based on the widely discredited policies of Thatcher and Reagan throughout the 1980s. Those are policies that no respected academic could possibly defend in any way. They resulted in the IMF investing $30 billion in the past 10 years on structure adjustment programmes.
Those programmes have not helped the situation in most countries. They have forced countries to open up markets to cheap goods coming in from abroad, thus causing local unemployment. They have forced them to cut public expenditure, thus hitting health, education and social development programmes—resulting in hunger, unemployment, and, in some cases, civil war.
Any country that wishes even to be considered for entry into the Paris Club terms for writing off its debt has to do what the IMF wants. For example, Zambia is currently asking for a write-off of part of its debt through the Paris Club, and is being told that it must speed up the privatisation of its copper mines. Those mines are the basis of the Zambian economy.
Nationalisation followed independence because the population saw copper as the basis of their prosperity in the future. Copper prices have fallen as a result of the behaviour of the west, and, as those copper prices have fallen, greater and greater debt has developed in Zambia, and the country has now been told that it must sell off those copper mines at knockdown prices to international copper cartels.
Nicaragua also wants to enter the Paris Club to have its debt written off, and has been told that it must privatise its telecommunications industry—again at knockdown prices—to one or other of the major players in the world telecommunications market. The court of star chamber even decides which countries are considered for debt write-off. Britain is a member of the forum, and negotiates the repayments of part of the debts.
In preparation for tonight's debate and in my discussions, I have been indebted to the work done by the Debt Crisis Network—an organisation representing a large number of non-governmental organisations, Church groups and voluntary organisations—which has tried to adopt a different approach to the problems of the world's debt.
The Debt Crisis Network shows that 66 per cent. of the debt owed to the UK is owed by poor countries in Africa. That is the only continent with which Britain has a trading surplus at present, but, through the IMF conditions imposed on one African country after another, we are insisting that the living standards of many people are currently falling in Africa.
Last year, I was able to visit Uganda—an African country which is attempting to develop its way out of debt and poverty, and which finds itself in an almost impossible bind. It has been told that it must privatise large sectors of industry and sell land to anyone who wants to buy it. As a result of those policies, it is having to charge for primary education for the first time since independence. Meanwhile, its health service cannot cope with the AIDS crisis that is sweeping across that part of Africa.
1574
Tonight I raise the question not just of the situation in Uganda and countries like it, but also of the reasons for the problems they face. Our exporters and those from Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries have become very rich on the basis of the structural adjustment programmes in African countries. As President Nyerere, the former and very respected President of Tanzania, has suggested, African children are having to starve in order to pay those debts.
There is an equally sinister market in international arms—it could be called "gun-runners' gold". Export of arms credits rose by 86 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1993–94, while export credits for all civil businesses rose by just 14 per cent. For example, Kenya has received £151 million-worth of military credit since 1980, despite well-recorded human rights abuses that have often been referred to in the House, including the imprisonment of people who have stood against the regime and spoken up for justice in that country.
The west appears to be saying that the poorest African countries must cut public expenditure on social programmes and open up their markets, while at the same time they are offered enormous credits to buy arms from the west that may be used in civil wars, or used to control people who protest about the conditions in which they live.
Mr. Bill Michie: It is immoral.
Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, the situation is absolutely immoral. Britain is not among the top four creditors in the Paris Club—France, Japan, the United States and Germany are larger—but Britain is obviously important. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he took a lead in such matters by calling for a renegotiation of debt, and the current Chancellor did the same thing at the Naples summit.
However, my questions revolve around how the negotiations are being conducted at present, as well as their long-term aspects. It is claimed that there will be an enormous reduction in the debt burden of the poorest countries, but that debt burden has not been reduced very much so far.
Unless we address the question of the sale of commodities from the poorest countries in the world, no amount of debt write-off will solve the problem. If we wrote off all their debt tomorrow but did nothing about the existing unfair trade arrangements between the United States, Europe and Japan and the poorest countries in the world, the same debt crisis would emerge a few years later. We must take a two-handed approach to the problem.
For example, it is claimed that, under the Naples terms, Uganda's debt has been reduced by 67 per cent. However, it has been pointed out that Uganda's debt was reduced by only 20 per cent. in real terms—despite the claims in the press releases issued by the Overseas Development Administration.
This Friday, there will be a meeting of the World bank consultative group on Uganda and I understand that debt will be on the agenda of that gathering. I hope that, in her response, the Economic Secretary will assure us—despite all the advice that she appears to be receiving from her colleague, the Government Whip, at the moment—that there will be a much larger write-off of Ugandan debt, and a serious examination of the social consequences of

1575
the conditions that have been imposed upon Uganda, which is only one example of the way in which the poorest countries in the world are being treated.
I shall give another example. Nicaragua's total Paris Club debt is £1.6 billion, which is only about 14 per cent. of that country's total debt of £11.6 billion. We have all been led to believe that Nicaragua will receive more than 67 per cent. debt relief—indeed, there were hints that Nicaragua would receive Paris Club debt relief of up to 80 per cent. In fact, it was offered relief amounting to about 36 per cent. of that country's debt. Another con seems to have been perpetrated, this time on the people of Nicaragua.
I return to the example of Zambia, a country of only eight million people and a gross national product of £2.9 billion, which carries a debt burden of £6.79 billion. In other words, the total GNP is less than a third of the total debt that that country carries.
It is inconceivable that Zambia could ever be expected to pay off that debt. She has been paying the rich countries of the north more in debt repayments than she has been receiving in new loans. So she is getting deeper and deeper into debt just trying to service her existing debts. This is a country suffering from the AIDS epidemic, like much of central Africa, and from a substantial fall in the prices of basic commodities. The people who have to pay are those in the poorest countries.
Of the total outstanding debt, £1.7 billion is owed to the World bank and the IMF, who have preferred creditor status and must be repaid promptly. So Zambia receives between £900,000 and £1 billion in aid each year—$110 a head assistance—and has to repay most of it straight away to the World bank. So in effect, many of the aid programmes launched by this country, the EU and others, end up supporting structural adjustment programmes which exist to repay the debts incurred in the first place.
I want to put four questions to the Minister, leaving her with sufficient time to reply. First, how much of British overseas development aid is used by poor countries for debt repayment, whether to the rich countries of the Paris Club or to those powerful, unaccountable institutions, the World bank and the IMF? I also understand that the British Government are offering budget support and untied balance of payments support to poor countries as part of debt repayment. So the British Government appear to be using the aid budget to ensure that these debts are repaid.
During the recent debate on overseas aid, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made an important speech, in which she noted that the debt outstanding to the World bank is £3.9 billion. Although that is crippling for the countries concerned, it is not actually large by World bank standards. That institution has set aside £3.3 billion in the current year for loan loss provision, and £14.5 billion for reserves.
My second question, therefore, is: why cannot these funds be used to extinguish the mountain of debt, instead of diverting British aid money to the coffers of the World bank and the IMF?
The next question concerns the IMF gold. The Chancellor has made much of his belief that there should be a sale of that gold to pay off many of these debts. What has happened to that proposal? When can we expect to see a sale of the gold held by the IMF?
1576
My third question is this. If, after the Naples terms have been negotiated with poor countries, there is only a small amount of Paris Club debt outstanding, have Ministers considered getting rid of the debt altogether? Unless we write it off, the situation will go from bad to worse.
My final question is: has the Treasury ever made use of the facility contained in the Paris Club agreement for conversion of debt into local currencies for local development projects? I understand that there is an option in the agreement allowing the conversion of up to £20 million of debt, to help extinguish it altogether.
We live in a world racked by ever-increasing poverty in the world's poorest countries. The rich west is telling the poorest countries, "The debt is your fault; the responsibility for it lies entirely with you; we will give you aid to assist development only provided you accept the principle of paying off all this debt."
The debt has been incurred not through any fault of the countries concerned, but because of a world trading system that is fundamentally stacked against the interests of the poorest people in the world. There is no flow of wealth from rich to poor in the latter part of the 20th century. There is a massive flow of wealth from the poorest to the richest. The same is happening in our society and in other industrialised countries. The same is happening, on a massive scale, in the poorest countries—and more specifically, from the poorest countries to the banking systems and trading operations of the western and northern countries of the planet.
We cannot go on witnessing the poverty, deprivation and misery in the world. As a start, we should write off large amounts, if not the total, of these debts. Secondly, we should decide not to impose an economic model that we know to be unfair and unjust on those countries. Instead, we should support a world trading system that gives farmers in Latin America and south Asia reasonable prices for the goods they produce, so that those countries can begin to develop their economic and social infrastructures as we would like them to. We cannot go on allowing the world to be divided in this way.
I hope that, in this short opportunity that we have today, the Minister will at least explain what is going on within the Paris Club, and what will be done to alleviate the suffering of the very poorest people in the poorest sub-Saharan African countries.
11.49 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I start by thanking the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for raising this very important issue. He spoke with some passion about a subject which undoubtedly concerns many people.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have long been concerned about the problems faced by the poor countries of the world, which, as he outlined, shoulder enormous debt burdens. Struggling to pay debts that they cannot—and will never be able to—afford just frustrates sensible economic reform. It keeps countries in endless poverty, some of the human consequences the hon. Gentleman outlined when he mentioned the Oxfam report.
It is necessary to chart the course of where we have been and where we are going in helping with the problem. The Overseas Development Administration has written off more than £1.2 billion of old aid loans owed to it by

1577
the poorest countries. That has certainly been of some help. We have also taken a leading role—the leading role—internationally in seeking solutions to the problems of indebtedness of the very poor. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of that tonight. It was Lord Lawson who first took steps in that direction. They have been developed in what have become known as the Trinidad and London terms, which have helped substantially in this area.
The London terms have helped 22 countries. They have benefited from debt reduction under those terms in the region of £2.75 billion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a substantial assistance that has already been given. But the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that that is not sufficient. We feel strongly that we must do more for the world's neediest countries, and must continue to press for further action.
We have long argued that creditors should write off part of their stock of debt, instead of simply making payments due over an agreed period, even if that period is extended. Unless the debt is reduced, they are simply left with a debt overhang, which does not help them in their attempts to restore their economies.
That brings me to the Naples terms, which were developed mainly as a result of lobbying by the UK of the G7 summit in Naples in 1994. An agreement has been reached to help poor countries' debts in various ways. That has been substantially used, and I hope will be used more.
The Government have pressed to make available a maximum reduction of 67 per cent. Sadly, that has not always been the case in other countries' agreements, but that is the direction in which we are moving.
If we look at what the implementation of the Naples terms has achieved, we find that 10 countries have received concessional reschedulings with debt reductions of that 67 per cent. Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Mauretania, Nicaragua, Senegal, Togo and Uganda have all been helped. Uganda has been the only country to receive a stock of debt reduction.
I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman about Uganda, and I shall come to that later. It is true that, so far, whereas the Naples terms are being effective, the debt problems of severely indebted low-income countries remain. The reason for this needs to be addressed. The reductions offered to date have not always been as generous as we had hoped—or indeed, as we believe necessary.
Sometimes, other creditors have been reluctant to increase to that 67 per cent. the rate of relief on debts which have already been reduced, especially debt reduced by 50 per cent. under the London terms. Some creditors have focused on the short-term projections of financing gaps. We think this does not sufficiently allow for adverse shocks which could at some point increase these gaps, such as a fall in the price of a major export commodity. Again, that was a point made by the hon. Gentleman. We are doing what we can to urge other members of the Paris Club to see the matter as we see it, and to help to reduce debt as much as possible.
Uganda has been mentioned several times. Stock-of-debt operations have not been as frequent or as generous as we should have liked; so far, Uganda has received a stock-of-debt treatment, but not all its eligible debts were reduced by as much as possible. Debt
1578
reduction for Uganda amounted to $97 million, just over 20 per cent. of its total Paris Club debt. The main reason is that the Paris Club does not normally reschedule or reduce debt contracted after the date of a country's first Paris Club agreement, which allows export credit agencies to provide new finance with a greater certainty of repayment. Uganda has a high proportion of post-cut-off-date debt.
The United Kingdom argued that Uganda should be granted exceptional treatment on its post-cut-off-date debt, but we did not succeed in reaching an agreement with the other creditors, two of which were owed more than the United Kingdom.
In addition, debt that had previously been reduced by 50 per cent. under Uganda's London terms agreement was excluded from further reductions. Again, the United Kingdom argued in favour of increasing to 67 per cent. the reduction already applied to that debt, but again there was no consensus among other creditors. The United Kingdom is pressing hard to give Uganda the greatest possible debt relief, but, sadly, the other creditors do not feel that they can do the same.
There is also the question of multilateral debt in Uganda and other countries. The total debt reduction for Uganda has been quite good so far, but we shall continue to press for its improvement. We also think that Bolivia, Guyana and Nicaragua will be good candidates for stock-of-debt reduction, and we hope that other creditors will agree.
I appreciate that implementation of the Naples terms is taking place rather slowly, and that concerns us greatly. At the recent summit in Halifax, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister persuaded his G7 colleagues of the need for decisive action. At his prompting, the G7 urged the
"full and constructive implementation of Naples terms".
That is a good move forward; we shall work to ensure that it is followed through, and that the potential of Naples is realised. We should then secure a win-win result: the poor countries would gain substantially—debtors have obvious gains from debt reduction—but creditors would also gain. By reducing their claims to realistic levels, creditors would increase the likelihood of being repaid the balance. We are making that point strongly to other members of the Paris Club.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concerns about IMF programmes and debt relief. Debt relief alone cannot solve the problems faced by the poorest countries; they must put their own economies right so that they can trade and, ultimately, stand on their own two feet. They need wise economic development.
The structural adjustment programmes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have a strong part to play. I accept that such programmes will often require the adoption of difficult policies by the countries concerned, but the Government consider it important for lending by international financial institutions to be accompanied by appropriate conditions, because growth and the reduction of poverty ultimately depend on a country's economic situation and on its following sensible economic policies.
The IMF and the World bank help members to assess the impact that policy reforms are likely to have on different groups such as the poorest. Increasingly, they are encouraging Governments to treat social spending as a priority in their budgets, in recognition of the importance of investing in health and education for sustainable

1579
development. In some cases, they also help members—through technical assistance missions, for example—to integrate their social safety nets in their reform programmes. However, if they do not get their economies right, there will be no long-term future for them. They must have those economic reforms.
On another series of points that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to the multilateral debt problem, he mentioned the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. We have proposed that the IMF should convert a small part of its gold reserves into income-earning assets. The interest earned could then be used to provide a subsidy for large concessional loans, and, where appropriate, for loans on more concessional terms, to the IMF's poorest indebted members that have shown a sustained commitment to economic reform. That is a good way of moving forward with the IMF. It would improve countries' ability to cope with repayments, and the underlying assets would form part of the fund's reserves.
Where have we got with that? So far, some of our partners are to be convinced that our preferred solution of selling a small portion of the IMF's gold and using investment income in that manner is the way forward, but the G7 has agreed to explore the option of "pledging" IMF gold. That would release other IMF resources to finance larger and more affordable concessional lending. That is welcome progress, and again it is at least two steps in the right direction. We will continue to press for
1580
agreement to outright gold sales in the way that was outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We have been pressing the World bank to consider how the facilities of its concessional loan arm could be adapted to give greater assistance to severely indebted, low-income countries. Like the hon. Gentleman, we believe that more movements can be made in that direction, so that the World bank can give better help to some of the poorest countries by reconsidering the way in which it makes its loan. I can assure him, therefore, that we are continuing to do our utmost to enable the alleviation of the crippling effect of large debt burdens on the poorest countries of the world.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for drawing the House's attention to this matter. As he knows, it is a fairly complex issue. He also knows that some of these countries' problems cannot be resolved overnight, by one step only, or just by considering debt alone. We must remember that debt relief cannot deal with all the problems faced by developing countries, but it can release resources that can be used for development processes. That is the direction in which we are looking. That is why we are pressing our fellow members of Paris Club to reconsider both the existing terms and further imaginative ways of helping these countries.
The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned Nicaragua.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute past Twelve midnight.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Dartford. [33187]

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Cabinet Committees
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to change the current membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees. [36165]

  The Prime Minister
  I have decided to make a number of changes designed to streamline the current structure and rationalise the arrangement for discussion of policy issues into a smaller number of Committees with wide terms of reference. The full list of Cabinet Committees, including membership and terms of reference, is listed as follows:

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND DOMESTIC POLICY (EDP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister without Portfolio

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's
  economic and domestic policies"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS POLICY (OPD)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney General

  1006

  The Lord Privy Seal and the Lord President also receive papers and they and other Ministers may be invited to attend as necessary.

  The Chief of Defence Staff will attend as required, as will the Chiefs of Staff when necessary.

  Others, including the Governor of Hong Kong and the British Ambassador in Peking may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's defence and overseas policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DEFENCE POLICY (OPDN)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's policy on nuclear defence."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN IRELAND (NI)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney General

  The Minister without Portfolio receives papers.

  Other Ministers are invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (IS)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Defence

  The Lord President of the Council and the Attorney General may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of reference
  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON COMPETITIVENESS (EDC)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  1007

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister without Portfolio

  Secretary of State for Health

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The Chief Scientific Adviser attends for issues relating to science and technology.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider issues affecting the UK's competitiveness, and other industrial, commercial, consumer, competition and regeneration policies; policy on science and technology; the pace of deregulation; and the handling of public sector pay."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE COORDINATION AND PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY (EDCP)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Chairman)

  Lord President of the Council

  Minister without Portfolio

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend when necessary

  Terms of reference
  "To consider the coordination and presentation of Government policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (EDE)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Health

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions of environmental policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (EDH)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Lord Chancellor

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1008

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister without Portfolio

  Secretary of State for Health

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  The Attorney General, the Lord Advocate and the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms also receive papers and are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider home and social policy issues"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EDL)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister without Portfolio

  Secretary of State for Health

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration)

  Terms of reference
  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (EDX)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Lord Privy Seal

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider the allocation of the public expenditure control totals and make recommendations to the Cabinet"
  1009
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECHES AND FUTURE LEGISLATION (FLG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Lord Chancellor

  Minister without Portfolio

  Lord Privy Seal

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs may be invited to attend or be represented for discussion of The Queen's Speeches.

  Terms of reference
  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of The Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and proposals for the Government's legislative programme for each Session of Parliament".

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION (LG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also receives papers and is invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference
  "To examine all draft Bills; to consider the Parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures".

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON HEALTH STRATEGY (EDH(H))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Department of Health

  1010

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  The Chief Medical Officer is in attendance.

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, to coordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN QUESTIONS (OPD(E))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Minister without Portfolio

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Attorney General

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Lord Advocate also receives papers. He and other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union is also in attendance.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy".

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM (OPD(T))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Attorney General

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the arrangements for countering terrorism and for dealing with terrorist incidents and their consequences and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."
  1011
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON DRUG MISUSE (EDH(D))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Solicitor General

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Others, including the Minister for Overseas Development and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State from the Department of the Environment, may be invited to attend as appropriate and receive all papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES (EDH(W))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Construction and Planning)

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, also receive papers and may be invited to attend as necessary.

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women: to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON LONDON (EDL(L))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Chairman)

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Industry and Energy)

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  1012

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Minister for Transport in London)

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the Government's policies on London"

  Celebration (4 July)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds for the celebrations held on the evening of 4 July at No. 10 Downing street. [35018]

  The Prime Minister
  Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and, in accordance with long-standing practice, no charge will be levied.

  Sir Peter Levene
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Prime Minister whether there will be any changes in the responsibilities of his efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Levene, following the recent reallocation of certain ministerial responsibilities. [36164]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Peter Levene will continue to fulfil his responsibilities as efficiency adviser to the Prime Minister. In addition to this role, Sir Peter will also advise the Deputy Prime Minister on his responsibilities for the working of government and the competitiveness agenda.

  French Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he was contacted by President Chirac of France concerning the French proposed resumption of nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement. [35415]

  The Prime Minister
  The details of these discussions with President Chirac are confidential.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33337]

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

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to advise the House and seek its advice before a decision is made to act as though sterling was in a fixed exchange rate arrangement under the EMU arrangements set out in the Maastricht treaty; and if he will make a statement. [35188]
  1013
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry gave him on 18 April,Official Report, column 41.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (False Declarations)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted for false declarations of means in application for legal aid in the years 1985–86 to 1994–95. [34508]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board's investigation section was set up in 1988. The information requested for the period prior to this date is not available.

  The number of applicants investigated for false declaration of means in their applications for legal aid is as follows:

  1987–88: Nil

  1988–89: Nil

  1989–90: Nil

  1990–91: 6

  1991–92: 5

  1992–93: 8

  1993–94: 15

  1994–95: 25

  The number of assisted persons prosecuted under section 39 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 over the same period is as follows:

  1987–88: Nil

  1988–89: Nil

  1989–90: Nil

  1990–91: Nil

  1991–92: 2

  1992–93: Nil

  1993–94: 2

  1994–95: 2

  An additional case, which included other offences of obtaining Department of Social Security benefits by deception and evasion of paying poll tax, was prosecuted in 1994–95. The Crown Prosecution Service decided to institute proceedings under the Theft Act 1968 to deal with all the offences.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend paragraph 4a of order 19, rule 2 of the county court rules, in line with Lord Woolf's recommendation on the scope for district judges to transfer difficult cases of the small claims procedure. [35231]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor considers it would be appropriate to widen the discretion of the district judge to transfer cases out of the small claims jurisdiction when the new "fast track" procedure recommended by Lord Woolf is implemented. To make this amendment prior to the introduction of the "fast 1014
  track" would reduce litigants' certainty as to the level of costs for which they may become liable.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the new measures he intends to introduce in line with Lord Woolf's recommendations to ensure that district judges are properly trained to handle small claims; when these measures will start to take effect; and what account will be taken of increases in the small claims limit in determining the date of commencement. [35232]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the training of district judges. It is currently considering the need for training in handling small claims.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35301]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

TRANSPORT

  A303 (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on setting up a round table conference to consider improvements to the A303 at Stonehenge. [36209]

  Mr. Watts
  We are currently approaching suitable candidates for the chairmanship for the conference and I will make an announcement shortly. An exhibition showing all the routes which have been identified as possible solutions, including those shown at the earlier public consultation, will be held in Amesbury in late September. The chairman, when appointed, will make the detailed arrangements for the conference.

  National Rail Timetable Information
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it an essential requirement for a successful franchise bid for a rail service that the operating company participates in a national timetable information system for passengers. [34857]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. Operators will be required to participate in a national telephone inquiry service to ensure that there is clear and accurate information about train services available nationwide. In addition, all operators will be required to make available at each station clear and up-to-date information about all rail services that use the station and all stations that they serve.

  M3 (Bar End-Compton)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the most recent estimate he has made of the number of vehicles using the M3, Bar End-Compton section. [35228]
  1015
  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Denham, dated 11 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of vehicles using the M3, Bar End-Compton section.
  In the week beginning 3 July 1995, about 684,000 vehicles used the section of M3 between junctions 10 and 11 (an average of about 97,700 vehicles per day).

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35306]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total number of journeys made each year by public service vehicles. [35350]

  Mr. Norris
  The total number of passenger journeys made each year on public service vehicles, up to 1993–94, is listed in tables 10.5 and 11.1, in the HMSO transport statistics report "Bus and Coach Statistics Great Britain: 1993–94". These figures are collected in annual surveys of public service vehicles.

  Passenger journey data on non-local services—tours, excursions, express services and private hire, shown in table 10.5—were not collected after 1990–91 as they were considered less reliable than those for local bus and coach services.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many roadside examinations of public service vehicles took place in the most recent year; and how many were found to have safety defects. [35349]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. John Denham dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of roadside examinations on public service vehicles.In 1994/95 29,831 public service vehicles were inspected at roadworthiness spot checks (including special checks on smoke emissions). Of these 3,315 were found to have defects which warranted the issue of a prohibition notice.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals the Government have to limit vehicle emission. [35382]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 17 July.
  1016
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department attaches a higher priority to action against the worst offenders of vehicular emissions; what variation in emissions he has identified according to vehicle type and vehicle age; and what estimates have been made as to the contribution of older cars to the overall emissions. [35383]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government attach high priority to ensuring compliance with emissions standards for vehicles in service. Emissions are checked both at annual test and at roadside checks. Recent emissions blitz campaigns are evidence of our commitment. Particular attention is given to the worst offenders, who face automatic prosecution. Vehicles of different ages are subject to different legal standards as shown in the table:

  Petrol engined cars, light goods vehicles and other vehicles in the main MOT testing scheme:

  Application

  Carbon monoxide Per cent.

  Hydrocarbons Parts per million

  First used on or after 1 January 1983

  4.5

  1,200

  First used on or after 1 August 1975 and before 1 January 1983

  6

  1,200

  For diesel-engined vehicles:

  Application

  Smoke opacity in non-turbo engine

  Smoke opacity in turbo-engine

  First used on or after 1 January 1979 (except taxis)

  3.2m-1

  3.7m-1

  Taxis since 18 April 1995

  ditto

  ditto

  No precise estimates have been made of the contribution of older vehicles to overall emissions, but it should be noted that well-maintained older vehicles will be no more polluting than a similarly maintained three-year-old engine and, typically, have a lower annual mileage than new vehicles.

  Automatic Train Protection Systems
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all system-wide automatic train protection systems currently under examination by his Department with the name of their manufacturer and the projected cost of installing these systems across the rail network. [35277]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive shortly a progress report from the Health and Safety Commission on the British Rail and Railtrack strategy for tackling ATP-preventable accidents. The strategy will identify the devices or systems which could eventually be used more widely on the rail network, either singly or in combination, subject to the outcome of trials or assessments.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken by his Department to ensure that contracts awarded by his Department represent value for money. [35059]
  1017
  Mr. Norris
  In purchasing goods and services, key measures applied are careful specification of requirements, securing appropriate competition and prices offered, including any maintenance costs.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations exist regarding the awarding of contracts by his Department to firms that are not limited companies. [35061]

  Mr. Norris
  No regulations exist. Contracts are awarded taking into account the financial stability of a supplier and his ability to undertake the work required.

  Double-decker Buses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the extension of the whole vehicle type approval framework directive 70/156/EEC as amended by directive 92/53/EEC will have on double-decker buses. [34848]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the restoration of controlled airspace around Prestwick airport. [34350]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority, CAA, has responsibility for airspace planning in the United Kingdom. It has no plans to review the requirement for controlled airspace around Prestwick airport at current traffic levels.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the costs of

  Name of agency

  Type of agency when established

  Investment by BREL

  Other funding sources

  How many former BREL employees found employment

  How many other jobs created

  Swindon development agency 1989 merged with Swindon Ent.g Trust became Great Western Enterprise

  Enterprise Agency May 1986

  £1.25 million

  £120,000 from local business and 2 seconded Railway Managers

  Numbers not available, but 6 ex-BREL staff still on payroll

  To date over 3,000 business assisted job numbers not available

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the funding and activities of agencies similar to the Swindon development agency

  Name of agency

  Type of agency when established

  Investment by BREL

  Other funding sources

  How many former BREL employees found employment

  How many other jobs created

  Bolton Bus Ventures for Horwich Works

  Enterprise agency November 1984

  £500,000

  £50,000 revenue funding p.a. for 3 years plus £50,000 from Bolton Metropolitan B Council

  At least 173

  823 jobs to October 1987 3,000 businesses assisted to date. Job numbers not available

  Crewe Dev Agency

  Development agency April 1988

  £1.25 million

  £50,000 revenue funding p.a. for 3 years plus £50,000 from Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council p.a. for 3 years

  Numbers not to hand

  800 jobs to date

  1018
  constructing an international and domestic station on the channel tunnel rail link at Stratford after the line has become operational. [34538]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage share he intends to take from the development gain arising from the disposal of the King's Cross railway lands in connection with the channel tunnel rail link. [34278]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State intends to take a share in development gain from or benefits accruing on disposal of the King's Cross railway lands.

  Swindon Development Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of all papers which were presented to the British Railways Board and/or the BREL board about the case for establishing the Swindon development agency at the time of closure of the Swindon BREL works, together with the minutes of all the decisions about this matter taken by the British Rail Board and the BREL board. [34660]

  Mr. Watts
  These are internal management documents of the British Railways Board and are not for disclosure.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when British Rail established the Swindon development agency; how much money has been invested in the agency(a) by BR and (b) from other public sources; how many former BR and BREL employees have been found alternative employment by the agency; and how many jobs for other people in the Swindon area the agency has created. [34453]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is as follows:

  established by the British Rail Board of BREL in other towns or the cities affected by railway job losses. [34461]

  Mr. Watts
  Details are given in the following table:
  1019

  Name of agency

  Type of agency when established

  Investment by BREL

  Other funding sources

  How many former BREL employees found employment

  How many other jobs created

  Doncaster Bus Advice Centre now Business Link Doncaster

  Enterprise agency March 1987

  £1.65 million

  1 Seconded Railway Manager

  Survey reveals most pre-retirement former staff gained employment

  1,000 jobs to date

  Glasgow Street Rollox (STRIDE)

  Development agency 1988

  £1.1 million

  3 seconded Railway Managers

  -

  -

  Derby and Derbyshire Business Venture

  Enterprise agency April 1988

  £1 million

  £50,000 revenue funding p.a. for 3 years plus 2 seconded Railway Staff

  30 businesses Jobs Numbers not available

  420 jobs to date

  Shildon and Seddgefield Dev Agency (SASDDA)

  Development agency August 1984

  £2 million

  £50,000 revenue funding p.a. for 3 years from Sedgefield DC plus £25,000 p.a. for 3 years from Shildon Town Council

  Not specifically identified

  400 projects 3,500 new jobs

  York Innovation Ltd.

  Innovation agency 1988

  £300,000

  Nil

  Other details unavailable at unavailable at short notice possible 25

  —

  Wolverton Employ Project (previously Milton Keynes Manpower Forum)

  Employ Project November 1986

  153,000

  Nil

  214

  1,250

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the past 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as www.open.gov.uk and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34677]

  Mr. Hanley
  From 1 May 1995, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, diplomatic wing, began publishing a range of regularly updated information material on the world wide web, including speeches and statements, press releases, consular and travel advice and a selection of other material on international issues. The service can be accessed under the address http://www.fco.gov.uk.

  The Overseas Development Administration makes available material on development issues through the "one World Online" web site at the address http://www/oneworld.org/oda/. It is also actively considering ways of publishing more general information through either the Government world wide web server www.open.gov.uk or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office server detailed above."

  Mr. Harry Wu
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Chinese People's Republic on the arrest of Mr. Harry Wu; and if he will make a statement. [34839]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Harry Wu is a United States citizen, and the US Government are in contact with the Chinese authorities about his arrest. We share American 1020
  concern about this case and hope that Mr. Wu will soon be released.

  We are in discussion with European Union partners and the United States about the next steps.

  Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of his Department's annual budget is spent on the promotion of British exports; and if he will make a statement. [34936]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to pages 32–37 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 1995 departmental report, Cm 2802, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The cost of commercial activity is given in table 11 therein.

  Pitcairn Island
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British mission is responsible for the protection of the dependent territory of Pitcairn island. [35167]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British high commissioner in Wellington is Governor of Pitcairn.

  United Nations Special Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources are currently committed to the United Nations special commission on Iraq; and what plans he has to increase United Kingdom payments to UNSCOM. [35162]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK makes a significant contribution to the work of the special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Iraq by putting at their disposal a wide range of expertise and equipment. At the moment, four British nationals are in Iraq on UNSCOM inspections, a further seven are seconded to the Baghdad monitoring centre for periods of up to six months, and four are seconded to UNSCOM in
  1021
  New York. In the financial year 1994–95 the total cost of UK support for UNSCOM was £1.1 million.

  There are no plans to change the level of our support.

  Weapons Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 394, if he will commission an evaluation of the report prepared by Stephen Hughes MEP and C. L. Beaver for the European Parliament's environment committee on the environmental and health effects of French nuclear testing at Mururoa and Fangataufa in French Polynesia, to assess its relevance to British dependent territories in the region. [35166]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are naturally concerned to ensure the environmental protection of British dependent territories, but note the assurance given by President Chirac that the proposed programme of nuclear tests will cause no damage to the environment.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the relevance to British policy of the written reply, number 1519/95 EN by the EU Environment Commissioner on 28 June to Nuala Ahern MEP, on the notifications made by France to the European Commission on nuclear testing under Article 34 of the EURATOM Treaty. [35168]

  Mr. Davis
  We have no current plans to carry out any further nuclear tests. The Commission's reply, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, therefore has no consequences for British policy.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding the welfare of British nationals on board the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior II" near the Mururoa atoll in the Pacific ocean. [35154]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  We have reminded the French authorities of their obligations towards us in respect of any British nationals they detain.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what treaty restrictions exist on the ability of Her Majesty's Government to share with another nuclear weapons power data on nuclear weapons simulations obtained by use of the Nevada test site either independently or in collaboration with the United States Government. [35153]

  Mr. Davis
  In the event that such information were obtained from US sources, article VII of the 1958 UK/US mutual defence agreement states that it could not be communicated to third parties without the approval of the US Government.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Governments have made representations to him concerning the proposed French nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement. [35416]
  1022
  Mr. Davis
  We have discussed this question with a number of Governments, particularly those in the south Pacific. We have made clear our own views on several occasions.

  East Timor
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 264, for what reasons his answer excluded the issue of discussion about the export of British arms to Indonesia. [34855]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not wish to prejudice our contacts with Timorese representatives by revealing the precise nature of our discussions.

  Antarctic Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects agreement to be reached on the future siting of the Antarctic secretariat. [35432]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The siting of the Antarctic treaty secretariat was discussed at the XIXth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Seoul in May. Treaty parties noted that there was still no progress on reaching a consensus on this issue. The next consultative meeting will take place in the Netherlands in April 1996, when it is expected that the matter will be taken forward.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35315]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that the referendum on the future of the western Sahara will be held; and if he will make a statement. [35433]

  Mr. Hanley
  We hope that the referendum will be held early next year. We welcome Polisario's decision to resume its participation in the voter identification process. We call on both parties to the dispute to co-operate fully with the United Nations Secretary-General in the implementation of the UN's settlement plan for the territory, and to refrain from any further actions which may hinder implementation of the plan.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 590, if he will indicate the nature of the diplomatic wing's consultancy service and those involved in the aid programme. [35488]

  Mr. Hanley
  Consultancies carried out in both the diplomatic and aid wings in 1994–95 would involve some or all of the elements of consultancy contained in the Cabinet Office definition.
  1023

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available. [36081]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Copies of the foundation's annual report for 1994–95 will be placed in the Libraries of the House during the week beginning 17 July.

  The foundation received £2.2 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its activities in 1994–95. With this grant, it has supported 244 projects, compared with 236 projects last year. This has included a significant contribution to a wide range of media organisations in the former Soviet Union, a comprehensive programme of political party training with a range of parties throughout central and eastern Europe undertaken by UK political parties, and provided on-going support to the post-electoral structures in the new South Africa.

  The foundation continues to make a valuable contribution to the promotion of democracy worldwide.

  Foreign Affairs Council (Geneva)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held in Geneva on 30 June. [36166]

  Mr. David Davis
  A Foreign Affairs Council was called at short notice in Geneva on 30 June to consider how the Community should respond to developments in the final stages of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation on the liberalisation of financial services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council noted with regret that the WTO was unable to conclude an agreement containing a high degree of commitments to multilateral and non-discriminatory liberalisation on trade in financial services and expressed concern about the position taken by the US Government in the final stages of the negotiations. The Council agreed that European Union negotiators should support the extension of the deadline for completion of the negotiations on both financial services and the movement of persons until 28 July 1995.

  The Council agreed that the Community and its member states should work during this extra period to achieve maximum liberalisation on a multilateral and non-discriminatory basis, thus preserving the benefits of the great efforts made in earlier rounds of the negotiations, and called on other parties to work for the same objective.

  The Council discussed how best to achieve this objective and agreed to return to the matter at its meeting in Brussels on 17 July 1995.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list projects funded in Nicaragua in 1994–95 through aid for 1024
  (a) technical co-operation, (b) programme aid and (c) the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [33265]

  Mr. Hanley
  The list of bilateral projects in Nicaragua funded in 1994–95 is as follows:

  (a) technical co-operation—

  English language teaching project

  (b) programme aid—

  nil (disbursements under the £600,000 programme aid grant signed in 1991 were completed in 1993–94).

  (c) Commonwealth Development Corporation—

  (i) Establishment of an export warehousing operation.

  (ii) Establishment of a shrimp farm.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what respect and to what extent the police management training project in Indonesia benefits the poorest people in that country.

  Mr. Hanley
  A more efficient and better managed police service should benefit the population of Indonesia as a whole.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria applied to the provision of aid to police forces at the time his Department approved the police management training project in Indonesia. [34711]

  Mr. Hanley
  Support designed to enhance the competence and effectiveness of a national police service can play a valuable part in the general improvement of public services on which economic and social development substantially depend. The police management training project in Indonesia was approved on this basis.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 803, if he will place in the Library a copy of the project completion report on the radio studios rehabilitation project in Indonesia.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: As made clear in ODA's code of practice for open government, release of project completion reports requires the consent of the recipient Government. We are contacting the Indonesian Government accordingly.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Overseas Development Administration on involving recipient countries in the selection process during competitive tendering in respect of projects which it funds. [34840]

  Mr. Hanley
  Where the ODA provides financial aid, the recipient country is responsible for the tendering process, and—unlike the ODA—is a party to the contract. Under technical co-operation, where contracts are let by the ODA, the recipients' needs are fully considered in drawing up project terms of reference and in the criteria for selection. In the latter case, the views of the recipient may be sought about the relative merits of tenders
  1025
  submitted, but the ODA is responsible for ensuring the proposed contract award is determined by best procurement practice.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much money would have been saved in the past year if the maximum rate that could be claimed by hon. Members for car travel was set at (i) the current middle rate, (ii) the current lowest rate and (iii) the same rate as is the maximum payable to councillors. [34778]

  Mr. Newton
  Detailed figures are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pornography
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the divisions of responsibility for enforcing the law on pornography within the Metropolitan police force following the review of the Obscene Publications Branch-SO1(4); [35370]

  (2) how many police officers within the Metropolitan police force are currently working on (a) child pornography, (b) adult pornography and (c) computer pornography of any type; and what were the figures in 1993. [35371]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis that responsibility for enforcing the law on all aspects of pornography is shared by the clubs and vice unit on the Metropolitan police No. 1 area and the paedophile unit at New Scotland Yard.

  The following are the numbers of police officers assigned to these units in 1993 and currently.

  Rank

  Current staffing levels

  1993 staffing levels

  Superintendent

  1

  1

  Chief Inspector

  2

  nil

  Inspector

  2

  2

  Sergeant

  11

  9

  Constable

  20

  16

  "Why Civil Liberties"
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what direct or indirect Government funding has been provided to the Civil Liberties Trust for the making and distribution of the video pack for schools entitled "Why Civil Liberties". [35195]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which information has currently been collated, no direct grants were made to the Civil Liberties Trust by a central Government Department. Information for 1993–94 is currently being collated. Records of individual grants made indirectly, for example by non-departmental public bodies, are not kept centrally by this Department.
  1026

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35317]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tests and studies have been carried out since 1965 by police departments on CS gas or CS gas foam; what was the purpose of these tests; where the tests were carried out and by whom; what was the nature of these tests; when the tests were carried out; what is the Home Office's policy on the use of CS gas or CS gas foam; and what assistance the police received from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, during these tests. [35575]

  Mr. Maclean
  Individual police forces have not, so far as I am aware, carried out their own scientific research into CS. They do, however, have access to the results of research and to expert advice. The report of the Home Office inquiry into the medical toxicological aspects of CS, published in two parts in 1969 and 1971—Command Papers 4173 and 4775 respectively—included a thorough review of the substantial research which had been carried out into CS at that time. This has subsequently been complemented by further research which has been reported upon in the published literature. This is kept under expert review by the Home Office police scientific development branch, which in turn provides chief officers of police with advice on the operational suitability of particular products.

  The police scientific development branch has, in consultation with the Department of Health and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, recently reviewed the latest available information in relation to proposals for the carriage of CS by police officers for self-defence. The police have for some years had access to CS for use against armed besieged criminals or as a last resort in public disorder.

  It is for chief officers of police to choose which CS devices to deploy, or the medium in which the irritant is dispensed, in any given circumstances. It is planned to use hand-held canisters which spray CS in a liquid solution for police self-defence trials.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority. [35817]

  Mr. Maclean
  Mrs. Caroline Mitchell and Mr. James Elliott have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the Police Complaints Authority. Mrs. Mitchell was previously senior assistant to the ombudsman at the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau and Mr. Elliott is at present divisional director of housing for the London borough of Brent. Mrs. Mitchell and Mr. Elliott will serve for three years from 22 May 1995 and 7 August 1995 respectively.
  1027

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the annual report for the Forensic Science Service. [35818]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's annual report and accounts for 1994–95.

  Immigration
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the outcome of the study of inter-agency co-operation on the enforcement of the immigration laws which he set up in October 1993.[35869]

  Mr. Howard
  The efficiency scrutiny which I announced in October 1993 was intended to examine ways in which the Government as a whole could work more effectively to strengthen immigration control and to prevent those temporarily or illegally in this country from receiving state benefits to which they should not be entitled. The scrutiny demonstrated that, in many cases, either the rules governing eligibility for benefit or the procedures for granting it were insufficiently rigorous to prevent abuse. It also showed that too often illegal immigrants were able to escape detection because procedures for identifying them were unclear.

  The Government do not believe that this is acceptable. It is wrong that people who are admitted to this country on the basis that they can provide for themselves or who are here illegally should receive benefits paid for by the taxes of lawful residents. The fact that this has been possible has provided a significant incentive for abuse of our immigration laws. Our objective is to end this abuse.

  The recommendations made by the scrutiny have been carefully considered. The Government have agreed proposals affecting the work of several Departments and agencies in respect of persons from abroad—a term used to mean a person who is not a national of a member state of the European Economic Area and who is not settled in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the immigration laws. The proposals, which fall into three interlinked groups, are designed:
  to ensure that people who are here unlawfully or as visitors do not receive benefits to which they are not entitled, including social security, social housing, free NHS treatment and student awards;
  to ensure that staff responsible for providing benefits and services are given the necessary guidance and training to identify claimants who are ineligible because of their immigration status;
  to strengthen the arrangement for staff responsible for providing benefits and services to pass information about immigration offenders to the immigration authorities.

  These proposals will be put into effect in the following ways. First, in seeking to align eligibility for benefits and services with immigration status and to ensure that procedures to check eligibility are effective:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already tightened up his Department's procedures to ensure that ineligible persons from abroad are excluded from income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. My right hon. Friend is now examining the position in relation to other non-contributory benefits and hopes to make an announcement in due course;
  1028
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will consider the need for further steps to ensure that persons from abroad here temporarily or in breach of the immigration laws do not gain access to student awards or loans;
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already published proposals for fairer access to social housing, under which persons from abroad temporarily in this country will not be able to obtain assistance under the homelessness legislation. My hon. Friend the Minster for Local Government Housing and Urban Regeneration has today announced in a written answer that under the proposals such people will not be entitled to social housing tenancies allocated by local housing authorities;
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked national health service staff to work closely with my Department to find better ways of controlling access to free medical treatment by persons from abroad who are not entitled to receive it;

  Secondly, in improving procedures to enable the providers of benefits and services to identify ineligible persons from abroad:
  clearer instructions and appropriate training will be given, with the assistance of the Immigration and Nationality Department, to social security and Employment Service staff;
  guidance will be given to local authorities, and training will be made available to local authority staff in identifying immigration offenders after consultation with local authority associations, on the identification of immigration offenders;
  further guidance is being considered in respect of student awards and also for institutions of further and higher education;
  we shall introduce a mre effective system of notification of relevant changes in immigration status to ensure that those who should not have access to social security benefits do not receive them;
  my Department is consulting the Department for Education and 'Employment on whether it would be feasible to issue guidance for schools admission authorities.

  Thirdly, in developing arrangements for more exchanges of information between officials in central and local government and the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office, we shall be taking advantage of the opportunities which naturally arise in the daily contacts between officials and persons from abroad. So long as they are not prevented by their statutory obligations or by the sensitivities of their operational objectives, officials in central Government will pass to the immigration authorities information about suspected illegal entrants and overstayers with whom they come into contact in the course of their normal duties. In its turn the Immigration and Nationality Department will be able to give details of an applicant's status under the immigration laws when that is relevant to his eligibility for a state benefit or service. In order to make quite sure that they are operating strictly within the provisions of the data protection laws, all departments and agencies concerned will fully consult the Data Protection Registrar before implementing these arrangements.

  Because I attach great importance to the maintenance of good race relations in this country, my Department will consult the Commission for Racial Equality on a set of objective criteria which may be used by Departments and

  1029
  agencies if it becomes necessary to seek clarification of an applicant's status under the immigration rules.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given in the White Paper he proposes to introduce that will establish a privatised criminal justice record system, Phoenix, to the rights of affected individuals to have equal access to the same information. [35367]

  Mr. Maclean
  Our proposals on new arrangements for access to criminal records in the employment context will be published later this year.

  Phoenix, the criminal justice record service, is already operational. It will not be privatised.

  Street Robberies
  Mr. Stephens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence(a) passed and (b) served in custody, for street robberies in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [35270]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available. Street robberies are not distinguished separately from other robberies in the information collected centrally on the prison population and court proceedings.

  Table A: Male Home Population by age group 1983–1993

  England and Wales

  Thousands

  Age

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  10–13

  1,491.0

  1,426.5

  1,348.4

  1,282.1

  1,224.6

  1,195.7

  1,203.7

  1,236.7

  1,281.9

  1,311.2

  1,316.1

  14–16

  1,220.0

  1,190.0

  1,182.1

  1,153.1

  1,114.0

  1,045.1

  988.7

  942.6

  916.2

  894

  912.4

  17–20

  1,723.9

  1,708.5

  1,678.0

  1,643.1

  1,611.2

  1,587.7

  1,555.5

  1,508.0

  1,454.8

  1,377.7

  1,307.1

  Total aged 10 and over

  21,074.3

  21,140.2

  21,194.6

  21,218.1

  21,248.5

  21,268.6

  21,325.8

  21,397.3

  21,577.5

  21,653.1

  21,736.6

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Table B: Number of males cautioned for certain offences by age group 1983–1993

  England and Wales

  Offence description/Age

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  10–13

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  1,173

  1,048

  1,151

  937

  1,004

  1,042

  1,191

  1,158

  1,490

  1,690

  1,803

  Robbery

  91

  97

  80

  71

  103

  78

  143

  219

  211

  266

  247

  Burglary2

  5,466

  5,841

  5,719

  4,641

  4,232

  4,026

  4,108

  4,411

  3,858

  3,906

  3,438

  Total indictable offences

  32,041

  33,179

  34,440

  26,298

  26,014

  22,851

  20,326

  22,468

  20,958

  22,451

  19,924

  SUMMARY NON-MOTORING OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  3,752

  3,898

  4,165

  3,425

  2,837

  2,747

  3,050

  3,188

  3,220

  3,464

  3,739

  Total summary non-motoring

  6,274

  6,174

  6,088

  4,883

  4,099

  3,989

  5,295

  5,525

  5,194

  5,584

  5,730

  Total all offences

  38,315

  39,353

  40,528

  31,181

  30,113

  26,840

  25,621

  27,933

  26,152

  28,035

  25,654

  14–16

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  2,601

  2,957

  3,301

  3,103

  3,500

  3,690

  4,054

  4,449

  4,506

  4,940

  4,886

  Robbery

  56

  76

  89

  92

  108

  136

  145

  261

  231

  231

  267

  Burglary2

  5,337

  6,283

  7,031

  6,352

  6,842

  6,136

  5,829

  7,006

  6,259

  6,183

  5,093

  Total indictable offences

  37,541

  42,112

  47,956

  43,595

  47,997

  43,033

  37,485

  44,230

  41,011

  42,076

  36,375

  SUMMARY NON-MOTORING OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  4,067

  4,667

  5,402

  5,508

  4,898

  4,991

  4,846

  5,307

  4,781

  4,901

  5,077

  Total summary non-motoring

  12,384

  12,526

  13,893

  13,178

  12,588

  12,455

  16,008

  17,157

  14,702

  14,356

  13,111

  Total all offences

  49,925

  54,638

  61,849

  56,773

  60,585

  55,488

  53,493

  61,387

  55,713

  56,432

  49,486

  1030

  Relocation of Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the relocation of prisoners from Great Britain to Northern Ireland prisons; and if he will make a statement. [35595]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides for prisoners convicted in one United Kingdom jurisdiction to request permanent or temporary transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction.

  Requests for transfer continue to be considered on their individual merits under criteria announced to the House on 23 November 1992.

  Prosecution and Cautioning Data
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males aged(a) 10 to 13, (b) 14 to 16 and (c) 17 to 20 years were estimated to be in the population for England and Wales; and how many were charged with and cautioned for (i) violent offences against the person, (ii) robbery, (iii) burglary, (iv) summary offences of criminal damage and malicious damage and (v) all other offences for each year since 1983. [34464]

  Mr. Maclean
  As detailed information on the number of persons charged is not collected centrally, prosecution data as well as cautioning figures are given in the tables.

  Data for 1994 will not be available until the autumn of 1995.
  1031

  Table B: Number of males cautioned for certain offences by age group 1983–1993

  England and Wales

  Offence description/Age

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  17–20

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  459

  693

  775

  1,021

  1,353

  1,454

  1,608

  1,994

  2,389

  3,133

  3,234

  Robbery

  5

  4

  8

  9

  6

  9

  8

  25

  24

  37

  63

  Burglary2

  253

  348

  388

  589

  728

  792

  797

  1,171

  1,334

  1,847

  2,002

  Total indictable offences

  4,409

  5,711

  7,475

  10,464

  14,275

  15,026

  16,671

  22,944

  27,960

  35,392

  36,720

  SUMMARY NON-MOTORING OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  623

  815

  983

  1,584

  1,949

  1,966

  2,227

  2,776

  3,244

  3,933

  4,204

  Total summary non-motoring

  4,574

  7,036

  8,288

  10,069

  12,083

  12,410

  12,880

  13,395

  13,482

  15,823

  16,443

  Total all offences

  8,983

  12,747

  15,763

  20,533

  26,358

  27,436

  29,551

  36,339

  41,442

  51,215

  53,163

  All Ages

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  5,521

  6,147

  7,064

  7,429

  8,965

  9,732

  11,099

  12,559

  14,551

  17,503

  18,130

  Robbery

  155

  184

  178

  181

  218

  229

  303

  515

  482

  559

  599

  Burglary2

  11,213

  12,665

  13,386

  11,912

  12,155

  11,353

  11,124

  13,085

  12,182

  13,114

  11,695

  Total indictable offences

  82,658

  91,648

  104,246

  98,677

  111,474

  107,007

  102,774

  124,218

  131,368

  155,037

  153,634

  SUMMARY NON-MOTORING OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  8,964

  10,147

  11,498

  11,919

  11,780

  12,082

  12,746

  14,353

  15,171

  18,009

  19,423

  Total summary non-motoring

  38,161

  54,644

  62,046

  64,328

  73,777

  80,630

  86,875

  88,196

  85,305

  90,020

  86,254

  Total all offences

  120,819

  146,292

  166,292

  163,005

  185,251

  187,637

  189,649

  212,414

  216,673

  245,057

  239,888

  1 A number of indictable offences were reclassified as summary on October 1988 following the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  2 Offenders cautioned for "going equipped for stealing etc" were counted against 'burglary offences' until 1986 and against 'others' from 1987.

  Table C: Number of males prosecuted for certain offences by age group 1983–1993

  England and Wales

  Offence description/Age

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  10–13

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  619

  553

  472

  331

  281

  317

  303

  313

  338

  349

  451

  Robbery

  200

  196

  160

  159

  140

  154

  185

  247

  239

  308

  307

  Burglary2

  4,119

  3,995

  3,400

  2,229

  1,702

  1,379

  1,229

  1,077

  1,068

  1,024

  996

  Total indictable offences

  12,636

  12,025

  10,137

  7,058

  5,301

  4,733

  3,886

  3,738

  3,601

  3,828

  3,879

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  1,460

  1,132

  1,052

  710

  484

  420

  376

  377

  340

  395

  428

  Total summary non-motoring

  2,375

  1,922

  1,604

  1,084

  759

  766

  1,095

  1,129

  1,081

  1,083

  1,042

  Summary motoring offences

  158

  152

  150

  176

  100

  92

  107

  211

  200

  161

  146

  Total all offences

  15,169

  14,099

  11,891

  8,318

  6,160

  5,591

  5,088

  5,078

  4,882

  5,072

  5,067

  14–16

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  6,227

  5,666

  5,420

  4,544

  4,693

  4,799

  4,436

  3,973

  3,716

  3,856

  3,858

  Robbery

  860

  995

  1,003

  969

  1,073

  1,103

  1,312

  1,278

  1,311

  1,404

  1,610

  Burglary2

  18,366

  18,149

  16,245

  12,342

  11,370

  9,746

  8,241

  7,980

  7,564

  7,429

  7,214

  Total indictable offences

  61,026

  59,275

  54,697

  44,909

  43,413

  28,859

  29,445

  28,552

  27,531

  27,324

  27,924

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  5,231

  4,640

  4,573

  3,852

  3,354

  2,880

  2,686

  2,380

  2,062

  1,966

  1,967

  Total summary non-motoring

  15,833

  13,965

  11,968

  9,540

  8,541

  8,348

  12,358

  11,210

  10,209

  9,376

  8,551

  Summary motoring offences

  10,348

  8,649

  7,447

  5,820

  4,518

  3,872

  4,163

  4,163

  3,285

  2,472

  3,018

  Total all offences

  87,207

  81,889

  74,112

  60,269

  56,472

  51,079

  45,966

  43,925

  41,025

  39,172

  39,493

  17–20

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  18,758

  17,745

  18,042

  16,438

  18,493

  19,536

  19,673

  18,301

  16,353

  15,400

  14,385

  Robbery

  1,914

  2,001

  2,076

  1,878

  2,053

  2,148

  2,144

  2,262

  2,359

  2,542

  2,532

  Burglary2

  28,598

  29,473

  28,773

  24,641

  24,422

  21,540

  20,166

  21,429

  23,617

  21,962

  20,462

  Total indictable offences

  132,130

  131,897

  132,688

  118,691

  125,424

  122,799

  108,476

  114,720

  117,776

  110,355

  102,184

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  14,514

  15,156

  15,335

  13,663

  14,466

  13,901

  13,981

  12,628

  10,285

  8,792

  7,216

  Total summary non-motoring

  77,864

  72,337

  68,247

  62,824

  67,350

  71,073

  80,476

  75,454

  63,467

  55,584

  46,305

  Summary motoring offences

  149,359

  135,692

  130,823

  126,628

  103,243

  98,384

  105,437

  107,240

  102,419

  96,060

  88,186

  Total all offences

  359,353

  339,926

  331,758

  308,143

  296,017

  293,256

  294,389

  297,414

  283,662

  261,999

  236,675

  All Ages

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES

  Violence against the person1

  61,628

  59,135

  60,107

  57,055

  65,841

  73,809

  78,809

  77,818

  76,924

  76,882

  73,788

  Robbery

  5,313

  5,501

  5,881

  5,406

  6,008

  5,968

  6,492

  6,691

  7,340

  8,136

  8,512

  Burglary2

  81,200

  81,724

  78,282

  66,165

  66,479

  59,500

  54,379

  57,351

  63,960

  63,029

  60,684

  Total indictable offences

  456,547

  450,092

  448,894

  400,742

  426,495

  433,377

  390,025

  406,740

  427,744

  429,441

  420,871

  SUMMARY OFFENCES

  Criminal and malicious damage

  41,768

  42,250

  42,898

  39,382

  42,271

  42,820

  45,105

  43,142

  38,450

  35,397

  31,510

  Total summary non-motoring

  423,367

  384,219

  369,236

  376,317

  375,504

  402,991

  425,699

  424,271

  413,123

  421,483

  403,599

  Summary motoring offences

  1,106,463

  1,040,651

  1,012,292

  1,037,498

  753,875

  741,322

  758,977

  758,940

  798,516

  833,304

  794,839

  Total all offences

  1,986,377

  1,874,962

  1,830,424

  1,814,557

  1,555,874

  1,577,690

  1,574,701

  1,589,951

  1,639,383

  1,684,228

  1,619,309

  1 A number of indictable offences were reclassified as summary on October 1988 following the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  2 Offenders cautioned for "going equipped for stealing etc" were counted against 'burglary offences' until 1986 and against 'others' from 1987.

  1032 1033

  Immigration
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for entry into this country from partners of United Kingdom citizens have been refused entry wholly or partly on grounds of their sexuality, in each of the last three years; [34519]

  (2) how many applications for entry into the United Kingdom there have been from partners of United Kingdom citizens in homosexual relationships in the last three years. [34518]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available; such cases are not separately identified in the statistics.

  Bail Hostel (Port Talbot)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish the report on the bail hostel at Port Talbot. [34352]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation is due to be published early next month.

  Bingo
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will review regulations relating to the advertising of bingo to enable it to be on equal terms with the national lottery. [34450]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The restrictions on the advertising of bingo and other forms of commercial gambling are currently under review as part of the Government's deregulation initiative.

  Violent Crimes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research studies from his Department which have(a) reported and (b) are yet to be published on the reasons for the rise since 1985 in the number of boys and young men charged with, or cautioned, for, offences of violence against the person. [34462]

  Mr. Maclean
  No research reports have been published or are due for publication which deal directly with the number of boys and young men charged with, or cautioned for, offences of violence against the person. Information from Home Office statistics shows a reduction in the number of those in the under-21 age group found guilty or cautioned for offences against the person since 1985, although changes in recording of common assault, which was reclassified as summary only in 1989, will have affected the figures. Allowing for this, it would appear that there has been little change over the period.

  Serious Crimes (Low-income Households)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research studies commissioned by his Department in the 1980s and 1990s on the relationship between low household disposal income and rates of serious criminal offences; and if he will make a statement. [34482]
  1034
  Mr. Maclean
  No such studies have been commissioned by the Department, although questions relating to household income are included in the "British Crime Survey". Reports of the "British Crime Survey", the latest being the 1992 British crime survey, Home Office research study No.132, are in the Library.

  Police Personnel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police personnel per 1,000 population there are in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom. [34363]

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of police per 1,000 population in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Northern Ireland: 7.1

  Scotland: 2.79

  England and Wales: 2.46

  Immigration (Detention)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the efficiency of the allocation of immigration cases to detention centres. [33994]

  Mr. Baker
  Plans are in hand to introduce a revised detention allocation system designed to ensure that the best use is made of available space in accordance with agreed priorities.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will re-examine immigration service policy with a view to ending the detention of any person in police custody solely for having contravened immigration laws. [33996]

  Mr. Baker
  The initial detention of an immigration offender arrested within the United Kingdom will continue to require the use of police cells. However, the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1994 limits detention in police cells under immigration powers to a maximum of five days—seven days if directions for removal within that period have been given. Every effort is made to transfer immigration detainees to more suitable accommodation as soon as this can be arranged.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is properly enforced and to ensure rapid payment of any fines levied on carriers. [33995]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Enforcement of the Act forms an integral part of the Government's strategy for ensuring an effective immigration control. The immigration service assists carriers in meeting their obligations under the Act through an extensive programme of guidance and training. It has, for example, provided training to carriers on 325 separate occasions at ports of embarkation worldwide since the Act was introduced.

  At 30 June 1995 a total of £80.20 million had been incurred by carriers under the Act. Of this sum 79.7 per cent. had either been paid, £46.11 million, waived

  1035
  following representations by carriers, £10.60 million, or was the subject of settlement proposals, £7.20 million. The remaining 20.3 per cent., £16.29 million, is being rigorously pursued as part of an active debt recovery programme, which includes recourse to litigation where necessary.

  Prisons (Disabled Visitors' Facilities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that have disabled facilities for visitors to use when visiting prison inmates. [34079]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Tom Cox, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about facilities for disabled visitors at prisons in England and Wales.Prisons with facilities for disabled visitors are listed in the attached table. Such facilities include ramps, lifts, wide doors and specially adapted toilets. The listed prisons will have some or all of these.
  Prisons in England and Wales with facilities for disabled visitors

  Acklington

  Albany

  Aldington

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Aylesbury

  Bedford

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blakenhurst

  Blundeston

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Brockhill

  Bullingdon

  Camp Hill

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Channings Wood

  Coldingley

  Dartmoor

  Deerbolt

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dover

  Downview

  Durham

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Elmley

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Frankland

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gloucester

  Guys Marsh

  Haslar

  Haverigg

  Hewell Grange

  1036

  High Down

  Highpoint

  Hollesley Bay

  Holloway

  Hull

  Huntercombe

  Kingston

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington

  Lancaster Farms

  Latchmere House

  Leeds

  Lewes

  Leyhill

  Lindholme

  Littlehey

  Low Newton

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Moorland

  Morton Hall

  The Mount

  New Hall

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Onley

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Preston

  Ranby

  Reading

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Shrewsbury

  Stafford

  Standford Hill

  Stocken

  Styal

  Sudbury

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Thorn Cross

  Usk and Prescoed

  Whitemoor

  Wakefield

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Wealstun

  Wellingborough

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  Whitemoor

  Winchester

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Trainee Immigration Officers
  Miss. Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the series of handouts issued to trainee immigration officers. [33300]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have arranged for this material to be examined with a view to placing the handouts in the library except where disclosure would damage the effectiveness of the immigration control.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will notify the hon. Member during the summer recess of developments in the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal with particular reference to
  1037
  whether a final decision is made to deport him; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that such notification will allow time for further representations to him. [33682]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Yes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Performance Targets (Agencies)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will announce the key performance targets for executive agencies in his Department for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [35816]

  The Attorney-General
  On 28 April 1994, I informed the House,Official Report, column 235, of the key performance targets which I had set for the Government Property Lawyers for 1994–95. The agency has had another successful year and it has achieved the targets I set. I congratulate the chief executive and his staff. I have set the following targets for the agency for 1995–96:

  To recover the full operating cost of the Agency.

  To achieve at least 6,000 new instructions from its clients.

  To effect an average of 95 completions pre case-holder equivalent to total of 6,935.

  To maintain and improve the quality of service in particular by keeping the proportion of cases completed satisfactorily (i.e. without requiring rectification by reason of any fault of the Agency) on or before the target date at or above 99.5 per cent.

  Over the three year period, 1993–94 to 1996–97 to achieve a reduction on operating costs of an average of 2.5 per cent. per year in real terms taking 1993–94 as the base year.

  I wish the chief executive and his staff another successful year.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for the year 1994–95. [35815)

  The Attorney-General
  The report was laid before Parliament at 11 am this morning and then published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TREASURY

  Statistics (EU)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June, if he will publish such information on other EU member states, official publications on public expenditure and taxation as is readily available to him. [32492]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Relevant documents for each of the member states are listed below, where readily available, with the usual month of publication. A number of these documents are not available in the English language.

  AUSTRIA

  1. Federal Budget Law (Bundesfinanzgesetz), January.

  2. Financial Report of the Federal Minister of Finance (Bundesvoranschlag), October.

  1038

  3. Multi-Year budget estimates of the Federal Minister of Finance supplemented by the Federal Investment Programme (Budgetprognose and Investitionsprogram des Bundes), June.

  4. Annual Economic Report (Wirtschaftsbericht) of the Federal Government, June.

  5. Quarterly Report on the excess expenditures (Zusammenstellung der überplanmäsigen Ausgaben).

  6. Subsidy Report of the Federal Government (Subventionsbericht), autumn.

  7. Public Debt Report (Finanzschuldenbericht), July.

  8. Federal Household Act (bundeshaushaltsgesetz).

  BELGIUM

  1. Budget Document. Source: Ministry of Budget

  DENMARK

  1. Finance Bill (Finanslovforslag). August.

  2. Finance Act (Finanslov), February.

  3. Budget Updates ("Budgetoversigt"), published May, August, October and December.

  4. Supplementary Finance Bill ("Forslag til tillaegsbevillingslov"), February.

  5. The Budget. English Summary of the Finance Bill, September.

  6. Finance White Paper ("Finansredegorelse"), once a year.

  7. Expenditure White Paper ("Udgiftsanalyser"), once a year.

  8. Budget Manual ("Buzigetvejledning"), latest issue February 1992.

  FINLAND

  1. Budget proposal (Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle valtion tulo—ja menoarvioksi). September. Annexes: Economic Survey (English translation available), Report on Multi-year Projections of State Finances.

  2. Government Statement on Economic Policy to Parliament (Valtioneuvoston talouspoliittinen selonteko eduskunalle), May.

  3. Medium Term Prospects. The Finnish Economy and State Finances to 1990, (biannual, English translation available), May.

  4. Report of the Finance Committee of Parliament on the budget proposal (Valtiovarainvaliokunnan mietinto hallituksen esitykseen johdosta valtion tulo—ja menoarvioski), December.

  5. The Budget accepted by Parliament (Eduskunnan vastaus hallituksen esityksen valtion tulo—ja menoarvioksi), December.

  6. The specification budget of the State (Valtion erityismenoarvio), February/ March.

  7. General Instructions for the Implementation of the State Budget (Valtion tulo—ja menoarvion yleiset soveltamismaaraykset); January.

  8. The Annual Accounts of the State (Valtion tilinpaatos), April/May.

  9. Report on the Management and State of Government Finances (Kertomus valtiovarain hoidosta jai tilasta), Autumn.

  10. The State Auditors' Report (Valtiontilintarkastajain kertomus).

  FRANCE:

  1. Finance Bill (Projet de Loi de Finance),September/October.

  2. Economic and Fiancial Report (Rapport économique et fiancier) September/October.

  3. Supplement on "Ways and Means (Fascicule "Voies et moyens"), outlining central government revenue, September/October.

  4. Annexes (Annexes), detailing expenditures on existing services and new measures by Ministry, September/October.

  5. Approved Budget (Budget Voté) published after approval of Finance Bill, end January.

  1039

  6. Social Security Accounts (L'Effort Social de la Nation) end October/November.

  7. Amendments to the Finance Act (Lois de finances rectificatives) November/December.

  GERMANY

  1. Law on the Adoption of the Federal Budget (Haushaltsgesetz) supplemented by the Federal Budget Plan (Bundeshaushaltsplan), December.

  2. Financial Report of the Federal Minister of Finance (Finanzbericht des Bundesministers der Finanzen), August.

  3. Annual Economic Report (Jahreswirtschaftsbericht) of the Federal Government, January. (English translation available).

  4. Quarterly Report on the Excess and/or extra budgetary expenditure (Zusammenstellung der über und ausserplanmasigen ausgaben in…Vierteljahr des Haushaltsjahres).

  GREECE:

  1. General Budget. Source: Ministry of Finance.

  2. Provisional National Accounts of Greece. Source: National Statistical Service of Greece.

  3. Bi-annual Report on the Greek Economy—Source: Ministry of National Economy.

  IRELAND:

  1. Estimates for Public Services (Abridged Version), November/December.

  2. Summary Public Capital Programme, November/December.

  3. White Paper on Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure January.

  4. Revised Estimates for Public Services, March.

  5. The Budget booklet March.

  6. The Finance Accounts, June.

  7. The Appropriation Accounts, by 31 October.

  8. Report of the Committee of Public Accounts. No fixed publication date.

  ITALY

  1. The Forecasting and Planning Report (Relazione Previsionale e Progranimatica)

  LUXEMBOURG:

  1. The State Budget (Le Budget de l'Etat 1995) Source: Finance Ministry.

  NETHERLANDS:

  1. Appropriation Bills (Begrotingswetten), September.

  2. Budget Memorandum (Milkoenennota), September.

  3. Report on macro-economic forecast (Macro Economische Verkenningen), September.

  4. Spring memorandum (Voorjaarsnota).

  5. Autumn memorandum (Najaarsnota).

  6. Report on the provisional results of the budget (February Memorandum (Voorlopige Rekening)\ (Februari Nota).

  PORTUGAL:

  1. The State Budget (Orcamento geral do estado)

  SPAIN:

  1. The Finance Act (Articulado de la Ley de Presupestos Generates del Estado).

  2. Statement of revenue for the State, autonomous organisations, certain public entities and social security (Presupuesto de ingresos).

  3. Expenditure. Budget by programme and statement of objectives (Gastos Presupuestos por Programa y Memoria de Objetivos).

  4. Financial Statements and accounts of the commercial, industrial and financial autonomous organisations (Estados Financieros y Cuentas).

  1040

  5. Operating and capital budgets and financial statements for certain public entities and state corporations (Presupuestos de explotacion y capital y estados financieros).

  6. Economic and financial report (Informe econinnico financiero).

  7. Consolidated budget (Presupuesto Consolidado).

  8. Interim report on the budget outturn for the current year (Avance de la liquidacion del presupuesto).

  SWEDEN:

  1. Budget Bill (Budget propositionen), January.

  2. Popular version of the Budget Bill (Regeringens budgetforslag), January, English translation available ("Swedish Budget").

  3. Revised Budget Bill (Kompletteringsproposition Reviderad Finansplan), April. (The revised economic policy and budget statement is published in English).

  4. Annual directives to agencies on how to prepare budget requests (Aarliga direktiv).

  5. National Audit Bureau's presentation of government finances (Statens finanser).

  Inheritance and Capital Transfer Taxes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of owners of chattels that are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax that reside in each English county. [32873]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many owners of chattels that are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax charge members of the public a fee to view their works of art. [32874]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available. Owners may charge members of the public a reasonable fee to review their conditionally exempt chattels, but there is no statutory power for the purpose of either tax to require owners to tell the Inland Revenue about any fee charged.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many owners of works of art which have conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax and to which the public have rights of access(a) do not list their telephone numbers in the register of conditionally exempt works of art and (b) are ex-directory. [32875]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the working parties he has established to examine and plan the legislative and administrative measures required for the possible introduction of the single currency; [33528]

  (2) if he will publish a detailed response to the European Commission's green paper on the practical arrangements for the introduction of a single currency. [33531]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government are currently considering how to respond to the "operational conclusions" of the Commission's Green Paper.
  1041

  Pension Contributions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of households, excluding retired households, in the poorest and richest decile groups and what percentage of males and of females of economically active age in those groups as ranked by disposable income in table 34 of the family spending reports of the Central Statistical Office, are paying contributions to(a) private pension schemes, (b) occupational pension schemes, (c) the state earnings-related pension scheme and (d) national insurance (basic retirement pension); and how many are paying contributions to both (a) or (b) and (d) and to both (c) and (d). [34475]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of capital investment as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1970. [34340]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest estimate of gross domestic fixed capital formation and gross domestic product at current and constant market prices is available on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant database identifiers are DFDC and CAOB Library. The relevant database identifiers are DFDC and CAOB at current prices and DFDM and CAOO at constant prices.

  Barings
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to lay before Parliament the Bank of England report into Barings. [34413]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House in his oral statement earlier today, he has laid the Board of Banking Supervision's report into Barings before Parliament.

  Non-European Union Import Tariffs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Government receive annually from tariffs imposed on imported goods from outside the EU; and if he will make a statement. [34995]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures for receipts of customs duties by Customs and Excise are shown each year in the annual report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Table A1 in the 1993–94 report shows receipts for each year from 1984–85 to 1993–94.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the loss of revenue to the United Kingdom resulting from VAT rates on tourism, goods and services. [35072]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government do not believe that there is any such revenue loss.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of VAT on tourism, goods and services in the 1042
  United Kingdom; and what comparative studies he has made of other EU member states. [35071]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government do not believe that the application of VAT discourages tourism in the UK. We have a lower standard rate than most EU member states and our zero rate is widely applied. In addition, some member states apply local tourist taxes.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of likely tax revenue from the national lottery in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [34881]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The summer economic forecast estimates betting and gaming duties to bring in £1.7 billion in 1995–96 in total. It is not usual practice to disaggregate this figure.

  Internal Examinations
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the reasons for the policy allowing customs officers to require any visitor to the United Kingdom to be the subject of an internal examination carried out using reasonable force; and why this power is not available to prison governors. [35193]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise policy on search of persons exists to prevent the illegal importation of prohibited and restricted goods, or goods on which duty has not been paid, into the United Kingdom. Customs officers have the right to search any person entering or leaving the United Kingdom where reasonable grounds exist: only when a person has been arrested under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and has been shown an unwillingness to co-operate can reasonable force be used. The Home Office is responsible for the powers of prison governors.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the powers available to Customs officers to require any visitor to the United Kingdom to undergo an internal examination; and in what circumstances reasonable force can be used. [35191]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Powers in section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 permit the search of any person entering or about to leave the UK, provided Customs officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying prohibited or restricted goods, or goods on which duty has not been paid. Reasonable force may be used only under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where a person has been arrested and it has been established that the person to be searched is unwilling to co-operate or resists.

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to make a further statement on the Government's policy on resource accounting and budgeting. [35813]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Last July, I published a Green Paper entitled "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money: Resource Accounting and Budgeting". The Green Paper announced the Government's intention to proceed
  1043
  with the introduction of resource accounting for all Government Departments and a commitment in principle to introduce resource budgeting. It announced a consultation period and asked for comments on the proposals.

  I have received a large number of comments from parliamentary colleagues, the accountancy profession and other interested groups. They have shown overwhelming support for the broad principles of resource accounting and budgeting. I shall publish the Government's conclusions and further proposals on 26 July, with a view to seeking parliamentary colleagues' comments in the autumn.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in implementing and developing resource accounting in each Government Department; and what assessment he has made of the general Government financial deficit being used to aid this progress, if used as the primary measure of the budget deficit. [34201]

  Mr. Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) earlier today, which announced that the White Paper on resource accounting and budgeting will be published on 26 July. An annexe in the White Paper will set out departmental implementation plans. Resource accounting and budgeting is intended to facilitate better informed decisions about overall spending priorities within the context of the Government's macroeconomic objectives.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority is accorded to the measures of the general Government financial deficit as a measure for European monetary union. [34197]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The GGFD is relevant to the excessive deficit procedure which is set out in article 104c and the associated protocol of the treaty on European Union as amended at Maastricht. Being judged not to have an excessive deficit is one of the stage 3 convergence criteria set out in article 109j. Although the UK negotiated an opt-out on the decision on whether to join the EMU, it is well placed to meet the Government deficit and debt reference values by 1996.

  Privatisation Receipts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage privatisation receipts have affected the overall measure of the public sector borrowing requirement since 1979. [34199]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is set out in the table. Privatisation proceeds reduce the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) and privatisation proceeds (PPs) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

  Per cent. of GDP

  PPs

  PSBR

  1979–80

  0.2

  4.9

  1980–81

  0.1

  5.4

  1981–82

  0.2

  3.4

  1982–83

  0.2

  3.2

  1983–84

  0.4

  3.2

  1044

  Public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) and privatisation proceeds (PPs) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

  Per cent. of GDP

  PPs

  PSBR

  1984–85

  0.6

  3.1

  1985–86

  0.8

  1.6

  1986–87

  1.2

  0.9

  1987–88

  1.2

  -0.8

  1988–89

  1.5

  -3.1

  1989–90

  0.8

  -1.5

  1990–91

  1.0

  -0.1

  1991–92

  1.4

  2.4

  1992–93

  1.4

  6.0

  1993–94

  0.8

  7.1

  1994–95

  1.0

  5.2

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the benefit of accounting for privatisation receipts separately from the public sector borrowing requirement. [34200]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Privatisation proceeds are always shown separately in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and are used to make positive contributions to reducing borrowing and debt.

  Royal Ordnance (Shipments to Iran)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise received reports from Swedish Customs of the outcome of their investigation into shipments to Iran which mentioned Royal Ordnance; and what action it took. [35334]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It would not be appropriate to reveal details of exchanges of confidential information under mutual assistance arrangements established to assist the discharge of customs' law enforcement responsibilities, other than in the course of any resultant legal proceedings. All information received under such arrangements is evaluated and followed up as appropriate.

  National Debt
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the real increase in the size of the stock of public sector debt between 1979–80 and 1995–96; and what is his current estimate of the size of the national debt. [35380]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Net public sector debt is forecast to have increased by 37 per cent. in real terms between end-March 1980 and end-March 1996. As a proportion of gross domestic product, it will have fallen by 3 per cent. over the same period.

  The latest available estimate of the national debt is £306.9 billion at end-March 1994.

  The national debt, defined as the gross liabilities of the national loans fund, is not directly comparable to net public sector debt.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of taxpayers who were liable to pay income tax at a marginal rate of 40 per cent. or above in each year since 1970. [29889]
  1045
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: Provisional estimates for 1993–94 onwards are contained in the table. Increase in taxpayer numbers reflects higher taxable incomes and economic growth. Prior to 1979–80 there were nine higher rates of tax, the highest being 83 per cent. Now there is only one higher rate of 40 per cent.

  Taxpayers liable at 40 per cent.

  Thousands

  1993–94

  1,740

  1994–95

  2,150

  1995–96

  2,250

  Available figures for earlier years were given in the reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 5 May 1994.

  Gilts and Bonds
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will alter his present proposals relating to the taxation of gilts and bonds in order to(a) avoid the potential for double taxation of shareholders in investment trust companies and (b) exempt holders of zero dividend preference shares, who would otherwise be penalised by the change in the tax regime; [32952]

  (2) if he will exempt existing holdings of gilts and bonds from the new proposals on the taxation of gilts and

  Debt written off and debt injected prior to privatisation

  Debt written off

  Debt Injected

  Industry

  Year

  £ million

  Type of debt

  Year

  £ million

  British Telecommunications

  1984–85

  2,789.9

  National Loans Fund

  1984–85

  3,500

  British Gas

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  2,500

  BAA

  1986–87

  43.5

  National Loans Fund

  —

  —

  British Steel

  1988–89

  500.0

  Public Dividend Capital

  —

  —

  British Steel

  1988–89

  3,480.0

  Borrowing under Iron and Steel Act 1982 Assistance under Aircraft and Shipbuilding

  —

  —

  Harland and Wolff

  1989–90

  422.5

  Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979

  —

  —

  Short Brothers

  1989–90

  390.0

  Loan by DED

  —

  —

  Water companies

  1989–90

  4,973.3

  National Loans Fund

  1989–90

  72.9

  Water companies

  1989–90

  55.0

  Public Works Loan Board

  —

  —

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  3,583

  Electricity1 Scotland

  1991–92

  1,043.6

  National Loans Fund

  1991–92

  625.9

  NTL

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  22

  Norther Ireland Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  70.3

  Belfast Airport

  —

  —

  —

  1943–95

  15.2

  British Coal

  1994–95

  1,633.4

  Voted Loans

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  15,331.2

  —

  —

  10,389.3

  Notes:

  1 Prior to privatisation, National Loans Fund debt due to the South of Scotland Electricity Board nuclear programme of £1,368.4 million was transferred to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and subsequently written off.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the First Secretary of State what mechanism is used to determine that no necessary protection is removed when considering changes in regulations by order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [34571]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The responsible Minister must consider the implications of any proposed
  1046
  bonds, so as to remove the retrospective element involved in changing the tax treatment of existing assets; [34254]

  (3) how many representations he has received on his proposals to change the taxation of gilts and bonds; how many of these requested an extension of the consultation period for consideration of the aforementioned proposals; and if he will make a statement. [34255]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answers 6 and 13 July 1995]: I refer to the answer given on 10 July by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), Official Report, columns 377–78.

  Privatisation (Debts)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of debt written off in privatisations since 1984; and if he will list the figures by company and type of debt. [34642]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: It is common practice for capital restructuring to be undertaken where necessary before privatisation. For some privatisations, debt is written off, for others debt is injected. The table shows the debt written off, and the type of debt concerned, and debt injected for each company privatised where either occurred. Debts shown as written off include all debt written off since 1984 in companies subsequently privatised.

  amendment to primary legislation and, having done so, reach the view that it would remove or reduce a burden and that it would not remove any necessary protection. "Necessary protection" is not defined in the Act but could include, for example, protection for consumers or for the environment. All proposed orders will be scrutinised by the deregulation committee and the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which will report on whether they share the Minister's view that no necessary protection would be removed by the proposed amendment. Following the period of special parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister has to consider any

  1047
  representations made, including by both committees, before bringing forward a draft order subject to affirmative resolution.

  Office of First Secretary of State
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the origins of his office. [34507]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The right hon. R. A. Butler was appointed to the office of First Secretary of State in 1962, and there have been several holders of the office since then.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35303]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's plan for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the plan his Department has for the next 12 months to make information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as www.open.gov.uk. [34713]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 14 July,Official Report, columns 833–34.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34705]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. We continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens. We provide direct assistance where appropriate. The competitiveness White Paper announced in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  My Department plays a full role in the Government's policies to assist the development of small business in the United Kingdom.

  During the last 12 months, we completed the first phase of the national technology foresight programme, which involved participation of businesses across all sectors of the economy. Fifteen sector reports were published between March and April this year and an overarching report was published on 22 May 1995.All the reports give valuable indicators to business as to long-range market opportunities for the UK and to the investments in
  1048
  science, engineering and technology which will help exploit those opportunities. The reports emphasise the value of partnerships between businesses large and small and the UK's scientists and engineers. The Office of Science and Technology, through the auspices of the research councils, has in place a number of initiatives aimed at building collaboration with, and facilitation and exploitation of, the results of research by industry in general, which includes small businesses.

  My Department continues to support Government Departments and agencies in taking forward their competing for quality programmes. These include the market testing and contracting out of many activities employing between one and 20 people before tendering, thus offering opportunities for small firms to bid for work. The Government also publish a monthly bulletin, Government Opportunities (incorporating the Market Testing Bulletin), which details the opportunities for businesses of all sizes.

  My Department has also been encouraging Government Departments and agencies to assist business, including small firms, through citizens charter initiatives such as the revised employers charter produced by the Contributions Agency and the charter standard statement and code of practice produced by Companies House.

  The CCTA has been developing the CCTA Government information service on Internet to provide a simple electronic channel to provide a wide range of information from Government Departments. The service will open up the opportunity for the public sector to make information both on support to industry and procurement opportunities easily accessible to small businesses.

  The CCTA has also been exploring the use of electronic commerce to make it easier for all businesses to get access to procurement notices and to supply. to government.

  The nature of the products and services purchased by HMSO are such that many contracts are suitable for small businesses. Although there is no specific monitoring, it is estimated that more than 60 per cent. of HMSO contracts are awarded to small businesses.

  The Occupational Health and Safety Agency, through its network of regional offices, uses small businesses wherever possible to provide supplies and services, particularly in the area of maintenance. Further, through market testing, opportunities are offered to small firms to compete for work such as blood test analysis, internal audit services and marketing and publicity.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33434]

  Mr. Horam
  The consultancy firms which have received most contracts from the Cabinet Office, OPS, its agencies, HMSO and COI, are as follows:
  1049

  1993–94

  1994–95

  a. Number of contracts

  Fordway (5 contracts)

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  KPMG Peat Marwick (4)

  Glasgow and Associates (4)

  Eider Computers (2)

  Ametc Consulting (3)

  Ernst and Young (2)

  Coopers and Lybrand (3)

  Glasgow and Associates (2)

  Eider Computers (3)

  Kudos Oracle (2)

  Elaine Brant Management Consultants (3)

  MORI (2)

  MORI (3)

  Price Waterhouse (2)

  Touche Ross (3)

  Segal Quince Wickstead (2)

  Touche Ross (2)

  b. Monetary Value

  Peterborough Software

  Glasgow and Associates

  Glasgow and Associates

  Ogilvy and Mather

  Smith System Engineering

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  PREST Consultancy

  Touche Ross

  Touche Ross

  Information is not available for earlier years.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33574]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of contracts let by the Cabinet Office, its agencies, COI and HMSO is not held centrally in the form requested. The full information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The costs of consultancy contracts let by the Cabinet Office and its agencies in the last three financial years are as follows:

  £

  1992–93

  4,054,273

  1993–94

  7,604,190

  1994–95

  8,085,264

  The costs of consultancy contracts awarded by COI and HMSO in the last three financial years are as follows:

  £

  COI

  1992–93

  136,460

  1993–94

  66,668

  1994–95

  162,209

  HMSO

  1992

  410,075

  1993

  1,061,025

  1994

  1,750,750

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33853]
  1050
  Mr. Horam
  The expenditure on computer consultancy by Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and its agencies and the Central Office of Information for 1993–94 and 1994–95, is as follows:

  1993–94: £2,495,500

  1994–95: £2,600,000

  Similar information for HMSO and the information for earlier years may be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Forecast expenditure on computer consultancy is included with expenditure on computer equipment and cannot readily be identified separately.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34547]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures include expenditure by the Cabinet Office and No. 10 Downing street and by the Office of Public Service and its agencies.

  The top ten suppliers during the period 1993–94 and 1994–95, were:

  £00s

  Viglen

  1,832

  ICL

  1,351

  DELL

  1,340

  Hewlett-Packard

  947

  Rank Xerox

  388

  Kyocera

  357

  Elonex

  243

  Toshiba

  122

  Compaq

  103

  Bowe Systems Ltd

  85

  During this same period, expenditure on "turnkey" solutions was £12,268,000. It is not possible to identify separately the cost of equipment within these packages.

  Similar information for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33883]

  Mr. Horam
  The firms which have won computer consultancy contracts from the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, Occupational Health Services Agency, Chessington Computer centre, Civil Service college and Central Office of Information in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are as follows:
  1051

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Admiral Management Services

  —

  1

  Amtec

  1

  4

  Butler Bloor

  —

  1

  Computacenter

  1

  —

  CSC Ltd

  1

  —

  Eider

  1

  3

  Fordway

  6

  —

  Gimlet Management Consultants

  —

  1

  IBM

  1

  —

  Kudos

  2

  —

  Netware NFS

  1

  —

  Psy Tech/Framework

  1

  1

  QLC/Formfill

  1

  2

  Secure Information Systems Ltd

  —

  1

  Security and Standards Consultants Ltd

  1

  1

  Smith System Engineering Ltd

  1

  1

  Software Design

  1

  1

  South Bank University

  1

  —

  Touche Ross

  1

  —

  Triad

  1

  —

  Similar information for HMSO and CCTA, and the information for earlier years requested in the question may be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial visits

  Minister (1993)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost £

  18–19 January

  +5

  Brussels

  Council

  2,700

  24–25 January

  +2

  Vienna

  Meeting with Austrian Minister

  1,600

  31 January—1 February

  +2

  Oslo

  Meeting with Norwegian Minister

  1,500

  9–10 February

  +5

  Brussels

  Council

  3,200

  9–10 March

  +2

  Italy

  Verona Agricultural Show

  1,800

  16–17 March

  +6

  Brussels

  Council

  3,600

  26–27 April

  +10

  Luxembourg

  Council

  6,700

  9–12 May

  +2

  Turkey

  Trade promotion

  3,000

  16–17 May

  +3

  Copenhagen

  Meeting with Danish Minister

  2,000

  24–25 May

  +8

  Brussels

  Council

  4,600

  14–15 June

  +2

  Luxembourg

  Council

  1,800

  28–29 June

  +1

  Koldingfjord Denmark

  Informal Council

  900

  19–20 July

  +6

  Brussels

  Council

  3,600

  6–15 September1

  +2

  South America1

  Trade promotion

  16,000

  20–21 September

  +4

  Brussels

  Council

  2,700

  27–28 September

  +1

  Ostend

  Informal Council

  950

  12 October

  +3

  Brussels

  Meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas

  1,500

  18–19 October

  +5

  Luxembourg

  Council

  3,600

  3 November

  +2

  Bonn

  Meeting Herr Borchert

  1,100

  16–17 November

  +4

  Brussels

  Council

  2,700

  6 December

  +3

  France

  Meeting with M. Puech

  1,600

  13–16 December

  +9

  Brussels

  Council

  8,000

  17–8 September Paraguay/9–10 September Uruguay/11–13 September Argentina.

  Minister of State (1993)

  Number of Officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  18 March

  +7

  Brussels

  Council

  4,500

  24 June

  +7

  Luxembourg

  Council

  4,500

  12 October

  +3

  Brussels

  Meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas

  2,000

  14 October

  +3

  Dublin

  Meeting with Irish Minister

  1,250

  25 September—2 October

  +2

  India

  Trade Promotion

  1,200

  20 October

  +7

  Luxenbourg

  Council

  5,000

  21–22 November

  +7

  Brussels

  Council

  6,000

  18–21 December

  +8

  Brussels

  Council

  6,000

  1052

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him, or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials, to public funds for each year since 1992. [32257]

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1992, MAFF Ministers have made a total of 89 overseas visits paid for wholly or partly from public funds. Forty three visits were to EC Councils of Ministers; the remaining visits were in support of bilateral relations, enlargement negotiations and trade promotion. The following details include travel and subsistence costs of MAFF officials, estimated as necessary to the nearest £50. It should be noted that the cost of travel to and from Council meetings is subsequently reimbursed by the EC, subject to certain limits. All the Council meetings involved were Agricultural or Fisheries Councils, unless otherwise stated.
  1053

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords) (1993)

  Number of Officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  29–30 September

  +2

  Frankfurt

  Plantec International Trade Fair for Horticulture

  1,500

  15–18 November

  +2

  Paris and Amsterdam

  Visit FFB offices plus visit to supermarkets

  2,500

  7–8 December

  +1

  Copenhagen

  North Sea Conference

  £1,250

  Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) (1993)

  Number of Officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost

  3 February

  +2

  Colonge

  ISM Food Exhibition

  1,200

  27 September

  +3

  Brussels

  Council

  1,200

  11 October (overnight)

  +2

  Cologne

  ANUGA food exhibition

  1,200

  Minister (1994)

  Number of Officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  24 January

  +3

  Brussels

  Council

  1,600

  21–22 February

  +2

  Brussels

  Council

  1,700

  28–29 March

  +5

  Brussels

  Council

  3,400

  10–12 April

  +2

  Rodez, France

  Meeting with M. Puech

  1,200

  25–26 April

  +6

  Luxembourg

  Council

  3,900

  30–31 May

  +8

  Brussels

  Council

  4,600

  20–24 June

  +11

  Luxembourg

  Council

  6,400

  18–19 July

  +9

  Brussels

  Council

  5,100

  5 September

  +2

  Brussels

  Meeting with Commissioner Steichen

  1,200

  19–20 September

  +5

  Brussels

  Council

  3,200

  26–27 September

  +2

  Dusseldorf

  Informal Council

  1,100

  24–25 October

  +8

  Luxembourg

  Council

  6,400

  14–15 November

  +4

  Brussels

  Council

  2,700

  22 November

  +2

  Paris

  Meeting with M. Puech

  1,250

  12–13 December

  +9

  Brussels

  Council

  8,000

  30 November—3 December

  +1

  Mexico

  Inauguration of new Mexican President

  7,000

  Minister of State (1994)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  24 January

  +3

  Brussels

  Meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas

  2,000

  25 January

  +2

  Amsterdam

  NTV Horticultural Show

  1,000

  14 March

  +3

  Cologne

  Meeting with Dr. Feiter

  1,500

  11–12 April

  +7

  Luxembourg

  Council

  6,500

  9–10 June

  +7

  Luxembourg

  Council

  6,500

  19–25 September

  +2

  India

  Trade promotion

  8,500

  27–29 September

  +7

  Brussels

  Council

  6,000

  9 November

  +7

  Paris

  Meeting with Mr. Peuch

  1,350

  23 November

  +7

  Brussels

  Council

  3,750

  18–22 December

  +7

  Brussels

  Council

  10,000

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords) (1994)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  31 January—1 February

  +2

  Cologne

  ISM food fair plus meeting with German government on BSE

  1,250

  5–7 April

  +2

  China

  Trade mission

  17,000

  6–10 August

  +2

  Colombia

  Inauguration of new President and trade promotion

  12,000

  1054 1055

  Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) (1994)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  28 February/1 March

  +2

  Paris

  SIA plus meeting with French Minister

  2,000

  30 March

  +4

  Brussels

  Health Council Summer Fancy Food Fair; visit to farmers'

  4,000

  8–11 July

  +2

  New York

  market; talks with farmers using BST

  11,000

  29 August/2 September

  +2

  Brazil

  Trade promotion incl. visit to Expointer Show

  16,000

  19–22 September

  +2

  Hungary, Slovakia and Austria

  Trade promotion with business team

  2,000

  24 October

  +2

  Paris

  SIAL exhibition

  1,250

  Minister (1995)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost £

  24–25 January

  +3

  Brussels

  Council

  1,300

  20–21 February

  +6

  Brussels

  Council

  5,800

  10–11 April

  +5

  Luxembourg

  Council

  4,900

  22 May

  +3

  Bonn

  Meeting with Herr Borchert

  2,000

  29–30 May

  +10

  Brussels

  Council

  5,500

  19–22 June

  +10

  Brussels

  Council

  9,000

  Minister of State (1995)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost£

  1 March

  +3

  Paris

  Paris Salon (SIA/SIMA)

  1,600

  12 May

  +2

  Brussels

  Meeting with Commissioner Bonino

  3,500

  6 April

  +7

  Luxembourg

  Council

  5,000

  16 June

  +7

  Luxembourg

  Council

  5,000

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords) (1995)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost £

  22 February

  +2

  Amsterdam

  NTV Horticultural Show

  725

  31 May

  +2

  Amsterdam

  PLMA food exhibition

  1,250

  Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) (1995)

  Number of officials

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost £

  9–30 January

  +6

  Cologne

  1Plus ISM exhibition

  4,600

  6 February (overnight)

  +2

  Vienna

  1—

  1,550

  8 February

  +3

  Brussels

  1—

  1,300

  13 February

  +3

  Rotterdam

  1—

  1,100

  16–17 February (overnight)

  +3

  Rome and Lisbon

  1—

  3,700

  2 March

  +3

  Madrid

  1—

  2,000

  Total

  14,250

  1 All visits were Bilateral talks on promoting production of welfare friendly veal.

  1056 1057

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years. [33564]

  Mr. Boswell
  The total number of contracts and their aggregate values for the past five financial years were as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number

  Expenditure

  1990–91

  34

  4,495,793

  1991–92

  71

  5,374,284

  1992–93

  111

  7,010,814

  1993–94

  95

  12,169,785

  1994–95

  146

  11,551,382

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct the common fisheries policy review group to examine the principle of equal access to the common resource. [35074]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK fishing and industry and other interests have been invited to put their ideas to the common fisheries policy review group, which is free to consider any constructive ideas for improving the conservation and management of fish stocks.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter of 10 July, what considerations led him to indicate that commercial confidentiality applies to sightings of the New Zealand flatworm. [35052]

  Mr. Boswell
  Although the Department has no statutory responsibilities for New Zealand flatworm, it is seeking to give some publicity to the risks which the flatworm poses and to give advice on how they can be minimised. Such advice is particularly relevant to commercial plant growers, who may act as a route for the flatworm to be spread. It is not, however, the Department's intention to publicise information with commercial implications for individual growers. Such publicity could, for example, affect customer attitudes whether or not the grower had taken steps to eliminate the problem. It would also be inappropriate to give details of reports of the New Zealand flatworm when many of these lack official confirmation.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of his Department's research and development budget is spent in(a) Wales, (b) England (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland (e) abroad; and if he will make a statement. [34889]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department commissions a large and continually changing range of research and development to meet its policy aims. Decisions on the placing of work are determined on the basis of scientific and financial considerations and not on the geographical location of contractors. Consequently, the Department does not keep records of its R and D contractors by location. Such 1058
  information could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  European Union (Statutory Duties)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of his Department's statutory duties are the result of EU regulations and directives; and if he will make a statement. [34893]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not readily available and cannot be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning steps which are taken by officials of DGXV to ensure that the views of the European Commission on impediments to a single market when considering the possibility of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements are not unduly influenced by organised campaigns by companies seeking market advantage; and if he will make a statement. [35099]

  Mrs. Browning
  DGXV, the consumer affairs directorate of the European Commission, is open to representations from all interested parties on areas within its remit. However, there have been no recent proposals from the Commission to regulate dietary supplements. If any such proposals appear then they shall be circulated to all interested parties for comment.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure the continued availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements to United Kingdom consumers; what steps he intends to take in the light of the forthcoming European commission consultation document on such matters to defend the interests of British consumers and nutritional therapists; and if he will make a statement. [35100]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 June,Official Report, column 189.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of his Department have in the past been seconded to work with DGIII; what part such secondees played in drafting the European Commission discussion document on nutritional supplements produced in December 1991; if they have now(a) returned to placement with his Department, (b) remain with DGIII or (c) obtained employment with pharmaceutical companies; and if he will make a statement. [35097]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Since 1991, three officials from my Department have been seconded to DGIII of the European Commission. Two of them remain there. The other official was engaged in the drafting of the EC nutritional supplements document and returned to the Department in 1992.

  Sandeels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to ensure that exploitation rates for sandeels in the North sea are established at an early date in order to secure stocks within safe biological limits. [34916]
  1059
  Mr. Baldry
  The Government pressed successfully for last month's North sea conference to make commitments to investigate the possible effects of industrial fishing on the sustainability both of industrial fish species such as sandeels and of other species which feed on them. I shall press for this work to be done as soon as possible to inform future decisions on exploitation rates.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35305]

  RSC comparative performance data (%) for financial year 1994–95 unless otherwise specified

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Carlisle

  Crewe

  Exeter

  Northallerton

  Nottingham

  Reading

  Worcester

  Total1

  AAPS

  Applications

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  100

  99

  Advance Oilseeds

  Payments

  99

  98

  100

  100

  100

  99

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Final Oilseeds

  Payments

  100

  100

  100

  99

  100

  99

  100

  99

  100

  99

  Main Payments

  Payments Applications (B2)

  99

  95

  99

  99

  100

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  BSPS2

  1994

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  Claims (B5) 1994

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  Advance Payment 1994

  98

  96

  97

  95

  98

  98

  98

  99

  99

  98

  SCPS3

  Claims year 1994

  99

  92

  99

  99

  99

  98

  99

  99

  99

  98

  HLCA4

  Claims 1995

  89

  —

  82

  86

  83

  83

  90

  —

  85

  85

  SAPS

  Claims marketing year 1994

  93

  88

  96

  96

  94

  95

  94

  93

  93

  94

  AIS

  Plan claims

  90

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  —

  —

  99

  ESA5

  Applications

  100

  100

  84

  100

  99

  100

  100

  100

  100

  98

  Claims

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  ESA Conservation

  Applications

  98

  100

  97

  100

  100

  83

  100

  100

  100

  98

  Plan

  Claims

  100

  100

  96

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  —

  99

  F&CGS 1989

  Plan claims

  —

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Non plan claims

  93

  92

  98

  100

  99

  99

  99

  98

  100

  98

  F&CGS 1991

  Plan applications

  100

  100

  100

  100

  98

  100

  100

  —

  100

  99

  Plan claims

  96

  95

  99

  100

  99

  100

  100

  93

  96

  98

  FWPS5

  Applications

  100

  99

  100

  100

  100

  91

  96

  100

  100

  98

  Claims

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injurious Weeds

  Complaints

  100

  100

  —

  100

  97

  96

  100

  —

  100

  87

  NSA Pilot

  Claims

  100

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  100

  95

  100

  99

  1994 (new) NSA Scheme6

  Applications

  —

  25

  —

  70

  —

  10

  2

  —

  69

  29

  Protection of Badger Act 1992

  Licence applications

  95

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Five Year Set Aside

  Claims

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Short Term Lettings

  Applications

  99

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  82

  100

  98

  Strychnine Permits

  Applications

  97

  99

  93

  100

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  95

  Wages

  Complaints

  —

  —

  100

  100

  —

  100

  —

  81

  —

  98

  Wildlife and Countryside Act

  Applications

  91

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  93

  79

  97

  Correspondence7

  97

  97

  90

  98

  96

  97

  98

  98

  95

  97

  1 The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time against the total number received.

  2 The period covered is January to December 1994 except for payments where the period covered is 1 November 1994 to 31 January 1995 (or three months from the end of the retention period for claims made after 1 November).

  3 The period covered is July 1994 to March 1995.

  4 The period covered is November 1994 to March 1995.

  5 ESA and FWPS Claims

  Due to a combination of changes in FEOGA reimbursement dates and the difficulties of linkage with Charter targets and payment dates, all payments were made after the target date for 1994–95; most were late by two or three weeks.

  6 1994 (new) NSA Scheme

  The majority of applications were received at the end of the application period causing overload. Also, the operation of this new scheme proved more complicated than expected.

  7 The period covered is January to March 1995.

  Entries have not been made where the number of cases dealt with were ten or less. However, these numbers have been included in the calculation of total percentage success rates (see footnote 1). The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme and Farm Diversification Grant Scheme have both been omitted from the table as the numbers involved are de minimis.

  1060
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Service Delivery Targets
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting service delivery targets set out in "Commitment to Service". [36066]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I list below the percentages of cases dealt with by each regional service centre which has met the targets set in "Commitment to Service" and, from January 1995, "Commitment to Service", second edition.
  1061

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Welsh fishing vessels were scrapped in(a) 1993–94 and (b) in 1994–95 as a part of the decommissioning scheme; and if he will make a statement. [34882]

  Mr. Baldry
  No Welsh vessels were decommissioned under the 1994–95 scheme.

  On 14 July I announced details of the 1995 scheme, for which some £12 million is available.

  Agriculture Council (Luxembourg)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 17 July, and if he will make a statement. [36068]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council had before it a proposal from the Commission for an increase in the tariff quota for imports of third country bananas to cover consumption in the three new member states. Some member states wished to link this issue to wider changes in the present arrangements, so there was no majority for adopting the proposed increase. The Commission is now likely to increase the quota under its own powers.

  The Commission had agreed, as part of the package of decisions at the June Council, to make a proposal authorising the payment of national aid to farmers who have suffered loss as a result of currency depreciation in member states other than their own. The Commissioner presented a proposal on these lines which will now go for technical examination. I agreed that this measure should be drawn in such a way as to meet only genuine losses properly attributed to excess currency fluctuations.

  I warmly welcomed a statement from the Commissioner that he expected that his promised report on the treatment of calves reared for veal would be available in October. I urged that the Council should consider the report, and appropriate proposals from the Commission, as soon as possible.

  During a brief discussion on the rate of set-aside for crops to be harvested in 1996, on which a proposal from the Commission is awaited, I made it clear that I would want an undertaking that the Commission would use its powers to manage the cereals market in such a way that livestock producers would not be faced with grain prices above intended support levels

  Denmark presented information about the use of Avoparcin, an animal feed supplement. It was agreed that this material should be assessed as quickly as possible by the appropriate scientific committee. Meanwhile it was established that a majority of member states—Denmark, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Netherlands and Luxembourg—opposed the adoption of a Commission proposal to authorise the use of this produce in feed for dairy cows in the Community as a whole.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have received payment under the set-aside scheme for each year since 1992 by county for(a) horse-based activities, (b) golf
  1062
  courses, (c) game cover for commercial shoots and (d) sports grounds; and what is the scale of the land involved and the cost to the set-aside scheme for each category by county. [35023]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the past 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34586]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave on 25 May 1995, Official Report, columns 683–84 and 8 June 1995 columns 321–24.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the expenditure by the European Union on the common agricultural policy in 1995; what were the actual figures for each of the previous 10 years; and if he will list United Kingdom domestic expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on agriculture in each of these years. [34422]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The European Commission is forecasting that expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1995 will be within the budget level of 36,897 mecu, £29,537 million. This is 1,047 mecu, £838 million within the EU guidelines of 37,944 mecu, £30,375 million. Expenditure in 1994 was 32,970 mecu, £25,264 million, some 3,495 mecu, £2,678 million, below the guideline. Details of expenditure on the common agricultural policy in previous years are contained in the annual financial reports on the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guarantee section, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The latest available report relates to 1993.

  Details of United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture from 1988–89 to 1994–95 are contained in table 9.1 of the editions of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" and for earlier years in table 9.1 of the Government White Papers— "The Annual Review of Agriculture". These publications have also been deposited in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment (1) when the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment was set up; when it became a statutory body; since when it has been a statutory requirement on it to produce an annual report; and if he will make a statement on the availability of earlier committee documents; [34412]
  1063
  (2) what site was used for the release of genetically modified scorpion venom virus; and why this site was selected; [34409]

  (3) what consultation was held with the local population before the release of genetically modified scorpion venom virus; [34410]

  (4) what studies were conducted on the possible effects on (a) people and (b) wildlife of genetically modified scorpion venom virus before its release. [34408]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment was first established by the Secretary of State in April 1990. It was then appointed on 29 January 1993 as the statutory body, under the provisions of section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  There is no statutory requirement on the Committee to produce an annual report.

  Information on the applications considered by the committee under the provisions of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 is available on the public register of information maintained by the Department. Full copies of these applications, as well as those considered by the Committee prior to 1993 are available under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Copies of the official guidance notes produced with the advice of the Committee are available from the Department.

  The site used for the release of the genetically modified baculovirus, the so-called "scorpion venom virus", was the University farm, Wytham, Oxfordshire; the site was selected by the applicant, the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology.

  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 lay down the requirement that anyone making an application for consent to release genetically modified organisms shall publish in a newspaper circulating in the areas likely to be affected by the proposed release a notice containing the following information.

  (a) the name and address of the applicant,

  (b) the general description of the organisms to be released,

  (c) the location and general purpose of the release, and

  (d) the foreseen date of the release.

  The notice invites comments and indicates that further information can be obtained from the applicant and the statutory public register of information maintained by the Department. These requirements were observed by the applicant.

  The application from the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology for consent to release genetically modified baculovirus, the so called "scorpion venom virus", included a detailed assessment of the possible risks of harm to human health and the environment. This assessment was based on the applicant's own studies of the virus over several years, and on other studies contained in published literature. The assessment was considered by the scientists in the relevant Departments and by the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and on their recommendation a consent was issued.
  1064

  British River Monitoring
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring his Department has carried out on alkyl phenol emonxylates in British rivers. [34637]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not monitor British rivers. Such monitoring as is appropriate is carried out by the UK regulatory authorities.

  Alkyl Phenol Ethoxylates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 414, when the research on alkyl phenol ethoxylates is expected to be completed. [34656]

  Mr. Clappison
  The reports of a review of current information on possible oestrogenic effects of chemicals including alkyl phenol ethoxylates, entering the environment, and on the effects of sewage effluent on fish, including some data on levels on alkyl phenol ethoxylates in rivers, which are referred to in those answers, will be published in the near future.

  Big Splash Site, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to the grounds on which he is allowing evidence that has already been considered or rejected by the inspector in the inquiry concerning the development of the Big Splash site in Mapleton road, Wandsworth SW18, to be reconsidered. [34348]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  It is not unusual for further representations to be made in a planning case after the inquiry is closed. If those representations do no more than repeat issues already addressed at the inquiry, no special action is required. Where new evidence is raised which appears to be material to the case, the principles of natural justice require that the parties to the inquiry have an opportunity of commenting on that evidence before any decision is made.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he received the report from the inspector he appointed to hold a public inquiry into Wandsworth council's bid for planning permission to develop the Big Splash site in Mapleton road, Wandsworth, London SW18; when he expects to publish it; and if he will make a statement. [34346]

  Mr. Jones
  The inspector's report was received on 11 October 1994. The report will be published together with the decision letter. This will be as soon as possible after the parties to the inquiry have had the opportunity of commenting on the new evidence.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many planning inquiries into the use of metropolitan open land new evidence has been allowed after the inquiry has closed. [34347]

  Mr. Jones
  No central record of such circumstances is kept.
  1065

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Ministers responsible for green issues in each Government Department. [34655]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Green Ministers are as follows:

  Department

  Minister

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Tim Boswell MP

  Chancellor's Departments

  David Heathcoat-Amory MP

  Defence

  The Earl Howe

  Education and Employment

  Robin Squire MP

  Environment

  The Rt. Hon. John Gummer MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hanley MP

  Overseas Development Administration

  The Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hanley MP

  Health

  The Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  Home Office

  The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Blatch CBE

  Law Officers'

  The Rt. Hon. Sir Derek Spencer QC MP

  Lord Chancellor's

  John M. Taylor MP

  National Heritage

  Lord Inglewood

  Northern Ireland Office

  Malcolm Moss MP

  Office of Public Service

  John Horam MP

  Scottish Office

  The Earl of Lindsay

  Social Security

  Roger Evans MP

  Trade and Industry

  Richard Page MP

  Transport

  The Rt. Hon. Sir George Young MP

  Welsh Office

  The Rt. Hon. William Hague MP

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for implementation of the Latham report on the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [35184]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have taken a strong lead in the implementation of the recommendations in "Constructing the Team", together with other members of the Construction Industry Board. Two consultation documents have been issued by the Government on legislative proposals arising from the recommendations, and the responses are being considered. The success of the report depends ultimately on a culture change within the construction industry, which the Government are actively supporting and encouraging.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes were improved with the benefit of home renovation grants, excluding minor works and disabled facilities grants, in 1994; and what were the figures for 1984. [33338]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information about home renovation grants in England is shown in the quarterly and annual publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures of amounts paid during 1994 are shown in table 1066
  2.17 of the December 1994 issue of part 2 of the quarterly edition of this publication and those for 1984 are shown in table 7.2 of the 1983–93 issue of the annual edition of this publication.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Council House Investment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the standard spending assessment for council house investment for each of the last five years. [34191]

  Mr. Clappison
  The annual capital guidelines allocated to local authorities as part of the housing investment programme for the last five years are:

  1991–92: £1,342,500 million

  1992–93: £1,289,896 million

  1993–94: £1,377,612 million

  1994–95: £1,037.982 million

  1995–96: £994.229 million

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances he will make it his policy to increase investment in council housing. [34192]

  Mr. Clappison
  Every year, as part of the housing investment programme, local housing authorities receive their annual capital guideline allocations for capital expenditure on housing. They can also bid for resources from the housing partnership fund and the single regeneration budget challenge fund. In addition, local authorities fund capital expenditure on housing from usable capital receipts and revenue contributions to capital. It is up to local housing authorities to decide how much of their available resources should be invested in council housing according to local needs. Local authorities should also be considering transferring their stock to new social landlords since this is one of the best ways of bringing in private resources to renovate and improve social rented housing.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue revised planning guidance note 3. [35190]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have no immediate plans for issuing a revised planning policy guidance note 3 (Housing).

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the extent of repairs needed on local authority housing, in each region, indicating the cost of these repairs(a) per region and (b) in total. [34193]

  Mr. Clappison
  Figures for repairs to local authority housing are provided by the quinquennial English house condition survey. The figures from the 1991 survey are as follows:

  Region

  £ million

  Northern

  361

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  442

  North West

  541

  East Midlands

  259

  West Midlands

  424

  1067

  Region

  £ million

  South West

  265

  Eastern

  312

  Greater London

  657

  South East

  235

  Merseyside

  175

  Total

  3,671

  Figures are in 1991 prices.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of funding currently provided for the provision of affordable housing in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each European Union country and (c) each G7 country. [34194]

  Mr. Clappison
  In England in 1994–95, a total of £8.6 billion was spent on housing benefit to help social and private sector tenants on low incomes with their rents. Some £4.9 billion was spent on "bricks and mortar" spending to provide social housing at below-market rents and low-cost home ownership opportunities to households who might otherwise rent in the social sector and to help with the costs of maintaining and running council housing.

  The comparable information requested in (b) is not available because of differing forms of subsidy in other countries. Information on levels of funding in the European Community can be found in "Statistics on Housing in the European Community 1993" which is available in the Library.

  No information is readily available on levels of funding in G7 countries.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local authorities establishing local public housing corporations to provide affordable housing. [34195]

  Mr. Clappison
  Borrowing by local housing corporations to provide affordable housing, although outside some fiscal indicators, such as the general Government financial deficit, would be within the public sector borrowing requirement. Moreover, if increased borrowing were supported by higher rents, it would increase expenditure on housing benefit which is within GGFD. The establishment of local housing corporations is unlikely therefore to be a means of permitting unrestricted borrowing for any purpose. The White Paper "Our Future Homes" (Cm 2901) explains that the transfer of council housing to new landlords which are private sector bodies is an effective way of generating increased investment. This requires no changes to public borrowing conventions.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Chancellor to exclude local public housing corporations from the remit of the public sector borrowing requirement. [34191]

  Mr. Clappison
  None.
  1068
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 25 May,Official Report, column 792, what is his estimate of the additional homes which would have been provided by rehabilitation and under any other programmes under the Housing Corporation's standard headings in 1995–96, if funding levels as announced in the 1992 autumn statement had been maintained. [35175]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Corporation estimates that the 1995–96 approved development programme would have provided a total of around 32,000 additional homes if the funding levels announced in the 1992 autumn statement had been maintained, comprising:

  Number

  New Build for rent

  22,000

  Rehabilitation for rent

  3,000

  Incentives and shared ownership (400 of which would have been rehabilitation for shared ownership)

  7,000

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that persons from abroad in the United Kingdom illegally or temporarily will not be able to obtain publicly subsidised housing. [36067]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government announced proposals for fairer access to local authority and housing association tenancies on 18 July 1994. The proposals envisaged that people here illegally and people who were granted entry to this country on the understanding that they will have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to receive assistance under the homelessness legislation.

  Subsequently, we have concluded that such people should not be entitled to tenancies of social housing allocated by local housing authorities. Provisions for this will be included in the legislation that we shall bring forward on access to social housing at the earliest opportunity.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions of housing legislation govern the priority to be given to a homeless parent without custody but with staying access; and if he will make a statement. [35138]

  Mr. Clappison
  The homelessness legislation—part III of the Housing Act 1985—provides that a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside has priority need for accommodation.The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (revised third edition), to which authorities must have regard, advised that a child may be dependent upon a homeless applicant even though the child does not live with the applicant at all times.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the timetable provided to BNFL for the submission of further proposals on waste substitution, as mentioned in paragraph 141 of the White Paper on radioactive waste management policy, CM2919. [35160]
  1069
  Mr. Clappison
  No timetable has yet been established.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to implement the proposal contained in paragraph 87 of the White Paper on radioactive waste management policy, CM 2919, to ensure full transparency and public consultation on the site selection for high-level waste disposal. [35161]

  Mr. Clappison
  The White Paper says that the Government propose to consider how in future they might meet concerns regarding the need for transparency of decision making and public reassurance—for instance, by setting out guidelines for the developers of repositories about the need for transparency in site selection, including the publication of research results, and the specific milestones to be covered in this process. They have no current plans for legislation.

  Safe Water Standards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why United Kingdom safe water standards fell from 100 per cent. in urban areas to 99.6 per cent., between 1980 and 1990 according to statistics published by the World Health Organisation publication "Progress Towards Health for All." [35151]

  Mr. Clappinson
  The difference between the figures for 1980 and 1990 is due to the fact that the World Health Organisation revised, and made stricter, its guidelines for drinking water quality. The change does not imply that water was unsafe to drink.

  Since 1990, the Drinking Water Inspectorate has checked the quality of drinking water in England and Wales against the standards set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. These standards are stricter than those recommended by the World Health Organisation in its 1984 guidelines for drinking water quality, which were current in 1989. The Drinking Water Inspectorate's latest annual report shows that in the calendar year 1994, the water companies in England and Wales carried out approximately 3.5 million tests, of which 99.3 per cent. met the relevant standard in the regulations. None of those which did not meet the standards constituted unsafe water.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on difficulties caused for local authority financing or re-financing by comments made in the case of Credit Suisse v. Allerdale; what is the Government's policy on acquiring the use of borrowed money and avoiding the impact of controls; and what comparison he has made with the decision in City Centre Leisure (Holdings) Limited v. Westminster on the issue of acquiring the use of borrowed money; [35580]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the use by local authorities of financial structures which minimise the impact of a project on a local authority's borrowing, expenditure or credit limits; [35578]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Allerdale case on the orderly rescheduling of existing off-balance sheet obligations of local authorities by means
  1070
  of deferred purchase commitments or the processing of various private finance initiatives opportunities; and if he will discuss the Government's policy in this area with the Audit Commission; [35577]

  (4) what assessment has been made of the difference between the position where a local authority uses a company for fund raising and where an independent contractor borrows to fund the performance of work or the provision of services to the council for reward; [35581]

  (5) what assessment has been made by his Department on the extent of the use of private finance initiative to enable projects to go ahead without the costs and borrowing relating to such projects falling on the balance sheets of local authorities; and what is his Department's policy on whether their practice is appropriate. [35579]

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

  Mortgage Indemnities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 332–33, if he will list the total number of mortgage indemnities and the average value for each local authority listed. [35440]

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

  County Hall
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment what meetings his Department has had with Shirayama Corporation on its plans for county hall in each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [35412]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  While briefing himself for the Public Accounts Committee hearing on 1 May 1995, my Department's permanent Secretary made a site visit to county hall in April during which he met Shirayama's United Kingdom representative.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the costs to local authorities of carrying out investigations of land that my be contaminated, prior to issuing a remediation notice; and what provision exists for local authorities to recoup these costs and from whom if(a) a remediation notice is required and (b) no remediation notice is required. [35351]

  Mr. Clappison
  Site investigation costs vary greatly between sites, depending on the nature of the contaminants predicted to be present on the site and on the size of the site. The typical cost per hectare of investigations also varies with the overall size of the site being investigated. The Department of the Environment has commissioned consultants, WS Atkins Environment, to review the typical range of costs for different kinds of work.

  Each borough or district council already has a duty, under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances—including such nuisances caused by contaminated land. The contaminated land provisions in part II of the Environment Bill, which will form part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,

  1071
  will provide a similar duty for contaminated land, as specifically defined in those provisions.

  The new regime does not provide for local authorities to recover costs they incur in investigating land prior to the service of a remediation notice. However, once land has been identified as contaminated land, a remediation notice can include a requirement for a more detailed assessment of the condition of the land to be carried out by the recipient of the notice.

  The supplementary credit approval programme for contaminated land provides capital resources to local authorities for site investigation and remediation work. Since the inception of the programme in 1990, some £54 million has been spent on investigation or remediation on over 800 sites.

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Carbon monoxide

  Peak hourly concentration (ppb)2

  Annual mean concentration (ppb)2

  Peak hourly concentration (ppb)3

  Annual mean concentration (ppb)3

  Manchester

  352

  26

  17.8

  0.5

  Liverpool

  97

  26

  5.8

  0.6

  Leeds

  131

  28

  12.8

  0.7

  London1

  235

  44

  11.0

  2.0

  Cardiff

  264

  22

  7.2

  0.9

  Belfast

  100

  21

  16.3

  0.7

  Glasgow

  132

  26

  7.7

  0.7

  1 Cromwell Road.

  2 Parts per billion.

  3 Parts per million.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server know as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34676]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has set up pages on the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk." Currently, the DoE pages include information on: the Department's responsibilities; air quality information; the housing white paper; and basic credit approvals. All of the Department's press notices are published on the Central Office of Information pages—reference "http://www.coi.gov uk/coi/depts/GNV/GNV.htm 1"—and can be accessed through the DoE page.

  Officials are examining the feasibility of publishing a wider range of Departmental information via the Internet.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for an annual report on the work of the green Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [34635]

  Mr. Clappison
  Green Ministers have already published a "Digest of Green Housekeeping in Government Departments" in May this year. In addition, each Department's annual report contains material on its environmental performance, including the name of the Green Minister. The Government report collectively on
  1072

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information the Government have about levels of pollution in urban areas; and if he will provide the most recent available figures so as to enable a comparison to be made between Manchester and other areas. [35381]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government monitor air pollution in urban areas through their automated urban network. The monitoring site in Manchester measures continuously concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. Comparisons between Manchester and other selected areas of recorded concentrations of these pollutants in 1994 are as follows:

  its sustainable development strategy in its annual environment White Papers.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether more competition in the water industry would lower prices and increase supply. [34378]

  Mr. Clappison
  In his policy document "Competition in the Water Industry: inset appointments and their regulation"—Ofwat, July 1995—the Director General of Water Services states that introducing competition at the wholesale level via the ability to make inset appointments has influenced prices through the introduction of more cost-reflective tariffs for larger customers. He recommends that competition between water companies would be further facilitated by changes to legislation. My right hon. Friend will consider these proposals.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to lower the 250 megalitre limit on inset appointments for water under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992. [34377]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services has a duty to facilitate effective competition in the water industry. In response to recommendations made by the director general at the time, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 extended his ability to make inset appointments to existing customers supplied with 250 megalitres or more of water annually. My right hon. Friend would be happy to consider proposals for a change to this limit should the director general recommend it.
  1073
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to consider new proposals to allow the use of existing water pipes by other water suppliers under a common carrier agreement. [34376]

  Mr. Clappison
  In his recent policy paper, "Competition in the Water Industry: inset appointments and their regulation"—Ofwat, July 1995—the Director General of Water Services has suggested that there may be circumstances in which it may be practicable to place a limited common carriage obligation on water companies to supply single customer inset appointments. The director general noted that there would need to be careful consideration of the implications for water quality. My right hon. Friend will need to satisfy himself of the implications before developing any proposals for change.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 159, if he will place in the Library (a) the extract of the British Geological Survey ground hazard assessment for Hampshire and (b) his Department's maps and database on susceptibility to subsidence for Hampshire. [35509]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The British Geological Survey's ground hazard assessment programme is a commercially operated service, access to which can be obtained through the survey at Keyworth, Nottingham.

  My Department's maps of landslides, mining instability and natural underground cavities in Hampshire, together with the relevant databases and the map of shrinkable clay in Hampshire will be placed in the Library when they are available.

  These maps show only the information that was available to the consultants who carried out the research projects for my Department. Their interpretation to determine susceptibility to subsidence requires earth science expertise and the absence of ornamentation on any part of the map does not necessarily imply that the ground is not susceptible to subsidence.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35313]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Probationary Tenancies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached in the light of responses to his proposals on probationary tenancies, issued for consultation on 5 April. [36065]

  Mr. Curry
  The consultation exercise indicated a clear consensus that anti-social behaviour by a minority of council tenants and others is a serious problem, which needs to be tackled on a broad front. Local authorities already have a variety of means at their disposal to deal with such behaviour. The Government want to help authorities to deal more effectively with the problem and are working with the local authority associations to consider a number of measures to that end.
  1074
  The consultation confirmed that the introduction of probationary tenancies would have a role to play as part of authorities' broader strategies for tackling anti-social behaviour in their areas. The Government therefore propose to legislate at the earliest available opportunity to give authorities powers to introduce probationary tenancies in their areas if they wish to do so. It will thus be for individual authorities to decide whether, in the particular circumstances of their areas, probationary tenancies—now to be called introductory tenancies at the suggestion of a number of respondents—should form part of their wider approach to the problem of anti-social behaviour. They will no doubt wish to consult their existing tenants before doing so.

  A number of points were made by respondents about the practical operation of introductory tenancies, including the need to safeguard the position of vulnerable people whose behaviour is different but not necessarily anti-social. As the consultation paper made clear, the taking away of someone's home is very much a measure of last resort, which authorities will wish to use only where other measures have been tried and failed. The Government would expect authorities to act as scrupulously before issuing an introductory tenant with a notice to quit as they would before seeking to repossess the home of a secure tenant. Authorities operating a system of introductory tenancies will need to have in place fair and rigorous procedures which command the confidence of all tenants and ensure, for example, that no tenant's home could be put at risk through malicious or otherwise bogus complaints. Similarly, authorities will need to handle vulnerable tenants with particular care and sensitivity.

  The Government propose to prepare guidance for local authorities, in collaboration with the local authority associations and other interested parties, on operating introductory tenancy arrangements. This will include the process whereby a tenant served with a notice to quit may ask the authority to review its decision.

  The Government intend that the broad shape of the legislation should follow the proposals issued for consultation. There are, however, a number of subsidiary issues which are currently being considered in the light of comments made by respondents.

  The Government believe that introductory tenancies can be a useful additional weapon for local authorities in their fight to defend tenants' rights to quiet enjoyment of their homes by enabling them to take rapid action to remove the small number of badly behaved new tenants. The responsible majority of new tenants have nothing to fear from introductory tenancies. They can expect to become secure tenants once they have served the introductory period.

  Some 230 responses were received from organisations and individuals in England. About another 30 bodies responded to the separate consultation exercise held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. A list of respondents has been placed in the Library. Copies of the responses themselves may be inspected at 2 Marsham street in London and Cathays park in Cardiff.
  1075

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Rother Valley of 10 July,Official Report, columns 459–63, how many appeals to the Secretary of State for permission to create landfill sites have been (a) granted and (b) refused (i) without and (ii) following the holding of a public inquiry in each year since 1991. [34436]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Planning Inspectorate under its chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Landfill Sites: Planning Appeals

  Year

  Appeals determined following a Public Inquiry

  Appeals determined following a Hearing

  Appeals determined following an exchange of Written Representations

  Total

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Total

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Total

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Total

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  1991

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  11

  9

  2

  14

  10

  4

  1992

  15

  9

  6

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  2

  21

  13

  8

  1993

  5

  2

  3

  4

  3

  0

  11

  9

  2

  21

  14

  6

  1994

  10

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  2

  13

  6

  7

  1995

  3

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  2

  1

  7

  6

  1

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue regional guidance for the second round of bidding for the single regeneration budget. [34064]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Bidding guidance for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund was issued on 12 April 1995 and partnerships wishing to submit bids were required to send outline bids to Government offices for the regions by 16 June. We do not intend to publish any further guidance.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the outline bids received by the government offices for the regions for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund by 16 June, including the lead partner, the value of the bid and a summary of the content of the bid. [34360]

  Mr. Curry
  Copies of the outline bids submitted by bidders in the form set out in annexe B of the bidding guidance for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund, which include the information requested by the hon. Member, will be placed in the Library of the House shortly, with the exception of those bids which bidders themselves have requested should not be made public for reasons of confidentiality.

  Challenge fund round one

  Challenge fund round two

  Number of final bids submitted

  Approximate value £ million value of final bids submitted (estimated over lifetime)

  Number of final bids supported

  1£ million value of final bids supported (estimated over lifetime)

  2Number of outline bids submitted

  London

  124

  800

  49

  316

  202

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  38

  370

  22

  202

  58

  Eastern

  24

  37

  13

  21

  44

  1076
  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Kevin Barron, dated 17 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about: —the number of appeals to the Secretary of State for permission to create landfill sites that have been (a) granted and (b) refused (i) without and (ii) following the holding of a public inquiry in each year since 1991.

  as this is a matter that has been delegated to the Executive Agency.

  The attached table shows the number of planning appeal decisions involving the creation of landfill sites made in each year since 1991, the procedure by which the appeals were determined and the outcome.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the status of advice given by a Government office for the regions to a partnership submitting an outline bid for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [34358]

  Mr. Curry
  The status of advice given by Government offices for the regions to partnerships submitting an outline bid for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund is set out in paragraph 15 of the bidding guidance for the second round, issued on 12 April 1995, copies of which are in the Library of the House. This states that the advice given by Government offices is intended to give an indication to bidders of the extent to which their bids meet the objectives and criteria for the challenge fund and merit working up. Where bidders decide to proceed with final bids the paragraph goes on to make it clear that information and advice given by Government offices is without prejudice to Ministers' decisions on the final bids.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each region(a) the number and value of full bids submitted for the first round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund in September 1994, (b) the number and value of bids -supported by the Government in the first round of allocations announced in December 1994 and (c) the number of outline bids submitted for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund in June. [34356)

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is in the table.
  1077

  Challenge fund round one

  Challenge fund round two

  Number of final bids submitted

  Approximate value £ million value of final bids submitted (estimated over lifetime)

  Number of final bids supported

  1£ million value of final bids supported (estimated over lifetime)

  2Number of outline bids submitted

  South east

  52

  80

  19

  32

  66

  North west

  56

  240

  21

  143

  96

  Merseyside

  23

  135

  14

  78

  26

  South west

  34

  100

  10

  34

  66

  West Midlands

  37

  280

  13

  157

  73

  East Midlands

  26

  110

  11

  56

  43

  North east

  55

  180

  29

  81

  99

  Total

  469

  2,332

  201

  1,120

  773

  1 Subject to availability of resources.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to achieve a consistent approach by the Government offices for the regions in handling the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [34354]

  Mr. Curry
  As with the first challenge fund bidding round, the availability of national bidding guidance, with common objectives and assessment criteria, provides a nationally consistent framework within which second round bids will be assessed by Government offices.

  In addition, the second round bidding arrangements include a more structured outline bidding stage, with a pro-forma requiring common information from all bidders; and a requirement for bidders to prioritise the elements in their bid and to specify whether and how their bid could be scaled up or down. Three seminars have also been held for over 150 Government office staff dealing with bids at which those attending participated in case study exercises and discussed arrangements for handling second round bids. These seminars are in addition to arrangements put in place by Government offices themselves to ensure that bids are considered in accordance with the bidding guidance.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the timetable and procedure to be adopted by the Government offices for the regions in responding to the outline bids received for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [34359]

  Mr. Curry
  The timetable and procedure to be adopted by Government offices for the regions in responding to outline bids received for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund are set out in paragraphs 15 to 17 inclusive and annexe H of the bidding guidance for the second round, issued on 12 April 1995, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the role of Ministers in deciding which of the partnerships submitting outline bids for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund should be encouraged to submit full bids. [34357]

  Mr. Curry
  The arrangements for considering second round SRB challenge fund bids are set out in the bidding guidance issued on 12 April, copies of which are in the 1078
  Library of the House. In particular, paragraph 15 explains that it is for Government offices to give an indication to bidders on the extent to which their bids meet the objectives and criteria for the challenge fund and merit working up. Ministers are provided with summary information about all outline bids. They take decisions on the final bids received in the light of recommendations from Government offices.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on means of improving the co-ordination of single regeneration bids at a local level; and what steps he has taken to achieve this. [34355]

  Mr. Curry
  The local authority associations have proposed that the Government should give priority to bids supported by local co-ordinating groups established and co-ordinated by local authorities with training and enterprise councils. Paragraph 11 of the bidding guidance for round 2 already makes it clear that local authorities and TECs can be expected to have a central role in bringing together challenge fund partnerships. The Government do not, however, wish to exclude or discourage other organisations, including the private, voluntary and community sectors, which may be capable of playing a lead role in encouraging local partnerships, and not intend to allocate to any group a privileged position in the bidding process.

  Road Inquiries
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the longest time that a road inquiry has taken to give public evidence in the last 10 years; which was the inquiry; and when it occurred. [34338]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The longest road inquiry held in recent years was the A36 Salisbury bypass inquiry conducted by Sir Peter Buchanan. It opened on 20 April 1993 and closed on 27 April 1994, having sat for 151 days.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 594, how many road inquiries have taken place in each of the last 10 years; and if he will list them and the length of time each lasted. [34339]
  1079
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of motorway, trunk road and local authority road inquiries held in England in the last 10 years for which figures are available is as follows:

  April 1993–March 1994: 74

  April 1992–March 1993: 72

  April 1991–March 1992: 73

  April 1990–March 1991: 98

  April 1989–March 1990: 94

  April 1988–March 1989: 81

  April 1987–March 1988: 75

  April 1986–March 1987: 95

  January 1985–March 1986: 120

  January 1984–December 1984: 110

  (All figures taken from the Chief Planning Inspector's Annual Reports).

  It would be very time consuming to list the inquiries and to ascertain the length of time which each lasted, and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the conduct of the Birmingham northern relief road inquiry, the manner of taking evidence and the time it is taking to hear that evidence. [34339]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Birmingham northern relief road inquiry is being conducted by an independent inspector nominated by the Lord Chancellor and is proceeding in accordance with the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976. This is a particularly complex inquiry into the first inland tolled motorway promoted under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The inquiry is expected to continue into October 1995, and there will be about three weeks of site inspections after it has closed.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will express the value of instant lottery cards sold per week as a proportion of total national lottery sales; and if she will make a statement. [34945]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for the Office of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the director-general of the national lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of national lottery tickets are sold in Wales; and if she will make a statement. [34946]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for the Office of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the director-general of the national lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.
  1080

  Sport (Expenditure)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for the Environment, to make the role of local authorities in sports provision a separate consideration in the standard spending assessment formula, following the reorganisation of the Sports Council. [34772]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have no plans to make sports provision a separate consideration in the standard spending assessment formula.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when she will publish the Government's paper on digital audio broadcasting; [34068]

  (2) when she will announce the Government's plans for digital television. [34065]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government intend to publish a policy document on digital broadcasting, including both television and radio, later this summer.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how she intends to extend choice and diversity in independent radio at both the local and national levels. [34072]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter for the Radio Authority to determine. The Government are making spectrum available for digital audio broadcasting which should offer new opportunities at both national and local levels to enhance the range of choice for listeners.

  Tower Hill Excavations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance her Department is giving to the Museum of London archaeology service's excavations on Tower hill of the late Roman church; and if she will make a statement. [33632]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does, of course, give funds to the Museum of London but no extra assistance is being provided by my Department for these excavations. I am pleased to learn that provision has been made for archaeological excavation and analysis of the site, and that this has led to the discovery of Roman and later remains.

  Environment Action Fund
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 598, if funds from the national lottery may be used to match grant assistance from the environmental action fund. [33702]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that the rules under which the environmental action fund is administered require applicants to secure matching funding from non-public sector sources. Funds provided by the national lottery distributing bodies are classified as public expenditure and cannot, therefore, be counted as matching funding for EAF purposes.
  1081

  Regional Sports Councils
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her aims for(a) the West Midlands council for sport and recreation and (b) other regional sports councils. [34771]

  Mr. Sproat
  On 29 March, the then Secretary of State confirmed that the present linkage between the Sports Council and the regional councils for sport and recreation will come to an end from 1 January 1996. I hope that local authorities will set up their own machinery to co-ordinate their wider regional strategies.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what level of funding for the West Midlands council for sport and recreation is expected as a result of the implementation of proposals for the English Sports Council; and what is the current level. [34768]

  Mr. Sproat
  At present, the cost to the Sports Council of servicing the West Midlands regional council for sport and recreation is £18,500 per annum. Under our restructuring proposals, the linkage between the Sports Council and the RCSRs will cease.

  Sports (Lottery)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will ask the Sports Council to review its policy of requiring the full 35 per cent. of private funding to be secured before an application for national lottery funding is submitted. [35109]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has directed all the distributing bodies to ensure that a significant element of partnership funding is forthcoming from non-lottery sources. The Sports Council does not wish to debar applicants from applying purely on the basis that they cannot raise such funds. However, demonstrating the financial commitment of other parties to a project is a powerful expression of support for the scheme, and by minimising the financial contribution from the lottery assistance can be offered to a larger number of applicants. It should be noted that the percentage is purely indicative. If the Sports Council believes that a scheme which is unable to raise the indicative percentage is worthy of support, a grant offer could still be made.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what amount of national lottery funds has gone to west midlands sport; and what is her estimate of funding from that source in the next financial year. [34770]

  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty-eight awards from the lottery sports fund, totalling £7,389,714, have been made to projects in the west midlands. It is impossible to estimate the future level of lottery funding. This will depend upon ticket sales and on the number of eligible projects that come forward.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, when she plans to implement the changes in primary legislation set out in the cross media ownership Green Paper. [34069]
  1082
  Mr. Sproat
  The changes in primary legislation, set out in "Media Ownership: The Government's proposals", Cmd 2872, will be introduced at the earliest legislative opportunity. Confirmation of the Government's legislative programme is given through the Queen's Speech at the opening of each parliamentary Session.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage the development of community radio services in the United Kingdom. [34073]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government support the introduction of new radio services which cater for the needs, tastes and interests of local communities. It is for the Radio Authority to determine how to achieve this expansion of listener choice. Digital audio broadcasting could offer new opportunities.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to meet representatives of the Community Radio Association. [34074]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the Community Radio Association, who are in regular touch with my officials.

  Independent National Radio Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to change the renewal procedure for the independent national radio licences. [34071]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans at present to alter the licensing arrangements for independent national radio services which, under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, do not allow for renewal without competition.

  Chess
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), of 27 March,Official Report, column 482, when he now expects to announce his conclusions as to whether it would be appropriate and practicable for his Department to take an interest in sponsoring chess. [32688]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about departmental responsibility for chess. [33023]

  Mr. Sproat
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that from the beginning of the next financial year my Department will take on the future funding of chess.

  Legislation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what legislation she plans to introduce; and if she will make a statement. [35310]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.
  1083

  County Hall
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what inspections have been made by officials of her Department of county hall SE1; and what recommendations have been made regarding listed building consent in respect of the building. [35413]

  Mr. Sproat
  County hall was last inspected by officials from English Heritage on 23 June. The building is weathertight and in good condition for its age. In recent years, the Secretary of State for the Environment has determined several appeals on planning and listed building consent applications for county hall.

  Brodsworth Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 15 June,

  Date of visit

  Minister

  Place and purpose of visit

  Total cost £

  9 September 1994

  William Hague, Minister of State

  USA Fact-finding visit about disability anti-discrimination legislation,

  6,813.59

  27 October 1994

  Peter Lilley, Secretary of State

  Madrid Speech at pensions conference

  2,185.82

  1 February 1995

  Peter Lilley, Secretary of State

  Paris Informal Social Affairs Council

  2,445.17

  11 May 1995

  Peter Lilley, Secretary of State

  Switzerland Fact-finding visit about Swiss Social Security system

  1,133.75

  29 May 1995

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State

  Lisbon Sixth Conference of European Social Security Ministers

  3,088.60

  Notes:

  The Secretary of State was accompanied by his Special Adviser on his visits to Madrid and Paris. "Total cost" includes the cost of those accompanying the Minister at public expense.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him, or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such

  Secretary of State

  Date and duration of visit

  Minister

  Numbers accompanying

  Place and purpose of visit

  Cost £

  15 April 1992

  Peter Lilley

  0

  Recalled from France to attend Cabinet and departmental meetings

  1,045.00

  1 September 1992

  Peter Lilley

  0

  Recalled from France to attend departmental meetings

  2,980.00

  29 January–1 February 1993

  Peter Lilley

  0

  Zurich To attend World Economic Forum

  735.00

  7 April 1993

  Peter Lilley

  0

  Returned from France to launch Child Support Agency

  324.10

  7–8 November 1993

  Peter Lilley

  0

  Paris Meeting with French Social Security Minister

  165.00

  27–28 October 1994

  Peter Lilley

  4

  Madrid Speech at pensions conference

  2,185.82

  1084
  Official Report, column 605, if she will list the individuals and organisations who have been invited to the official opening of Brodsworth hall since 15 June. [33629]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 June 1995, c.605]: I have today placed in the Library a copy of the list of those guests who were invited to the official opening of Brodsworth hall after 15 June.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the foreign visits made by(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in the last year indicating the cost of each visit. [31283]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials, to public funds for each year since 1992. [32258]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.
  1085

  Secretary of State

  Date and duration of visit

  Minister

  Numbers accompanying

  Place and purpose of visit

  Cost £

  1–2 February 1985

  Peter Lilley

  4

  Paris Informal Social Affairs Council

  2,445.17

  11–12 May 1995

  Peter Lilley

  1

  Switzerland Fact-finding visit about Swiss Social Security

  1,133.75

  Minister of State

  Date and duration of visit

  Minister

  Numbers accompanying

  Place and purpose of visit

  Cost £

  20–21 May 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  0

  Limerick Council of Europe, Conference of Social Security Ministers

  143.35

  23–24 May 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  2

  Luxembourg Social Affairs Council

  1,006.86

  2–5 September 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  2

  Barcelona Paralympic Games and bilateral meeting with Spanish Minister of State

  1,303.68

  7–11 October 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  2

  Montreal International meeting Ministers

  4,473.90

  11–13 October 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  2

  New York UN General Assembly

  3,012.90

  8–9 December 1992

  Nicholas Scott

  1

  Paris OECD meeting

  456.78

  27 May–6 June 1993

  Nicholas Scott

  6

  China Fact-finding visit about disability issues

  13,926.30

  9–10 November 1993

  Nicholas Scott

  1

  Brussels Informal Social Affairs Council

  550.62

  17–20 March 1994

  Nicholas Scott

  3

  Lillehammer Paralympic Games

  1,275.00

  29–31 May 1995

  Lord MacKay

  3

  Lisbon Sixth Conference of European Social Security Ministers

  3,088.60

  9–15 September 1995

  William Hague

  2

  USA Fact-finding visit about disability anti-discrimination legislation

  6,813.59

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Date and duration of visit

  Minister

  Numbers accompanying

  Place and purpose of visit

  Cost £

  28 January 1993

  Ann Widdecombe

  4

  Copenhagen Social Affairs Council

  4,500.00

  1 February 1993

  Lord Henley

  2

  Strasbourg To open Beveridge Exhibition

  1,125.30

  26–27 February 1993

  Alistair Burt

  2

  Germany Bilateral talks with German Social Security Ministers

  332.50

  28 April 1993

  Lord Henley

  1

  Republic of Ireland Meeting Board of Management Trust: War Pensions

  460.00

  15 May 1993

  Alistair Burt

  2

  Brussels Bilateral talks with Belgian Social Security Ministers

  590.52

  1086 1087

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Date and duration of visit

  Minister

  Numbers accompanying

  Place and purpose of visit

  Cost £

  28–30 September 1993

  Alistair Burt

  1

  Republic of Ireland Bilateral talks with Irish Social Security Minister and visit to Community Development Programme

  426.00

  18–19 April 1994

  Alistair Burt

  4

  Luxembourg Social Affairs Council

  1—

  28 May to 5 June 1994

  Alistair Burt

  3

  Canada and USA Fact-finding visit about family issues

  13,177.38

  21–22 June 1994

  Alistair Burt

  4

  Luxembourg Social Affairs Council

  2,948.42

  1Details not available.

  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what measures he will take to ensure that the members of the Association of British Insurers adhere to future guidance on mortgage protection insurance; and if he will produce a report on the development of this part of the insurance market before October; [34266]

  (2) when he expects the Association of British Insurers to publish its guidance on mortgage protection insurance. [34267]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Association of British Insurers advises that its guidance to good practice on mortgage protection insurance should be available in late summer. It is currently discussing with its members the status of the guidance. The development of the new arrangements for income support mortgage interest, including compliance with this voluntary guidance, will be monitored. I have no plans to report on this part of the insurance market.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34689]

  Mr. Burt
  DSS agencies and headquarters are currently identifying opportunities for using the Government information service provided by CCTA. Items already on the Internet include citizens charter information and press releases. The recent earnings top-up pilot scheme consultative document can also be accessed via the GIS and the Department has invited comments to be returned to its Internet E-mail address. The Department is now developing a set of home pages that will provide more general information on benefits, contributions and child support.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous
  1088
  12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34694]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy. The Government continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate.

  The White Paper announced in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of small firms sector.

  Measures introduced by the Department of Social Security over the last 12 months to assist small businesses include:
  reductions in national insurance contributions from April of 0.6 per cent. for employers of lower paid employees (earnings under £205 a week). The earnings brackets for each of the three lower rates were also increased by more than the rate of inflation.
  changes to the reimbursement arrangements for statutory sick pay from April. The new percentage threshold scheme will help any employer with a large proportion of his work force off sick at the same time. It reimburses SSP costs exceeding 13 per cent. of the monthly national insurance bill. The scheme is straightforward to operate and will protect the cash flow of the businesses covered more effectively. Small businesses will continue to receive the lion's share of SSP reimbursement.

  Other measures aimed at business in general, which should help small businesses, include:
  From October 1994, employers are no longer required to arrange for persons engaged in certain specified occupations involving a risk of pneumoconiosis to submit themselves for medical examination saving staff time and administrative costs for employers.
  In his November Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that the Contributions Agency will accept dispensations for expenses payments already agreed with the Inland Revenue for tax purposes, provided the circumstances under which they were issued have not changed. The CA will also now consider any reasonable form of evidence to determine the profit element of expenses payments. Previously only logs detailing actual expenses were acceptable.

  The Contributions Agency has also initiated a number of customer service improvements, including:
  the publication of a code of practice on 6 April. This code is sent to employers prior to a survey of their national insurance records to explain what they can expect from the CA and what

  1089
  the CA would like from them. The aim is to help employers prepare in advance so that the survey can be carried out more quickly and with the minimum disruption to the employer.
  the appointment of an independent adjudicator on 1 June to investigate complaints where a customer remains dissatisfied following consideration by the chief executive.
  there are plans to expand further the provision of information for businesses and the self-employed on the Internet.
  the extension and streamlining of the call answering capacity of the telephone helpline for employers, SSALE.
  the provision of information on the availability of Payroll Bureaux assistance in the latest edition of the employers guide issued in March.

  the provision of information to interested parties on national insurance matters including SSP and statutory maternity pay through talks, presentations and seminars held by local customer service managers.

  The Department has a system to monitor proposals which have an impact on small businesses to ensure that

  Changes in real income by quintile group 1979–1992/93, including the self-employed

  Percentage

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Bottom 20

  20–40

  40–60

  60–80

  Top 20

  Before housing costs

  7

  14

  26

  34

  50

  After housing costs

  -4

  10

  27

  37

  53

  Notes:

  Percentage growth estimates are calculated from the median income of each quintile. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Money values of quintile medians for households with children 1979 and 1992–93

  Percentage

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Bottom 20

  20–40

  40–60

  60–80

  Top 20

  Before housing costs

  1979

  105

  141

  169

  203

  267

  1992–93

  104

  150

  208

  275

  414

  After housing costs

  1979

  88

  119

  144

  175

  232

  1992–93

  78

  120

  174

  234

  359

  Notes:

  The figures relate to the median income level in each quintile.

  The figures given are for equivalised income and are given to the nearest whole £

  Small changes are unlikely to be statistically significant.

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Monetary amounts are given in March 1995 prices in order not be comparable with those shown in the latest edition of Households Below Average Income. Estimates are for weekly income and should not be converted into annual amounts.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were in households living on incomes(a) below the 1979 bottom decile and (b) below 50 per cent. of 1979 average income, in 1979 and in 1992–93, following tables 11.1 and 11.5 of the latest households below average income report; and what was the value of the thresholds in these years. [34479]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is in the tables.

  Numbers of children below fixed income thresholds

  Thousands

  1979 Actual

  1979 Adjusted

  1992–93

  (a) Below 1979 Bottom Decile Median

  Before Housing Costs

  820

  770

  810

  After Housing Costs

  860

  810

  1,180

  1090
  the needs and costs to small businesses are taken into account, but there are no performance indicators specifically for monitoring achievements in this area. However, we attach particular importance to action taken to help small businesses and continue to explore ways of doing so.

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the change in real disposable income, by quintile group, including the self-employed, before and after housing costs, following table A1 and appendix 10 of the latest households below average income report; and what was the equivalised income per household in each quintile group, for households with children, in April 1995 prices. [34481]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the tables.

  Numbers of children below fixed income thresholds

  Thousands

  1979 Actual

  1979 Adjusted

  1992–93

  (b) Below 50 per cent, of 1979 Average Income

  Before Housing Costs

  1,230

  1,150

  1,220

  After Housing Costs

  1,430

  3,340

  1,910

  Notes:

  The 1979 adjusted column shows the numbers of children before fixed income thresholds based on grossing the total numbers of children in 1979 to the total number of children in 1992–93. This is done to remove the effect of the change in the total number of children.

  All Estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Estimates are shown to the nearest 10 thousand.
  1091
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the equivalent monetary value in £ per week at April 1995 prices, following table A2 of the latest households below average income report, in 1979 and 1992–93, before and after housing costs, of the decile means and medians of the two poorest decile groups and the richest decile group, and the total population mean of(a) single adult and couples with (b) no children, (c) one child aged three, (d) one child aged 16, (e) two children aged three and eight, (f) three children aged three, eight and 11 and (g) three children aged 11, 16 and 17 years. [34474]

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in March 1995 prices (including self employed)

  Equivalent monetary values in £s per week

  Income before housing costs

  Group medians

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  55

  69

  223

  121

  Couple no children

  90

  113

  366

  198

  Couple with child aged 3

  106

  133

  432

  233

  Couple with child aged 16

  122

  153

  498

  269

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  127

  159

  517

  279

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  149

  187

  608

  328

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  177

  222

  722

  389

  1992–93

  Single adult

  55

  74

  350

  165

  Couple no children

  91

  122

  573

  270

  Couple with child aged 3

  107

  144

  676

  319

  Couple with child aged 16

  124

  166

  779

  367

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  128

  172

  808

  381

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  151

  202

  951

  448

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  179

  240

  1,129

  532

  Note:

  The figures in the table show, for the overall UK distribution of equivalised disposable income, decile medians for the bottom, second and top decile, and the mean income. These are expressed in terms of the equivalent monetary amounts for different family types. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in March 1995 prices (including self employed)

  Equivalent monetary values in £s per week

  Income after housing costs

  Group medians

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  41

  53

  177

  94

  Couple no children

  75

  96

  321

  171

  Couple with child aged 3

  89

  113

  379

  22

  Couple with child aged 16

  104

  133

  443

  237

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  106

  135

  453

  242

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  126

  160

  536

  286

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  152

  194

  649

  346

  1992–93

  Single adult

  34

  53

  286

  130

  Couple no children

  62

  97

  520

  236

  Couple with child aged 3

  73

  114

  614

  278

  Couple with child aged 16

  86

  133

  718

  326

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  88

  136

  734

  333

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  104

  161

  869

  394

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  126

  195

  1,051

  477

  Note:

  The figures in the table show, for the overall UK distribution of equivalised disposable income, decile medians for the bottom, second and top decile, and the mean income. These are expressed in terms of the equivalent monetary amounts.

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.
  1092
  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The estimates provided follow those in table A2 of households below average income and show the median of each decile group and the whole population mean. Reliable estimates of means of decile groups are not available.

  Monetary amounts are given in March 1995 prices as in table A2 of the latest edition of households below average income to allow comparison. Estimates are for current weekly income and should not be converted into annual amounts.
  1093

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in March 1995 prices (excluding self employed)

  Equivalent monetary values in £s per week

  Income before housing costs

  Group medians

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  55

  69

  217

  120

  Couple no children

  91

  113

  356

  196

  Couple with child aged 3

  107

  133

  420

  231

  Couple with child aged 16

  123

  154

  484

  266

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  128

  159

  502

  276

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  151

  188

  591

  325

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  179

  223

  701

  386

  1992–93

  Single adult

  57

  75

  340

  161

  Couple no children

  94

  123

  558

  264

  Couple with child aged 3

  111

  145

  658

  312

  Couple with child aged 16

  128

  167

  758

  360

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  133

  173

  786

  373

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  156

  204

  926

  439

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  186

  242

  1,099

  521

  Note:

  The figures in the table show, for the overall UK distribution of equivalised disposable income, decile medians for the bottom, second and top decile, and the mean income. These are expressed in terms of the equivalent monetary amounts.

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in March 1995 prices (excluding self employed)

  Equivalent monetary values in £s per week

  Income before housing costs

  Group medians

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  42

  53

  172

  94

  Couple no children

  76

  96

  313

  170

  Couple with child aged 3

  89

  114

  369

  201

  Couple with child aged 16

  105

  133

  432

  235

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  107

  136

  441

  240

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  126

  161

  523

  284

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  153

  194

  632

  343

  1992–93

  Single adult

  38

  54

  275

  127

  Couple no children

  68

  98

  501

  231

  Couple with child aged 3

  80

  115

  591

  273

  Couple with child aged 16

  94

  135

  691

  319

  Couple with children aged 3 and 8

  96

  138

  706

  326

  Couple with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  114

  163

  836

  386

  Couple with children aged 11, 16 and 17

  138

  198

  1,012

  467

  Note:

  The figures in the table show, for the overall UK distribution of equivalised disposable income, decile medians for the bottom, second and top decile, and the mean income. These are expressed in terms of the equivalent monetary amounts.

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of Child Support Agency compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [33622]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency is registered under the Data Protection Act 1984 and is fully aware of the requirements and obligations that this places on staff in relation to the recording and use of personal data.
  1094
  The agency has taken all necessary measures to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and members of staff are obliged to maintain confidentiality at all times. The chief executive regularly meets the Data Protection Registrar, in view of the particularly sensitive nature of this area of work.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update table G2.01 of the social security statistics 1994 by reference to the most recent date from the case-load of the Child Support Agency. [34438]
  1095
  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is contained in "Child Support Agency Statistical Information". Copies for the periods 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 and 1 April 1995 to 2 June 1995 are in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy that hon. Members will continue to receive individually researched replies to their inquiries to Ministers; [35066]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the effectiveness of the pilot central correspondence section. [35067]

  Mr. Burt
  All letters from hon. Members receive an individual reply which answers their specific queries. There are no plans to change this level of service.

  To my knowledge no representations have been received regarding the effectiveness of the pilot correspondence unit. However, as at 13 July 1995, 36 hon. Members have written requesting further information about the pilot unit following the circular letter issued by the general secretary of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. Since the unit began operations in March this year, 2,356 replies have been issued to hon. Members. In addition, the unit has sent 1,995 replies direct to members of the public. There have been no complaints about the standard of these replies.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if it is his policy to provide standard replies to individual letters on behalf of constituents from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement; [35150]

  (2) if he will make it his policy that hon. Members will continue to receive specific responses to individual inquiries relating to constituents' problems following the establishment of a central correspondence section. [35149]

  Mr. Burt
  All letters from hon. Members receive an individual reply which answers their specific queries. There are no plans to change this level of service.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost of the administration of housing benefit in each of the last five years. [34847]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  £million

  Year

  Outturn

  1989–90

  286

  1990–91

  207

  1991–92

  225

  1992–93

  249

  1993–94

  272

  Figures for the year 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Data Source:

  Social Security Departmental Report 1995 (Table 2 page 100).

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the average amount of housing benefit payable to people in receipt of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) incapacity benefit. [35295]
  1096
  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Benefit with which Housing

  Average weekly housing benefit May 1994

  Benefit paid:

  £

  Unemployment Benefit

  38.85

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  39.24

  Sickness Benefit

  34.77

  Invalidity Benefit

  31.53

  Notes:

  Payment of the other benefit may be to either the claimant or the partner.

  Figures for Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit are given as Incapacity Benefit was only introduced in April 1995 and information is not yet available.Housing Benefit Management Information system, Annual 1 percent. sample May 1994.Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information system, Annual 1 per cent. sample May 1994.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average length of time(a) between a request for a disability living allowance review and a decision being made and (b) between lodging a disability allowance appeal and the date of a tribunal hearing; [35297]

  (2) what was the number and percentage of disability living allowance decisions where the adjudication officer required (a) an examining medical officer's report, (b) a general practitioner's factual report and (c) any other evidence, between February 1994 and February 1995; [35299]

  (3) how many requests for disability living allowance appeals (a) were received by his Department and (b) were outstanding in each month between February 1994 and February 1995 inclusive. [35300]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Clearance times on reviews for the 1994–95 year was 82 per cent. cleared in 55 working days and 92 per cent. in 75 days against a target of 60 per cent. in 55 days and 80 per cent. in 75 days. For appeals, only one figure is held by the Independent Tribunal Service for both disability living allowance and disability working allowance. From the lodgement of the appeal to the first hearing, the average time in 23 weeks.

  Disability living allowance decisions by type of evidence (between 1 February 1994 and 28 February 1995)

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Total decisions1

  456

  100

  Examining medical officer's report

  82

  18

  General practitioner's report

  160

  35

  Claim Pack2

  196

  43

  Any other evidence

  18

  4

  Note:

  1 Excludes cases where the type of evidence is not known

  2 Includes any supporting statements.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.
  1097

  DLA appeals (February 1994–February 1995)

  Month

  Registered

  Outstanding

  1994

  February

  2,426

  17,546

  March

  2,521

  16,988

  April

  1,932

  16,395

  May

  1,717

  15,716

  June

  1,627

  14,849

  July

  1,972

  14,499

  August

  2,369

  14,441

  September

  2,568

  14,383

  October

  2,466

  14,582

  November

  3,124

  15,758

  December

  1,941

  16,245

  1995

  January

  2,574

  17,611

  February

  2,857

  17,271

  Source:

  DLA Management Support Unit.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to disregard the value of the nursery voucher for four-year-olds for the purposes of income support and family credit. [35395]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of(a) people and (b) firms, which pay national insurance contributions of type (i) class 1—employees, (ii) class 2—self-employed, (iii) class 3—voluntary contributions, (iv) class 4—self-employed and (v) class 1—employers. [35354]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is as follows:

  (i) 18.3 million1

  (ii) 2.4 million1

  (iii) 0.19 million1

  (iv) 1.7 million

  (v) The Contribution Agency estimates that it will receive between 1.1 and 1.3 million sets of PAYE returns from employers for the 1993–94 tax year. Some employers may send in more than one set of returns.

  Notes:

  1 Average number paying in any week.

  1. Separate details of the number of self-employed people working on their own account or as an employer are not available. The numbers of self-employed people who send in PAYE returns for their employees is included in (v).

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the total annual revenue raised from national insurance contributions of both 1098
  contracted out and non-contracted out type for (a) class 1—employees, (b) class 2—self-employed, (c) class 3—voluntary contributions, (d) class 4—self-employed and (e) class 1—employers. [35355]

  Mr. Heald
  The current estimates for 1994–95 are in the table:

  £ million

  (a) Gross

  19,725

  Contracted-out rebate1

  1,950

  Net

  17,775

  (b)

  680

  (c)

  55

  (d)

  815

  (e) Gross

  26,575

  Contracted-out rebate1

  3,300

  Net

  23,275

  Notes:

  1 In respect of contracted-out occupational pension schemes only.

  2 It is estimated that employers will also pay some £475 million due in respect of company cars and fuel for their employees.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have failed the all work test of incapacity(a) in total, (b) by region and (c) by gender; and how many of these are signing on as unemployed. [35252]

  Mr. Burt
  At 31 May, the latest date for which figures are available, 28 people had failed the all work test of incapacity. A breakdown of this figure by region and gender is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people since April have failed to qualify for an increase in incapacity benefit for an adult dependant. [35246]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people now receive incapacity benefit; and how many receive age allowances(a) at the higher rate, (b) at the middle rate and (c) at the lower rate. [35245]

  Mr. Burt
  At 31 May this year, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,994,891 people were in receipt of incapacity benefit. Two rates of age addition are payable with incapacity benefit. People in receipt of one of the three age additions payable with invalidity benefit prior to 13 April, will continue to receive the addition with incapacity benefit. Information on how many of those are in payment at the higher, middle and lower rates, is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1099

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) men aged 65 and (b) aged 60 years have had their incapacity benefit withdrawn since April; [35247]

  (2) how many people who have claimed incapacity benefit since April 1995 also receive income support. [35255]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 623, on money purchases schemes, on what grounds it is assumed that the number of holders of APPs will fall between 2010 and 2030. [35513]

  Mr. Heald
  The introduction of age-related rebates will mean that the majority of current appropriate personal pension holders are able to maintain their plans until retirement. The new system will also reduce the financial incentives for younger people to take out an APP for the first time, so it is predicted that the level of take-up of new APPs will fall, leading to a gradual drop in the overall numbers of APP holders. However, the rebate will be regularly reviewed, and the changes to the contracting out system make it very difficult to predict future take up of APPs.

  The detailed assumptions used in the figures are given in the Government Actuary's report on the Pension Bill 1995 (CM 2714).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has held with pension

  Type of deduction

  1989 (percentage of all claimants)

  1990 (percentage of all claimants)

  1991 (percentage of all claimants)

  1992 (percentage of all claimants)

  1993 (percentage of all claimants)

  1994 (percentage of all claimants)

  All cases with one or more deductions

  631,000(15.16)

  615,000 (14.71)

  682,000 (15.2)

  1,006,000 (19.77)

  —

  1,675,000(29.52)

  Electricity

  131,000(3.16)

  100,000 (2.38)

  96,000(2.14)

  96,000 (1.9)

  76,000 (1.34)

  74,000(1.31)

  Current charges only

  —

  —

  —

  40,000 (0.8)

  32,000 (0.56)

  30,000 (0.52)

  Including arrears

  —

  —

  —

  56,000(1.1)

  44,000 (0.78)

  45,000 (0.79)

  Gas

  134,000 (3.22)

  123,000 (2.94)

  146,000 (3.25)

  194,000 (3.8)

  204,000 (3.61)

  231,000(4.07)

  Current charges only

  —

  —

  —

  43,000 (0.9)

  37,000 (0.66)

  38,000 (0.67)

  Including arrears

  —

  —

  —

  151,000 (3.0)

  166,000 (2.95)

  193,000 (3.40)

  Mortgage interest

  4,000(0.10)

  5,000(0.11)

  7,000(0.16)

  44,000 (0.9)

  463,000 (8.20)

  445,000 (7.85)

  Current charges only

  —

  —

  —

  9,000 (0.2)

  343,000 (6.08)

  310,000 (5.46)

  Including arrears

  —

  —

  —

  35,000 (0.7)

  120,000(2.12)

  135,000(2.39)

  Water/sewerage charges, service charge for fuel and water1

  22,000 (0.52)

  51,000(1.21)

  67,000(1.49)

  134,000 (2.6)

  161,000(2.86)

  218,000 (3.83)

  Current charges only

  —

  —

  —

  16,000 (0.3)

  16,000 (0.29)

  19,000 (0.34)

  Including arrears

  —

  —

  —

  118,000(2.3)

  145,000 (2.57)

  198,000 (3.49)

  Community charge2

  —

  —

  34,000 (0.75)

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge higher arrears only

  —

  —

  —

  17,000 (0.3)

  30,000 (0.53)

  33,000 (0.58)

  Community charge lower arrears only

  —

  —

  —

  228,000 (4.5)

  408,000 (7.22)

  490,000 (8.64)

  Council tax arrears only3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,000 (0.25)

  Fines recovery arrears only4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,000(0.12)

  Social fund loan recovery5

  352,000 (8.46)

  383,000(9.16)

  443,000 (9.87)

  586,000(11.5)

  —

  665,000(11.72)

  Overpayment recovery

  79,000 (1.91)

  70,000(1.67)

  68,000(1.51)

  92,000(1.8)

  93,000(1.65)

  114,000(2.02)

  Child support6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,000 (0.34)

  Other housing costs, rent arrears and amenity charges

  74,000(1.78)

  57,000(1.37)

  98,000(2.17)

  101,000(2.0)

  110,000(1.96)

  161,000(2.83)

  1100
  organisations on the future calculation of the retirement pension; and if he will make a statement. [35414]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the previous Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 27 June,Official Report, columns 585–86.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report column 621, if he will provide such monthly (a) regional, (b) territory and (c) district information as is available since April 1993 on severe hardship. [35514]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Such information as is available from the Benefits Agency has been placed in the Library. However, the data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the number of recipients of income support who were subject to direct payments from income support in 1994–95 and in each of the five preceding years, listing the type of payment and relating each category of payment to the percentage of the total number of recipients of income support; [35242]

  (2) what was the number of recipients of income support who were subject to deductions from benefit in 1994–95 and in each of the five preceding years, listing the reason for the deduction and relating each category of deduction to the percentage of the total number of recipients of income support. [35243]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is in the tables.
  1101

  Type of deduction

  1989 (percentage of all claimants)

  1990 (percentage of all claimants)

  1991 (percentage of all claimants)

  1992 (percentage of all claimants)

  1993 (percentage of all claimants)

  1994 (percentage of all claimants)

  Current charges only

  —

  —

  —

  18,000 (0.4)

  10,000(0.17)

  13,000 (0.22)

  Including arrears

  —

  —

  —

  84,000(1.6)

  100,000(1.79)

  148,000 (2.61)

  Board and lodging (including RC/NH/hostels)7

  12,000 (0.28)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other deductions8

  9,000 (0.22)

  1,000(0.03)

  3,000 (0.07)

  3,000(0.1)

  4,000 (0.07)

  —

  Notes:

  Deductions from Income Support are of two kinds: direct payment to third parties like the utility companies and deductions for social fund and overpayment recovery.

  1 For 1989 and 1990 includes service charges for fuel and water included in rent.

  2 Community charge not introduced until 1991—separated on data sets from 1992 by higher and lower rates.

  3 Council tax not collected until 1994.

  4 Fines recovery not collected prior to 1994.

  5 Social fund recovery data not available for 1993.

  6 Child support not introduced until 1994.

  7 Board and lodging deductions no longer made from 1990 onwards.

  8Other deductions "—" less than 1000 cases for 1994.

  9 Figures shown are for May each year. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  10 Deductions for electricity, gas, mortgage interest, other housing costs were not separated prior to 1992.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual and Quarterly Enquiries.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of recipients of income support who were subject to more than one of deductions from benefit, excluding mortgage interest payments, in 1994–95 and in each of the five preceding years; if he give a breakdown of the total number of

  Income support recipients with one or more deductions (excluding mortgage interest)

  Number of Deductions

  2

  3

  4

  5 or more

  All cases

  1989

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  119,000

  38,000

  6,000

  1,000

  163,000

  Average deduction

  £13.05

  £17.24

  £20.65

  £25.32

  £14.34

  1990

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  107,000

  38,000

  8,000

  1,000

  153,000

  Average deduction

  £12.56

  £17.41

  £21.09

  £22.63

  £14.25

  1991

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  132,000

  50,000

  12,000

  2,000

  196,000

  Average deduction

  £12.42

  £18.27

  £23.20

  £26.05

  £14.71

  1992

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  209,000

  87,000

  27,000

  3,000

  325,000

  Average deduction

  £11.51

  £18.05

  £23.48

  £29.86

  £14.41

  1993

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  237,000

  91,000

  29,000

  5,000

  363,000

  Average deduction

  £10.80

  £16.77

  £22.99

  £27.27

  £13.53

  1994

  Claimants with more than 1 deduction

  302,000

  126,000

  38,000

  7,000

  472,000

  Average deduction

  £10.88

  £17.42

  £22.29

  £26.82

  £13.77

  Notes:

  Figures shown are for May each year. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual and Quarterly Enquiries.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of housing benefit payable to people with earned income. [35248]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  At May 1994, the latest available date, the average weekly amount of housing benefit paid, were either claimant or partner had earned income, was £32.29.

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people now receive severe disablement allowance; and how many receive age
  1102
  recipients of income support who were subject to more than one deduction from income support by the number of deductions; and if he will list the average value of these deductions for each group. [35244]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is in the table.

  allowances (a) at the higher rate, (b) at the middle rate and (c) at the lower rate. [35249]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As at 3 April 1993, the latest year for which actual figures are available, there were 316,000 recipients of severe disablement allowance. The numbers entitled to the higher, middle and lower rate age allowances were 211,000; 54,000 and 45,000 respectively.

  Source: DSS analytical services division—based on 1 per cent. sample and rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Energy Efficiency Programme
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if interest loans taken out for the purposes of energy conservation to a dwelling occupied as the home will be eligible for payment through income support under the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and
  1103
  Payments) Amendment Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32925]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer Tuesday 11 July]: Income support will continue to be able to help with the interest on loans taken out to provide insulation for the dwelling occupied as the home, provided the work is necessary to maintain the fitness of the home for human habitation. The Government's principal energy efficiency programme for householders aged 60 or over and those on a low income is the home energy efficiency scheme. It provides grants for draught proofing and loft, tank and pipe insulation and energy advice.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list how many people have been refused an award of disability working allowance on renewal by reasons for disallowance. [35254]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table:

  Reasons for disallowing renewal claims for disability working allowance, for the period 1 November 1992 to 31 January 19951

  Reason for disallowance

  Total disallowed

  Not resident in Great Britain

  1

  Capital exceed £16,000

  10

  Not in remunerative work

  558

  Income exceeds DWA level

  515

  No qualifying benefit

  343

  Disability test

  99

  Receiving Family Credit

  32

  DWA claim made more than six weeks before end date of DWA award

  2465

  Claimant has withdrawn claim

  143

  Other reasons

  16

  Total

  1,574

  1 1 November is the first date of receipt for DWA renewal claims.2 This figure includes claims that have been disallowed because the renewal claim was made more than six weeks before the current claim ends. Some of these may have been subsequently disallowed for another reason, and therefore recorded more than once in the above table.

  Source:

  Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. of all claims.

  Estimated administration costs 1993–94

  Administration cost £ million

  Estimated number of beneficiaries at a particular time Thousands

  Average weekly administration cost per beneficiary £

  Unemployment benefit

  1288

  607

  9.10

  Severe disablement allowance

  35

  2329

  2.05

  Sickness and invalidity benefits

  359

  21,868

  3.70

  1 Includes the cost of administering National Insurance credits for clients who do not receive any social security benefit.

  2 Estimated numbers—actual caseload figures not yet available.

  Information on incapacity benefit is not available.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set his Department's agencies for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [18010]

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1995, c. 780–82]: I have today laid before Parliament the
  1104
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list how many(a) men and (b) women received each of the qualifying benefits for disability working allowance. [35253]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table:

  Caseload as at 31 January 1995

  All cases

  Males

  Females

  Disability living allowance—higher rate

  2,399

  1,376

  1,023

  Disability living allowance—middle rate

  928

  573

  355

  Invalidity benefit

  984

  684

  300

  Severe disablement allowance

  332

  194

  138

  Disability premium in income support/housing benefit or council tax benefit

  559

  317

  242

  Total

  5,202

  3,144

  2,058

  Source:

  Disability working allowance quarterly inquiry January 1995.

  Some people may have more than one qualifying benefit. In these circumstances the most advantageous qualifying benefit is used as it may passport the person through the disability test.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35312]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 session.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the administration cost per claimant of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) incapacity benefit. [35250]

  Mr. Burt
  Information on the administration costs of benefits is not available in the format requested. Available information, as published in the 1995 Social Security Department report, is as follows:

  1994–95 annual reports and accounts for the Benefits, Child Support, Contributions, Information Technology services and War Pensions Agencies. Copies of these, and the Resettlement Agency's annual report, have been placed in the Library.

  I have also today published "Child Support Agency—National Client Satisfaction Survey 1994" and copies have been placed in the Library.
  1105

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals his Department has for the future management and conservation of forests in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [34268]

  Mr. Ancram
  Future management and conservation of state forests in Northern Ireland will be subject to the conclusions drawn from a prior options study of all forest service activities which is currently under way. The outcome is expected to be reported to Ministers in the autumn of this year.

  Water Executive
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to safeguard the rights of employees in the Water Executive in respect of pension entitlements, redundancy entitlements and other contractual terms and conditions of employment. [34271]

  Mr. Moss
  On 1 April 1996 a next steps agency will be created which will deal with the work currently carried out by the Water Executive of the Department of Environment (NI). This is an interim step towards the Government's ultimate goal of privatising the work of the Water Executive, but that goal will not be attainable in the lifetime of the present Parliament. In the meantime the Government are proceeding with plans to manage the Water Executive as an agency within the Department of the Environment (NI).

  Agency staff will be employees of the Department and as such will continue to be civil servants and will enjoy the terms and conditions laid down by the Northern Ireland civil service code and the pension entitlements under the principal civil service pension scheme (Northern Ireland).

  The Agency will be expected to make further improvements in the quality and cost-effectiveness of water and sewerage services to its customers. Through market testing, the chief executive will wish to examine whether parts of the agency's activities can be delivered more efficiently and economically by the private sector. Should the chief executive decide that a service could be better provided by the private sector, he will have to consider whether Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations apply in any transfer of the service. This will depend on the particular terms and conditions contained in any bid from the private sector, but where the regulations do apply the existing terms and conditions of employment will transfer with staff to the new employer. Where they do not apply, staff may opt not to transfer to the new employer and to remain with the Department either to be redeployed or possibly to face redundancy. In either case, existing terms and conditions will apply.

  Pension entitlements are protected by employment law, not by TUPE, and in a case of transfer of service both the Department and successful contractor must so arrange things that pension rights enjoyed by staff after the transfer are broadly comparable in value with those enjoyed before.
  1106
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 779, on the future of the water service in Northern Ireland (a) which bodies were consulted before the decision to establish the next steps agency and (b) what factors influenced his decision. [34451]

  Mr. Moss
  In July 1992, in accordance with Government policy, it was announced that the water service of the Department of the Environment (NI), as it was then known, would be privatised in 1995–96. Due to a number of technical difficulties the Government announced in April 1993 that it would not be practicable to effect the privatisation within the lifetime of the present Parliament. On 29 June 1994 the Minister of State with responsibility for DOE (NI) announced that privatisation of water and sewerage services remained the ultimate goal of the Government, but, in the interim, plans were proceeding to establish the Water Executive as a next steps agency within the Department by 1 April 1996.

  These arrangements are entirely in keeping with the well established concepts of the next steps initiative through which the Government seek to improve the delivery of public services. As such, no external consultation was necessary.

  The main consideration in deciding to pursue agentisation was the search for ever-increasing improvements in economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was capital expenditure on(a) primary; and (b) secondary schools in real and constant price terms in each year since 1979. [34030]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 16 May,Official Report, columns 195–96.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies, and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical result of such monitoring. [34697]

  Mr. Ancram
  Assistance towards small firms in Northern Ireland is delivered for the Department of Economic Development by its agency, the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  LEDU's strategy forms an integral part of the Government's approach to encourage competitiveness and growth among small businesses. I am encouraged that LEDU had another successful year in 1994–95. LEDU client companies' turnover increased by 11 per cent. in real terms compared with 9.5 per cent. in 1993–94 and had a net increase in full-time employment of 3,500 or

  1107
  11.9 per cent.—Northern Ireland average 2.6 per cent.—compared with an increase of 5.8 per cent. recorded in the previous year.

  Key results are as follows

  Performance indicators

  1994–95 targets

  1994–95 results

  Business start training (numbers)

  3,000

  3,732

  Small business accommodation

  8,200 sq m

  6,169 sq m

  Growth implementing contracts signed

  152

  159

  Contracts to companies engaged in projects to overcome barriers to growth

  760

  1,049

  Department of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in the workload of the legal staff of the Department of Public Prosecutions over the past five years; and what changes there have been in delays in the legal process as a result. [34369]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of case files received by the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in each of the five years from 1990 to 1994 is as follows:

  1990: 9,337

  1991: 9,764

  1992: 11,538

  1993: 10,564

  1994: 11,982

  Since 1 July 1992 the progress of serious indicatable cases has been monitored under the administrative time limits scheme. I refer the hon. Member to the answers my right hon. and learned Friend gave the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 23 November 1993, Official Report, columns 19–20, and my hon. Friend the Member Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 6 December 1994, Official Report, columns 165–66, regarding the results of that scheme. The workload of legal staff in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions is one of a number of factors increasing the delay in bringing an accused person to trial.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the present legislative proposals of his Department that will require consideration by the House during the next year. [34370]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35311]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.
  1108
  In addition I shall be writing to the Northern Ireland party leaders and to the Opposition spokesmen on Northern Ireland at the start of the Session to outline our proposals for Orders and Orders-in-Council.

  School Curriculum
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress being made to change the requirements of key stages 1, 2 and 4 in the school curriculum. [34371]

  Mr. Ancram
  Between September 1994 and February this year the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment prepared revised programmes of study for the subjects of the Northern Ireland curriculum and undertook a wide consultation on them, involving all schools in the Province, between March and June. These revised programmes of study reduce the statutory curriculum requirements for all pupils and the council will submit its final recommendations to the Department of Education in October. The Department will make the new programmes of study available to schools in January 1996 and they will become compulsory in September 1996.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about revised assessment arrangements of the national curriculum for the 1995–96 school year. [34741]

  Mr. Ancram
  I announced on 28 March that I had decided not to introduce statutory assessment until the 1996–97 school year. This will ensure that the assessment arrangements relate directly to the revised curriculum which will take effect in that year and will allow time for further consultation. I have, therefore, asked the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment to take views of teachers on what should happen in statutory assessment, and to advise me by Christmas on the form which it should take. I intend to make an announcement early in 1996 about the statutory arrangements which will apply in 1996–97.

  Special Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals for changes in special education and the likely timetable for legislative and executive enactment. [34372]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government intend to bring before Parliament later this year a draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order which will include new provisions relating to special education similar to those introduced in England and Wales by the Education Act 1993. Consultation on the proposed legislation has recently taken place and responses are currently under consideration. The Government's decisions on the form of the draft order and its proposed implementation will be announced as soon as possible.

  GP Surgeries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the role of(a) the area health board and (b) the local general practitioner in providing the surgeries at (i) Newry, (ii) Portadown, (iii) Lurgan, (iv) Tandragee, (v) Keady, (vi) Newtownhamilton, (vii) Moy, (viii) Tynan and (ix) Armagh. [34335]
  1109
  Mr. Moss
  General medical practitioners are independent contractors and, in any area, the provision of their surgery premises is a matter for agreement between the GPs and the relevant health and social services board. GPs may provide their own surgery premises or they may rent accommodation either in a health centre run by the board or from a third party. In all cases GPs receive reimbursement from the board which can be related to the cost of providing premises, the actual rent being paid or the current market rental value of the accommodation.

  Armagh Hospitals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what proposals there are to relocate services at Mullinure hospital, Armagh, from other locations; [34333]

  (2) what is the estimated cost at each location in Armagh city of completing the transfer of existing services at Tower Hill hospital, Armagh; [34336]

  (3) what hospital services are proposed to be transferred from the site at Tower Hill, Armagh city, and at which location at Armagh each of these services will be relocated. [34332]

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1990–94

  Robbery offences known

  1,205

  1,329

  1,512

  1,361

  1,373

  6,780

  Percentage cleared

  19.5

  19.6

  17.8

  15.7

  19.4

  18.3

  Burglary offences known

  14,609

  16,268

  16,888

  15,512

  16,692

  79,969

  Percentage cleared

  21.5

  20.4

  18.0

  18.8

  18.6

  19.4

  Note:

  Figures include attempts.

  There has been a substantial decrease in the number of robberies and burglaries in the first five months of 1995, accompanied by an increase in detection rates, resulting from the increase in proactive patrolling by the police, both overt and covert, using manpower previously employed on security duties. Other serious crime shows a similar reduction, with all violent crime falling by 972 in the 10 months since the ceasefires compared to the previous 10-month period.

  Comparative figures for robberies and burglaries January-May 1994 and 1995

  1994 January-May

  1995 January-May

  Burglary 6939 offences known percentage cleared 17.7

  Burglary 6624 offences known percentage cleared 18.7

  Robbery 614 offences known percentage cleared 15

  Robbery 494 offences known percentage cleared 22.3

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary, fully supported by Government, will continue to build on this improvement. Specific initiative such as the formation of a robbery squad in Belfast, and the amalgamation of the serious crime squad and the anti-racketeering squads, have been introduced by the RUC positively and efficiently to increase their ability to react to the increased flow of information from the public since the ceasefires.
  1110
  Mr. Moss
  The Armagh and Dungannon unit of Management is currently undertaking a wide-ranging public consultation exercise on the implementation of the Southern health and social services board's recent review of health and social care services in Armagh.

  The consultation period will close on 14 August and in the light of the comments received the board will decide on the shape and location of hospital services in the Armagh area including services currently provided on the Tower Hill and Mullinure sites.

  Until the board makes its decision it is not possible to estimate the cost of transferring any services from the Tower Hill site.

  Robbery and Burglary Detection Rates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the detection rates for robbery and burglary in Northern Ireland over the past five years; and what proposals he has to improve it. [34364]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The proper way to fight crime is through the continuing development and improvement of anti-crime strategies, in partnership between the Government, citizens, and the police. The detection rates for robbery and burglary in Northern Ireland are given in the table:

  This is in addition to crime prevention schemes, such as the Northern Ireland Tobacco and Alcohol Security Group, which have proved their worth with significant reductions in the amount of high-value goods stolen over the last three years.

  Most recently, I announced a major crime prevention initiative on 1 May this year. This anti-burglary programme highlights six ways to beat the burglar and is a joint venture between the police, the Northern Ireland office and Northern Ireland Electricity, which is providing sponsorship for the programme.

  Prisoners (Costs of Detention)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current annual cost of keeping a prisoner in each of Northern Ireland's prisons. [34366]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the current annual cost of keeping a prisoner in each of Northern Ireland's prisons.The latest available figures relate to 1994/95 and are:1111

  £

  HMP Belfast

  77,900

  HMP Maze

  71,980

  HMP Maghaberry

  86,566

  HMP Magilligan

  73,553

  HM, YOC

  58,246

  I hope this information is helpful.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as ww.open.gov.uk and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34682]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland departments were given a "home page" on the CCTA world wide web server—open.gov.uk—in February this year; this provided some general information on Northern Ireland as well as information on the citizens charter and a copy of the joint framework document.

  In early June, the Department of Finance and Personnel established a WWW server of its own—address: nics.gov.uk—to provide an electronic publishing service for Northern Ireland departments and their associated bodies. There is an automatic pointer from the CCTA menu to the NI server.

  An interdepartmental steering group has been established to develop and co-ordinate the use of this new facility and of information super-highways generally. The aim will be to make maximum use of the potential of information super-highways to make information available to the public and to meet the business needs of Northern Ireland departments.

  Department of Finance and Personnel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the proportionate change in the level of expenditure of the Department of Finance and Personnel between 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what factors led to this change. [34999]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Public expenditure by the Department of Finance and Personnel, on the basis of the latest available figures, increased by some 24 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1994–95. The increase is mainly attributable to increases in redundancy payments, around £7 million, and the buying out of future year liabilities for redundancy costs£6 million. Both these items are borne by DFP in relation to redundancies in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Office.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on consultancy services by the Department of Finance and Personnel in 1994–95; on what projects the money was spent; and which consultancy firms were employed. [35007]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Expenditure of £164,915 was made on the following projects;

  Scoping study for possible Market Testing of Telecoms

  NICS Telecom Projects

  1112

  X400 Project (E-Mail)

  Government Loans

  VALCOM

  User Group Conference

  Charging

  Software amendments of IFMIS

  Software amendments to DFP Salary Module

  WESSIS and EROS

  NSV/CPV Coding

  Options Appraisal

  Ad Hoc Advice

  Market Test

  Customer Care

  Consortium Project

  Combines Accounting Workshop

  EC Research

  Economic Appraisal in Central Government

  'Interreg Evaluation'

  Issued in Competitiveness'

  'Urban' Prior Appraisal

  Performance Management

  Run down of NICS car scheme

  Selection Reconstruction Tendering

  Quality Assurance

  Culture Survey

  Prior Appraisal `Urban' Initiative

  Appraisal for Interreg II

  Financial Management

  The following consultancy firms were employed;

  Apex Catering Ltd.

  Belmin Purchasing Systems Ltd.

  Cabinet Office

  CAPITA

  Careertrack

  CCTA

  CFM

  Colin Stutt consulting

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Digital Equipment Corporation

  European S/W

  Gilpin Black

  International Training services

  Helm

  Horizon Services Ltd.

  KPMG

  Logotech

  McDonnell Systems

  NCC Services

  P.A.C.E. Ltd.

  Ronsard Fleet Services

  SGSYARSLEY

  CFNM

  Youth Service
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the number of full-time professional staff employed in the youth service over the past 10 years. [35005]
  1113
  Mr. Ancram
  There are currently 243 full-time professional workers employed in the youth service. Details for the past 10 years are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current capital expenditure on the youth service in Northern Ireland; and if he will list the projects funded. [35003]

  Mr. Ancram
  Planned expenditure on capital grant to voluntary youth in 1995–96 is £2,000. In addition the five education and library boards have estimated that, in total, they plan to spend £409,000 in 1995–96 on capital works—major works, minor works and the purchase of furniture, equipment and property. The total includes provision for starting one major new capital project, Taghnevan youth and community centre, Craigavon. Details of individual minor projects and other expenditure are not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure per head on the youth service in Northern Ireland in constant price terms over the past 10 years. [35004]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the 10-year period 1983–84 to 1993–94, the expenditure per young person aged five to 25 on the youth service in Northern Ireland, at constant 1993–94 prices was:

  1983–84: £22.94

  1984–85: £23.64

  1985–86: £23.14

  1986–87: £23.87

  1987–88: £23.95

  1988–89: £23.60

  1989–90: £23.05

  1990–91: £23.42

  1991–92: £25.19

  1992–93: £28.82

  1993–94: £31.07

  Mean age (years)

  Percentage aged

  Under 35 years

  55 years and over

  Queens University Belfast (QUB)

  University of Ulster (UU)

  QUB

  UU

  QUB

  UU

  1984–85

  41.5

  41.5

  24.8

  21.2

  11.3

  8.4

  1985–86

  41.5

  41.5

  21.1

  21.2

  9.3

  7.8

  1986–87

  42.3

  42.2

  20.2

  17.8

  10.5

  8.3

  1987–88

  42.8

  42.7

  18.8

  16.5

  10.8

  9.1

  1988–89

  43.3

  43.0

  15.6

  16.0

  11.8

  8.7

  1989–90

  43.3

  43.3

  16.7

  15.2

  12.3

  8.6

  1990–91

  43.4

  43.7

  17.2

  15.0

  12.3

  10.9

  1991–92

  43.8

  44.0

  17.8

  15.0

  13.6

  11.5

  1992–93

  44.1

  44.1

  17.5

  15.4

  14.6

  12.1

  1993–94

  44.0

  44.8

  17.9

  14.0

  15.1

  14.0

  Four-year-olds (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of four-year-old children are in primary schools. [34747]

  Mr. Ancram
  At 31 December 1994, 49.8 per cent. of four-year-old children were at primary school.
  1114
  The figures from 1992–93 include the youth element of education and library board administration costs.

  Mott MacDonald Ltd. and NatWest Markets
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 446, what is the value of the contract for the consortium of Mott MacDonald Ltd. and NatWest Markets. [35019]

  Mr. Moss
  The answer is £244,850.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in cash and real terms of a full-time equivalent student in further education in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [34744]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is available only from 1991–92 to 1993–94 on a comparable basis and is as follows:

  Net institutional funding per full-time equivalent student

  Financial year

  Cash £

  1993–94 prices £

  1991–92

  2,520

  2,701

  1992–93

  2,463

  2,538

  1993–941

  2,374

  2,374

  1 Provisional.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the age profile of lecturing staff in each university in Northern Ireland. [34740]

  Mr. Ancram
  The percentage age profile of staff for the academic year 1984–85 to 1993–94 for each of the two universities in NI is as follows:

  Higher Education Buildings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the backlog of maintenance in higher education buildings in Northern Ireland which needs to be undertaken to meet statutory requirements; and what proposals he has to carry out the work. [34749]
  1115
  Mr. Ancram
  The KDK report of 1992 identified a backlog of maintenance in the Northern Ireland universities, of which some £12.5 million related to meeting statutory requirements.

  Since 1992, the universities have spent £15 million on backlog maintenance, of which the Department has provided grant of £7 million.

  Livestock Premium Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the beef special premium scheme in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34979]

  Mr. Ancram
  The outturn for the 1994–95 financial year was £37.499 million.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the sheep annual premium scheme in 1994–95; what proportion of the United Kingdom figure this represents; and if he will make a statement. [35124]

  Mr. Ancram
  The cost of the sheep annual premium scheme in 1994–95 was £28.5 million. This amount is £7.2 million of the total figure for the UK.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of the suckler cow premium scheme for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34980]

  Mr. Ancram
  The outturn for the 1994–95 financial year was £36.4 million.

  Department of Education (Compulsory Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which activities of the Department of Education are currently under consideration for compulsory competitive tendering. [35006]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no plans at present for further compulsory competitive tendering in the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are for a rationalisation programme by the removal of school places during the coming school year. [34742]

  Mr. Ancram
  The education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools have been asked to review the position of all primary schools with an enrolment of fewer than 60 pupils and secondary schools with an enrolment of fewer than 300 pupils.

  At present there are no specific proposals for the rationalisation or closure of schools in the coming school year.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his strategic plan for higher education in the further education sector. [34743]
  1116
  Mr. Ancram
  Criteria setting a framework for the development of higher education courses in further education colleges were announced in February 1993. In addition, an advisory group was set up to advise on the development of such work in this sector. That group reported in December 1994, recommending a control on growth in full-time higher level provision of some 5 per cent. to 10 per cent.

  In line with the policy of consolidation in the number of full-time higher education students throughout the United Kingdom, overall intake levels for such courses in further education in 1995–96 will be allowed to rise by no more than 10 per cent. as compared with 1994–95. Colleges can, though, develop programmes through the part-time mode, subject to normal approval procedures.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific proposals he has for expanding the number of higher education places in Northern Ireland. [34748]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. In line with present Government policy for the United Kingdom, full-time undergraduate higher education places in Northern Ireland universities are constrained to a level consistent with the 1993–94 age participation index.

  Part-time and postgraduate places are not subject to this constraint.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) numbers and (b) percentage of Northern Ireland students who have gained places in higher education institutions studied outside the Province in each of the past 10 years. [35328]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is available only for the years 1985–86 to 1993–94 for new entrants to higher education courses, and is as follows:

  Total new entrants

  Total studying outside NI

  Percentage studying outside NI

  1985–86

  11,857

  2,552

  21.5

  1986–87

  11,803

  2,677

  22.7

  1987–88

  12,581

  2,928

  23.3

  1988–89

  13,537

  3,406

  25.2

  1989–90

  14,816

  4,015

  27.1

  1990–91

  15,952

  4,184

  26.2

  1991–92

  17,168

  4,312

  25.1

  1992–93

  18,949

  5,078

  26.8

  1993–94

  20,410

  5,494

  26.9

  Universities (Student:Staff Ratio)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes there have been in the student:staff ratio in Northern Ireland universities in the past 10 years. [34745]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Student staff ratio

  1984–85

  12:0

  1985–86

  12:1

  1986–87

  12:2

  1987–88

  13:0

  1988–89

  13:9

  1117

  Year

  Student staff ratio

  1989–90

  13:8

  1990–91

  14:4

  1991–92

  15:5

  1992–93

  15:5

  1993–94

  16:5

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how his new initiative on nursery education will be affected by the fact that the school starting age in Northern Ireland is different from England. [34746]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 July,Official Report, columns 519–20.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) each local education authority area in Northern Ireland. [35182]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available for secondary schools.

  The information requested for primary schools is as follows:

  Area

  i. Northern Ireland

  24.1

  ii. Area Board

  Belfast

  25.2

  Western

  23.9

  North-Eastern

  24.4

  South-Eastern

  23.9

  Southern

  23.4

  Ports (Privatisation)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken either by him or the port authorities about the privatisation of ports in Northern Ireland. [35288]

  Mr. Moss
  The Ports (Northern Ireland) Order came into effect on 2 January 1995. This would enable the privatisation of the Northern Ireland trust ports. It also provides reserve powers for the Department to initiate the privatisation of a port with a turnover in excess of £5.4 million, but these powers are not exercisable until two years after the order came into effect. The port authorities in Northern Ireland are currently examining the implications of this legislation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what financial support from the European Union the ports of Northern Ireland would become ineligible if they were privatised. [35290]

  Mr. Moss
  European Union structural funds grants which are currently available to public sector ports in Northern Ireland would continue to be available in the event of privatisation.
  1118

  Prison Sentences (Remission)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of specific changes to which legislation is necessary to bring levels of remission on prison sentences in Northern Ireland into line with practice in England and Wales; and what plans he has for such changes. [35374]

  Sir John Wheeler
  To bring the law on release of prisoners in Northern Ireland in line with England and Wales would require provisions equivalent to those in part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, together with the creation of a parole board for Northern Ireland. The Government have no plans to make these changes at this time.

  Ports (European Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken by Northern Ireland ports to seek financial assistance through the European Union. [35289]

  Mr. Moss
  The ports of Belfast, Londonderry, Warrenpoint and Lame have all submitted applications for European regional development fund assistance to the transportation sub-programme which is part of the Northern Ireland single programme. Several projects at each of the ports have been given preliminary acceptance to the sub-programme and letters of offer have already been issued for four projects at Londonderry and one at Larne.

  Londonderry and Warrenpoint have also submitted projects to the Interreg II initiative and these will be considered in due course.

  Northern Ireland Railways
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the findings of the study he commissioned to investigate ways in which private sector elements could be introduced into Northern Ireland railways operations. [35291]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 January,Official Report, column 146.

  British Fluoridation Association
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds he or his agencies have provided to, and what purchases they have made from the British Fluoridation Association. [34395]

  Mr. Moss
  The question is taken as referring to the British Fluoridation Society. The Department of Health and Social Services has paid an annual grant to the society since 1992–93. The amounts were as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  1992–93

  1,795

  1993–94

  1,850

  1994–95

  1,924

  1995–96

  1,982

  1119
  The Eastern health and social services board made a one-off payment of £150 to the society in January 1995 towards the cost of a conference on water fluoridation. Health and social services boards and the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland purchase information leaflets from the society. Details of such purchases are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Northern Ireland share of Inward Investment projects coming into the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years as measured by(a) the number of projects and (b) number of jobs to be created. [35173]

  Mr. Ancram
  The inward investment projects secured by the Industrial Development Board over the past 10 years are set out in the table and are shown as a percentage of projects notified to the Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau.

  Inward Investment projects

  Jobs promoted

  UK share Percentage

  UK share Percentage

  1994–1995

  10

  2.4

  1,969

  5.4

  1993–1994

  13

  3.1

  2,309

  5.8

  1992–1993

  10

  3.0

  1,945

  12.3

  1991–1992

  11

  3.1

  430

  1.9

  1990–1991

  13

  3.6

  1,294

  5.4

  1989–1990

  14

  3.8

  1,977

  5.5

  1988–1989

  7

  2.1

  1,856

  7.0

  1987–1988

  12

  3.3

  867

  2.6

  1986–1987

  21

  5.9

  799

  4.1

  1985–1986

  22

  6.3

  813

  2.7

  Health Service Providers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 388, if he will update the figures on non-NHS provider spending. [35442]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available. The final accounts of the health and social services boards for 1994–95 are not completed.

  The expenditure of health and social services trusts on the purchase of health and personal social services from non NHS/HPSS providers cannot be separately identified from the final accounts of the trusts.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1994,Official Report, column 406, if he will update the figures on private patient income. [35491]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. The accounts of the health and social services boards are not yet available. The table gives income from private patients for each health and social 1120
  services trust for 1994–95. This information has been extracted from the 1994–95 accounts of the health and social services trusts These accounts are as yet unaudited and therefore the figures supplied may be subject to change.

  Since the original information was supplied a further seven trusts were established on 1 April 1994.

  Table 1: Private patient income by health and social services trust for 1994–95 (provisional)

  HSS trust

  1994–95 £000

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  426

  Eastern Ambulance Trust

  8

  Greenpark Trust

  371

  Royal Group of Hospitals Trust

  1,366

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospital Trust

  413

  Craigavon Group of Hospitals Trust

  142

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital Trust

  16

  Newry and Mourne Hospitals Trust

  159

  South and East Belfast Community Trust

  27

  Down and Lisburn Trust

  46

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  0

  North Down and Ards Community Trust

  0

  North and West Belfast Community Trust

  0

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 325, if he will update the figures on trust start-up costs. [35503]

  Mr. Moss
  The additional figures for trust start-up costs in Northern Ireland since 8 December are as follows:

  Operational date 1 April 1995

  £

  Causeway HSS Trust

  215,000

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service HSS Trust1

  214,000

  1 This trust was established following the dissolution of the Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust on HSS Trust on April 1995

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Northern Ireland if he will list by wave and by region(a) the number of non-executive directors and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust boards by salary band. [35505]

  Mr. Moss
  Since regional authorities do not exist in Northern Ireland, it is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. Information on appointments to HSS trusts in Northern Ireland is set out in the table:

  Chairmen

  Non-executive directors

  Band 1 £19,285

  Band 2 £17,145

  Band 3 £15,125

  Wave 1

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Wave 2

  43

  3

  4

  2

  Wave 3

  114

  —

  1

  2

  Wave 4

  19

  —

  1

  1

  1 One non-executive director post remains to be filled.

  1121

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the costs of assisting general practitioner fundholders with information technology expenditure in each year since 1991–92. [35388]

  Mr. Moss
  The GP fundholding scheme in Northern Ireland commenced in April 1993. The figures given for the first four years in the table represent the actual costs of the assistance given to GP fundholders in respect of information technology. The figure given for 1995–96 represents the total allocation made for this purpose to the four health and social services boards, from which fundholders will be reimbursed.

  Year

  Amount £

  1991–92

  nil

  1992–93

  617,879

  1993–94

  751,558

  1994–95

  427,399

  1995–96

  775,000

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was allocated to GP fundholders in management allowances in each year since the start of the scheme. [35390]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for the first three years represent the management allowance payments made to GP fundholders. The figure for 1995–96 represents the total allocation made to the four health and social services boards for management allowances purposes, from which fundholders will be reimbursed.

  Year

  Amount £

  1992–93

  345,215

  1993–94

  1,042,725

  1994–95

  1,652,692

  1995–96

  3,207,117

  Deaths from hypothermia

  Health and Social Services Board

  Year

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Northern Ireland

  Males aged 65+ years

  1990

  2

  1

  2

  0

  5

  1991

  1

  2

  0

  2

  5

  1992

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1993

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1994

  1

  1

  0

  2

  4

  Females aged 60+ years

  1990

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1991

  4

  0

  0

  1

  5

  1992

  1

  1

  0

  2

  4

  1993

  2

  1

  0

  3

  6

  1994

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1122

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34608]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In the last 12 months, one case of unfair dismissal was brought against the Department of Finance and Personnel. The case was withdrawn before it came to hearing. Legal costs of £2,966.52, including VAT, were incurred by the Department; no compensation was paid to the officer dismissed. One unfair dismissal case was brought against the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland and it was successful. The total cost, including legal fees and compensation, was £3,300.

  One officer in the Northern Ireland Office has made an application for unfair dismissal to the office of the industrial tribunal. This case has not come to hearing.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days were lost in sickness absence in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34609]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In 1994–95 358,059 days were lost through sick absence, representing 6.6 per cent. of the total number of potential working days. It is estimated that the cost of sick absence in 1994–95 was £24.8 million.

  These statistics exclude industrial staff whose records are not held centrally.

  Hypothermia (Deaths)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths from hypothermia took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over in each year from 1990, by region. [34172]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The figures are as follows:
  1123

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the Agriculture and Fisheries Department in the Scottish Office(a) civil servants who have left the service and their grade, (b) voluntary redundancies and their grade, (c) compulsory redundancies and their grade and (d) those given early retirement and their grade for (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995 expressed as a number and a percentage. [33668]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of staff in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department by grade, for(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [33669]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The number of permanent staff in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department excluding its executive agencies by grade is shown in the table. The figures relate to 1 April in the years from 1993 to 1995.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the consultation period on the habitats directive to allow objectors to marine sites to make further representations to the Government; and if he will publish the list of sites to which objections have been received and from whom. [33757]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government are presently considering responses received to the consultation exercise on the list of possible marine special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive. Once this is complete, the Government will announce how we propose to take matters forward.

  In line with normal procedure, full sets of the responses received will shortly be made available for public inspection in departmental libraries, apart from any instances where respondents asked for their comments to be kept confidential.

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department at 1 April

  Grade

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Grade 2

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Grade 3

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Grade 4

  2.0

  3.0

  2.0

  Grade 5

  12.0

  13.0

  12.0

  Grade 6

  11.0

  9.0

  11.0

  Grade 7

  66.0

  66.0

  60.6

  Senior Executive Officer

  9.0

  8.0

  8.0

  Higher Executive Officer

  50.0

  52.0

  50.2

  Executive Officer

  72.0

  72.0

  66.9

  Administrative Officer

  135.0

  135.0

  130.9

  Administrative Assistant

  123.5

  135.5

  138.9

  Chief Food and Dairy Officer

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Food and Dairy Officer

  4.0

  4.0

  2.0

  Area Meat and Livestock Inspector

  2.0

  2.0

  1.0

  1124

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department at 1 April

  Grade

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Principal Agricultural Officer

  12.0

  11.0

  10.0

  Principal Horticultural Officer

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Senior Agricultural Officer

  48.0

  46.0

  44.0

  Senior Horticultural Officer

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Higher Horticultural Officer

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  Higher Agricultural Officer

  56.0

  57.0

  60.0

  Higher Marketing Officer (Horticulture)

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  Higher Marketing Officer (Poultry)

  3.0

  3.0

  1.0

  Agricultural Officer

  115.5

  126.0

  118.0

  Horticultural Officer

  3.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Marketing Officer (Horticulture)

  5.0

  7.0

  6.0

  Marketing Officer (Poultry)

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Farm Manager

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Senior Scientific Officer

  36.0

  36.0

  33.0

  Higher Scientific Officer

  46.5

  46.5

  44.0

  Scientific Officer

  37.5

  34.5

  35.0

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  27.0

  27.0

  24.0

  Senior Economic Assistant

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  Economic Assistant

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Assistant Statistician

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  12.0

  10.0

  8.0

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  12.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Professional and Technical Officer

  32.0

  30.0

  29.0

  Graphics Officer

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Technical Grade 1

  1.0

  —

  —

  Technical Grade 2

  5.0

  3.0

  2.0

  First Officer (Executive)

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Librarian

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Assistant Librarian

  1.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Personal Secretary

  24.0

  24.5

  22.5

  Support Grade Band 1

  —

  —

  2.0

  Support Grade Band 2

  9.5

  6.5

  7.5

  Typing Manager

  3.0

  1.0

  —

  Typist

  33.5

  41.5

  42.1

  Industrial Grades

  34.0

  29.0

  25.0

  Total

  1,070.5

  1,079.5

  1,038.1

  Health Care International
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which members of the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board were present when Health Care International was considered and approved(a) in April 1988 and (b) in February 1990. [34017]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As regards the consideration of the Health Care International project by the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board in April 1988 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, (Mrs. Beckett) on 4 July, column 143. As regards the board's consideration of the project in February 1990, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 17 February, column 863, in which I listed the board's membership at the date concerned: all the members were present at the February 1990 meeting with the exception of Mr. A. K. Smith.
  1125
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list those health boards which have contracts with Health Care International, Clydebank, for the provision of services; indicating the services provided in each case, the cost or estimated cost of each contract for the financial years(a) 1994–95 an (b) 1995–96, and the total costs

  Contracts between NHS bodies in Scotland and HCI up to 1 June 1995

  HB contracts

  Trust contracts

  GP fundholder contracts

  Health hoards and trusts

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  Services

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  Services

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  Services

  Argyll and Clyde HB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5,350

  Cardiac Surgery

  Inverclyde Royal NHS

  —

  —

  —

  4,860

  MRI Scans

  —

  —

  —

  Trust

  27

  Ayrshire and Arran HB

  2

  16,000

  Cardiac surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire NHS

  —

  —

  —

  8,000

  Vascular

  —

  —

  —

  Trust

  1

  Borders HB

  16

  72,134

  Cardiac Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife HB

  89

  30,624

  Orthopaedic O/P1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Queen Margaret

  —

  —

  —

  10,470

  MRI Scans

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital NHS Trust

  37

  Forth Valley HB

  202

  43,153

  193 Orthopaedic O/P19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orthopaedic I/P2

  —

  Grampian HB

  9

  8,946

  9 oral surgery

  —

  —

  38

  27,263

  Urology

  —

  27,263

  Orthopaedics

  Greater Glasgow HB

  14

  105,238

  Cardiac surgery

  —

  —

  5

  1,415

  MRI scans

  1,415

  1 CT scan

  —

  1,415

  1 Hernia scan

  Lothian HB

  15

  41,698

  Cardiac surgery

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3,500

  Hip replacement

  Shetland HB

  13

  3,250

  Ophthalmic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  360

  321,043

  6,409

  65

  23,330

  —

  45

  37,528

  New Zealand Visitors
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates and purposes of visits by officials or Ministers from New Zealand to the Scottish Office Education Department in the last three years. [34127]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Visitors

  Purpose of visit

  2–6 November 1992

  Ms Patricia Niven Reviewer, Management Education Review Office Christchurch

  To discuss management of educational institutions and the review, audit and inspection of these institutions.

  18 March 1994

  Mr. Alan Male New Zealand Qualifications Authority Wellington

  To discuss models of quality audit and quality assessment.

  12–13 May 1994

  Dr. Judith Aitken Chief Review Officer Education Review Office Wellington

  To discuss school planning self-review and performance indicators.

  1126
  already incurred for (i) in-patient and (ii) out-patient treatment. [34752]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table lists the available information on the contracts between Scottish NHS bodies and HCI up to 1 June 1995.

  Separate information by financial year is not readily available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34695]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small businesses in the UK economy. The Government continue to help small companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate.

  The White Paper published in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures to assist growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  Measures operated directly by my Department to assist small businesses include regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grant for investment and regional enterprise grant for innovation. For the period 1994–95, my Department made 219 offers of RSA to the value of £68 million to small companies—those employing fewer than 250. This contributed to the creation of 9,607 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 1,780 existing jobs. Under both the investment and innovation elements of the regional enterprise grants scheme, 258 offers to the

  1127
  value of £3.7 million were made in Scotland in 1994–95 to companies contributing to the creation of 969 planned new jobs and the safeguarding of 628 existing jobs. RIG is available to companies with fewer than 25 employees while RIN is open to companies employing less than 50 people.

  During the same period, my Department also made 27 SMART awards to small businesses with less than 50 employees and nine SPUR grants to companies with up to 250 employees to help them to develop highly innovation new products and processes. The values of these offers were respectively £1.2 million and £1.1 million.

  In addition, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their network of 22 local enterprise companies have at their disposal a wide range of measures through which they are able to support new and established small businesses.

  Following major research involving Scotland's business community, the media, the finance and education sectors and the business support networks, SE published in 1993 its business birth rate strategy. The strategy aims to stimulate the encouragement of entrepreneurship and help improve the environment for new and small businesses. It is guided by a number of themes: to unlock the potential of Scottish entrepreneurs; to improve access to finance; to widen the entrepreneurial base; and to develop and support growth in key sectors.

  I am greatly encouraged by the number of recent initiatives which have been generated or informed by the strategy and which are targeted at factors which SE's research identified as constraining the birth and growth of businesses. These include the establishment of the Scottish business shop network in partnership with the local authorities, chambers of commerce and colleges. The network in partnership with the local authorities, chambers of commerce and colleges. The network now comprises 31 first-stop business advice shops operating throughout Scotland, and which in 1994–95 handled a total of 60,000 enquiries. The small business loan scheme, operated in partnership with the Scottish banks, provides capped interest rate loans for start-up companies and existing small businesses. The LINC Scotland initiative provides an advisory service for young and growing companies seeking private investors. SE's strategy has taken particular account of the need to make support available to under-represented groups, including women, non-home owners and the under-35s.

  I am very pleased that the number of new companies formed in Scotland in the six months to April 1995 is 32 per cent. higher than over the same period a year before. I believe that the initiatives which have flowed from SE's business birth rate strategy have made a major contribution to that achievement.

  Actual and planned performance indicators for the enterprise bodies in Scotland, including advice to businesses and new businesses start-ups, are published in their annual report and in the expenditure plans for the Departments of the Secretary of State.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work his 1128
  Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34684]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Over the past 12 months, my Department has made available to the public via the government world wide web server information on a number of aspects of its work. These include information on:

  educational research in Scotland;

  summaries of the available Scottish Office Factsheets;

  sample statistics including:

  Scottish Statistics 1994

  Index of Production and Construction in Scotland; and

  outlines of the functions of the my Department's Social Work Services Group and Her Majesties Industrial Pollution Inspectorate.

  Information is also available on the Scottish Office pages for the Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments in Scotland.

  My Department will review the usage of the service in due course before deciding what additional and new information will be made available this way.

  Schools (Fundraising)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has as to how much has been raised by fund-raising activities by schools in each education authority, in order to purchase basic classroom materials. [34488]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  No information is available centrally on which to base an estimate.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of schools engaging in fund—raising activities in order to purchase new reading books. [34489]

  Mr. Robertson
  Local authorities spend around £2.5 billion a year on education of which around £9 million is spent on text and library books for schools. Schools have for many years undertaken fund-raising activities to provide additional funding across a wide range of activities.

  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list Forestry Commission land and woodlands disposed of since 31 December 1992. [34809]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Lists giving details of forestry land sold by the Forestry Commission in 1993 and 1994 are in the Library. A list of all the areas of land sold in 1995 will be placed in the Library early next year.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by wave and region(a) the number of non-executive directors and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust boards by salary band. [35508]
  1129
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Private Patient Income
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, columns 333–36, if he will update the figures on private patient income. [35492]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures on private patient income for the period up to 1993–94 provided in the previous answer have subsequently been confirmed as final. Income figures for 1994–95 are currently not available.

  Roads Budget
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on the roads budget in Scotland in each year since 1979. [35656]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for total Government spending since 1979 on the motorway and trunk road network, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, is set out in the table below. The table does not include expenditure by local authorities on local roads which are their responsibility.

  £ million

  1979–80

  84

  1980–81

  91

  1981–82

  104

  1982–83

  110

  1983–84

  106

  1984–85

  115

  1985–86

  119

  1986–87

  115

  1987–88

  125

  1988–89

  131

  1989–90

  163

  1990–91

  200

  1991–92

  202

  1992–93

  231

  1993–94

  233

  1994–95

  1259

  1 Estimated outturn.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on public relations by the NHS in Scotland in each year since 1989. [35653]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reached a conclusion on the prior options study of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, and if he will make a statement. [36158]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The prior options study has systematically and thoroughly examined the various options for reform of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. I am satisfied that the scope for possible alternative options for the delivery of functions currently undertaken by the agency has been carefully considered 1130
  and I have concluded that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency should remain an executive agency for the next five years. The aims and objectives set for SFPA in the initial framework document were robust and sufficiently clear to be testable. The agency's framework document is now being reviewed and will take account of an evaluation of the agency's performance since launch, which was completed in May 1994. This concluded that the trend in the performance of the agency had been upwards and its targets for 1993–94 were substantially achieved. Further information about the agency's performance will be contained in the 1995 annual report.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of Historic Scotland for 1994–95 will be published. [36159]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Historic Scotland's annual report and accounts for 1994–95 have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency for 1994–95. [36159]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The annual report and accounts of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency for 1994–95 have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the date after which existing local authorities must have the agreement of their successors before entering into major financial transactions. [36161]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Following consultations with Scottish local authorities, I have today made the Local Government (Relevant Date) (Scotland) Order 1995 which requires existing local authorities, joint boards and the Central Scotland Water Development Board, from 1 September 1995, to have the agreement of the relevant successor bodies before disposing of land or entering into revenue or capital contracts above specified values. Where the successor body is a joint police or fire board, the date in question will be 28 days after the establishment of the relevant board.

  In deciding on these dates, I have given careful consideration to the views of existing and new councils. There is clearly a need to avoid possible disruption to local government services while at the same time protecting the interests of incoming councils. I believe that the date of 1 September provides new councils with the opportunity to set in place appropriate mechanisms for dealing expeditiously with requests for their consent.

  Court Waiting Periods
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objectives for reducing court waiting periods have been established; what targets have been set for 1995–96
  1131
  in respect of court waiting periods for the Supreme and Sheriff courts; and if he will make a statement about the performance of the Supreme courts and each of the Sheriff courts in 1994–95. [36162]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The programming of court business is a matter for the judiciary. Acting in co-operation with the judiciary in the Supreme and sheriff courts, the Government seek to provide the resources which will allow speedy access to justice. Having regard to the time required by parties to have their cases properly prepared the following objectives have been adopted:the Lord President of the Court of Session has accepted the recommendations of a committee chaired by Lord Maxwell relating to the reduction of waiting periods in the Supreme courts: the target is to reduce waiting periods to the recommended levels and, subject to any acceleration in the rate of increase in court work, maintain waiting periods at that level: for certain categories of hearing, additional targets involving much reduced waiting periods, have been set;
  Sheriffs principal have agreed to overall targets of reducing waiting periods for summary criminal trials in the Sheriff courts to 12 weeks or less and to hold them at that level; and to maintain waiting periods at 12 weeks or less for civil cases in the Sheriff courts.

  Targets for the Scottish Court Service for 1995–96 are set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 31 March 1995, Official Report, columns 803–84. Performance against those targets will be published in the annual report of the Scottish Courts Service which was established as an executive agency from 3 April 1995.

  The main targets for waiting periods for 1994–95 are set down in the table—"waiting period" is the period between a trial or proof being requested or an appeal being received and the date assigned expressed in weeks—and national performance for that year is noted in the second column in the table:

  1994–95 Target

  Performance

  Criminal Appeal Business

  Summary prosecutions: Notes of Appeal against Sentence and Stated cases (accused in custody)

  4

  3

  Court of Session

  (a) Ordinary proofs

  20

  21

  (b) Defended Consistorial proofs

  17

  17

  Sheriff Courts

  (a) civil proofs/debates

  12

  13.0

  (National average) as at March 1995

  (b) Summary Criminal Trials

  12

  16.1

  In 1994–95 waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for civil debates-proofs in 88 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for summary criminal business in 76 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Performance of individual sheriff courts at 31 March 1995 is set out in the table:
  1132

  Performance of individual Sheriff courts as at 31 March 1995

  Court

  Civil proofs

  Summary criminal trials

  Aberdeen

  19

  13

  Glasgow

  17

  24

  Kirkcudbright

  15

  12

  Dundee

  13

  15

  Campbeltown

  12

  8

  Dumbarton

  12

  11

  Dumfries

  12

  12

  Inverness

  12

  12

  Kirkcaldy

  12

  10

  Lanark

  12

  12

  Linlithgow

  12

  22

  Paisley

  12

  12

  Portree

  12

  8

  Dingwall

  11

  11

  Elgin

  11

  11

  Falkirk

  11

  12

  Hamilton

  11

  17

  Alloa

  10

  11

  Ayr

  10

  11

  Dunoon

  10

  11

  Greenock

  10

  12

  Jedburgh

  10

  10

  Kilmarnock

  10

  10

  Peterhead

  10

  11

  Stirling

  10

  12

  Wick

  10

  12

  Arbroath

  9

  12

  Banff

  9

  8

  Cupar

  9

  9

  Duns

  9

  9

  Edinburgh

  9

  11

  Kirkwall

  9

  9

  Oban

  9

  11

  Peebles

  9

  10

  Selkirk

  9

  10

  Stonehaven

  9

  11

  Stranraer

  9

  10

  Dornoch

  8

  10

  Dunfermline

  8

  13

  Fort William

  8

  18

  Lerwick

  8

  8

  Lochmaddy

  8

  8

  Rothesay

  8

  10

  Stornoway

  8

  10

  Tain

  8

  9

  Haddington

  7

  12

  Perth

  7

  14

  Airdrie

  6

  17

  Forfar

  6

  6

  In addition, the sheriffs principal have agreed that sheriff court programmes should be designed to ensure that the number of trials adjourned due to lack of court time should not exceed 5 per cent. of the total number set down, a target met in 73 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Sheriff and Supreme Courts (Office Business)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for completing office business in the sheriff courts and Supreme courts; and what performance was secured in 1994–95. [36163]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The targets set for completion of office business in the sheriff courts in 1994–95 are set out in the table. The percentage figures following each target indicate the proportion of sheriff courts achieving the target figures or better in the course of the year. More detailed information on the performance
  1133
  of individual court offices will be made available to local court advisory committees. Similar targets applied in the Supreme courts and 95 per cent. of these were achieved in 1994–95, with the remaining 5 per cent. achieved in part.

  Targets for the Scottish Court Service for 1995–96 are set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 31 March 1995, Official Report, columns 803–4. Performance against those targets will be published in the annual report of the Scottish Court Service which was established as an executive agency from 3 April 1995.

  Targets for sheriff clerk offices and performance

  1994–95

  To issue the first deliverance in all ordinary writs, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt. 96 per cent.

  To issued the first deliverance in all summary cause actions (including small claims), or return to sender, within three working days of receipt. 96 per cent.

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all final ordinary decrees in absence (excluding divorce) within one working day of receipt of the minute craving decree. 91 per cent.

  To draft, within seven days of receipt of the affidavits, in preparation for signature, all final decrees in undefended ordinary actions of divorce or return the affidavits to the sender. 90 per cent.

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all decrees in actions of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of expiry of the period of notice. 97 per cent.

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions (excluding divorce) within three working days of the date of ordering or the expiry of the days of appeal—whichever is the later. 89 per cent.

  To issue all summary cause/small claim extract decrees within one working day of the due date. 98 per cent.

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions of divorce within one working day of the due date. 80 per cent.

  To issue extract decrees of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of the due date. 89 per cent.

  To issue the first deliverance in all petitions for sequestration/liquidation, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt. 93 per cent.

  To prepare for signature the first deliverance in all adoption petitions within one working day of a correct petition being received. 92 per cent.

  To scrutinise and accept or reject commissary petitions and inventories within two working days of receipt. 98 per cent.

  To issue confirmation within three working days of acceptance of inventory. 93 per cent.

  To conduct small estate interviews within seven days from the time an interview is requested. 100 per cent.

  To process juror claims for payment, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt. 99 per cent.

  To process postal fines (other than unidentified payments) on day of receipt. 99 per cent.

  To issue warning letters, means enquiry citations, warrants, extracts, etc, and transfer fines within seven days of the trawl. 99 per cent.

  To remit all non-Exchequer receipts to entitled parties within 14 days from the end of the last accountancy period. 99 per cent.

  To effect a reconciliation of all outstanding financial penalties on a monthly basis. 100 per cent.

  To reply to letter pleas within one working day of the court. 99 per cent.

  To order social enquiry and other reports within one working day of the court. 99 per cent.
  1134
  To complete probation, community service, compensation and fines supervision orders within two working days of the court. 99 per cent.

  To issue juror citations in the first instance at least 21 days prior to a jury sitting/trial. 99 per cent.

  To reply to all letter inquiries except those which require extensive investigation within two working days of receipt. 97 per cent.

  Crofters
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which meetings Ministers in his Department have held with representatives of the Scottish Crofters Union to discuss changes to the crofter building grants and loans schemes. [34665]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), as Minister for Agriculture and the Environment in Scotland, met representatives of the Scottish Crofters Union on 20 October 1994 at which a number of matters were discussed including the crofers etc. building grants and loans scheme.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he is proposing to make to the crofter building grants and loans schemes; and if he will make a statement. [34664]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 22 June, column 426.

  Post-natal Paediatricians
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that enough people are being trained as post-natal paediatricians. [34805]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The senior registrar establishment in medical paediatrics in Scotland has been increased from 25 to 28 in 1995, and funding has been provided for the additional posts.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations Greater Glasgow health board has made to him on difficulties in recruiting post-natal paediatricians. [34803]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Concern has been expressed about difficulties in recruiting medical staff in various specialties. This reflects trust's increased demand for doctors.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacant posts for post-natal paediatricians there are(a) in the Greater Glasgow health board area, (b) in the Lanarkshire health board area and (c) in Scotland. [34804]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Information is not available for the sub-speciality of neonatal paediatrics. In medical paediatrics as a whole there were nine vacant consultant posts in Scotland at the end of 1994.
  1135

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the capital costs of building a new maternity hospital at the royal infirmary as proposed by Greater Glasgow health board. [34799]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Initial estimates received from Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS trust indicate a capital cost of £21.195 million spread over four years. As the trust has yet to complete an outline business case for the project which will involve testing for private finance, the figure cannot be confirmed at this stage.

  Rutherglen Maternity Hospital
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult Lanarkshire health board on the proposal by Greater Glasgow health board, to close Rutherglen maternity hospital. [34800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Lanarkshire health hoard was fully consulted by Greater Glasgow health board about the proposals for the future of Rutherglen maternity hospital.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a decision on the recommendation from Glasgow health board to close Rutherglen maternity hospital. [34798]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Greater Glasgow health hoard has not yet submitted its proposals for the future of Rutherglen maternity hospital to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria he uses when deciding whether or not to endorse a recommendation from a health board to close a hospital. [34802]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Before approving closure of any hospital, my right hon. Friend needs to be satisfied that the health board has consulted about its proposals in accordance with established guidance; and that it has considered fully the responses to consultation. My right hon. Friend also takes into account any further relevant information brought to his attention.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: There have been five complaints of unfair dismissal lodged with industrial tribunals against my Department in the last 12 months; none of these cases is concluded and I am unable therefore to give a figure for costs.
  1136

  Trees (Planting)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in descending order, and by both botanical and common names, his best estimate of the(a) acreage and (b) hectacreage of (i) softwood and (ii) hardwood species planted throughout forests in the United Kingdom; what new trends are likely over the next (1) 10, (2) 25, (3) 50 and (4) 100 years; and if he will make a statement. [31381]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The information is set out in the table. We expect the planting of conifers and broadleaves to continue to increase as a result of the Government's policy, which is designed to achieve a steady expansion of the forest area. The precise trends will depend on many factors including the objectives of individual landowners and the policies of the Government of the day.

  Conifers

  Area

  Common name

  Botanical name

  Hectares (000s)

  Acres (000s)

  Sitka Spruce

  Picea sitchensis

  780

  1,900

  Scots pine

  Pinus sylvestris

  220

  540

  Lodgepole pine

  Pinus contorta

  160

  390

  Japanese larch

  Larix kaempferi

  120

  290

  Hybrid larch

  Larix europelis

  120

  290

  Norway spruce

  Picea abies

  95

  230

  Corsican pine

  Pinus nigra

  55

  130

  Douglas Fir

  Pseudotsuga menziesii

  45

  110

  European larch

  Larix decidua

  40

  95

  Other

  95

  240

  Broadleaves

  Area

  Common name

  Botanical name

  Hectares (000s)

  Acres (000s)

  Oak

  Quercus species

  200

  490

  Birch

  Betula species

  160

  410

  Ash

  Fraxinus excelsior

  85

  210

  Beech

  Fagus sylvatica

  75

  190

  Sycamore

  Acer pseudoplatanus

  60

  150

  Sweet Chesnut

  Castanea sativa

  35

  80

  Poplar

  Populus species

  20

  45

  Elm

  Ulmus species

  10

  30

  Other

  220

  550

HEALTH

  Consultant Oncologists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of consultant oncologists working in the NHS. [33190]

  Mr. Malone
  The latest available information shows that there were 226 clinical oncology and 59 medical oncology consultants working in the National Health Service in England on 30 September 1993. However, a number of other specialties are involved in the treatment of cancer, including general surgery and anaesthetics.

  The Government seek to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each specialty, including those involved in the treatment of cancer.
  1137

  Waiting Times (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospital waiting times in Leeds. [33191]

  Mr. Malone
  Waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment in Leeds have improved considerably over the last year. Only 675 patients out of 13,492 were waiting more than a year for treatment at the two main hospitals this March compared with 2,501 out of 17,252 last March. Along with the rest of the country, Leeds hospitals are working towards achieving the new patient's charter standards for first out-patient appointments so that everyone is seen within 26 weeks of written referral by their general practitioner, with nine out of 10 patients seen within 13 weeks, as soon as possible.

  Fundholders
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of fundholding GP practices in Hereford and Worcester. [33193]

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 54 fundholding practices with 263 general practitioners in the Hereford and Worcester family health services authority area providing fundholding services to approximately 70 per cent. of the population. We expect many more GPs to join the scheme next year.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he has taken of revised statistics relating to Professor Tomlinson's study in assessing the viability of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [33194]

  Mr. Malone
  The decision on the future of health services in east London was made on the basis of full assessment of the available data.

  NHS Trusts (North Thames)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of NHS trusts in the North Thames region shown in the latest performance tables. [33195]

  Mr. Malone
  The performance tables highlight strengths and weaknesses in the performance of national health service trusts in North Thames region. Some of the best figures in the country are achieved in day surgery

  Doctors and dentists in England in 1979, 1993 and 1994

  1979

  1993

  1994

  Doctors

  Dentists

  Doctors

  Dentists

  Doctors

  Dentists

  Hospital and community health service

  45,700

  3,900

  56,300

  3,500

  1—

  1—

  General practitioners

  23,100

  12,100

  28,500

  15,800

  28,700

  15,900

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to nearest 100.

  2. The figures for dentists in general practice include principals, assistants and vocational trainees. Some dentists may have contracts with more than one Family Health Services Authority. These dentists have been counted only once.

  3. Some general medical and dental practitioners also do hospital sessions. Theses are included in the hospital and community health services figure. Adding the two rows in the table will produce an element of double counting.

  4. All figures exclude locums.

  1 The 1994 figures for hospital and community health service staff should be published in week commencing 24 July 1995.
  1138
  procedures and there have been real gains in accident and emergency assessment. However, more work is needed to improve performance on waiting times and cancelled operations.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to meet "The Health of the Nation" targets relating to mental health. [33197]

  Mr. Bowis
  Good progress is being made towards the target of reducing the overall rate of suicide by at least 15 per cent. by 2000. Figures based on estimates provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the suicide rate in England fell by about 6 per cent. between 1993 and 1994.

  Work is in hand to quantify progress towards the other two health of the nation targets relating to mental health.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the operation of the blood transfusion service. [33198]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood authority has undertaken a thorough and widespread consultation on its proposals. The authority's revised proposals have recently been submitted and are being studied carefully. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Air Ambulance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times on average the air ambulance has been used in London during the past 12 months. [33199]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected centrally. The management of the helicopter emergency medical service is a matter for the Royal Hospitals National Health Service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust chairman for details.

  Doctors and Dentists (NHS Work)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and dentists undertook NHS work at the most recent count; and what were the comparable figures in 1979. [33200]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  1139

  London Hospital Closures
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name all the hospitals closed in London since April 1991 and those that he plans to close in the next 10 years. [33201]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 18 April,Official Report, column 120. An updated list of closures and changes of use referred to Ministers for the period of January 1992 to June 1995 will he placed in the Library.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Association of Fundholding Practices to discuss expansion of fundholding; and if he will make a statement. [33202]

  Mr. Malone
  I meet regularly with the National Association of Fundholding Practices to discuss the continued successful development of the fundholding scheme. General practitioner fundholding has brought significant benefits to patients by reducing waiting times, bringing more services closer to patients and freeing up resources through efficiency savings. The Government want to see these benefits extended to all patients and that is why we are expanding the range of options for GPs to join fundholding from April 1996.

  Haemophiliacs (Hepatitis C)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the level of compensation to haemophiliacs who developed hepatitis C from blood products. [33203]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations this year about payments to those who have developed hepatitis C through blood products, include six earlier parliamentary questions, a short debate in another place, and four early-day motions. There was also an adjournment debate on 11 July. In addition, Ministers have received 240 letters. Not all these representations were concerned solely or primarily with haemophiliacs.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per prescription item. [33204]

  Mr. Malone
  The average total cost to the national health service of a prescription item dispensed in 1994–95 in England was £8.62.

  Doctors (Clinical Practice)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how NHS doctors are held accountable for the quality of their clinical practice. [33205]

  Mr. Malone
  The medical profession is governed by self-regulation and the General Medical Council has been given the powers it needs to perform this task. The General Medical Council already has powers to erase, suspend or attach conditions to a doctor's registration in cases of serious misconduct. Under the terms of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill currently being 1140
  considered in another place, the General Medical Council will be able to suspend or attach conditions to a doctor's registration in cases of seriously deficient professional performance.

  Members of the profession know what standard should be met. Advice and guidance is available to doctors from the General Medical Council in the form of its "blue book"—"Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practise."

  The medical royal colleges are responsible for setting the standards for postgraduate medical training and influence clinical standards by, for instance, publishing protocols for the management of common conditions.

  In addition, doctors employed in the national health service are held accountable in a variety of ways. Junior doctors are accountable to their consultants for their clinical actions. Consultants in most trusts will be accountable to a clinical director for their medical competence. They are also accountable through the NHS procedures for complaints and disciplinary action for poor performance. These procedures may lead to the doctor's suspension or termination of contract.

  Community Health Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about community health services in Lancashire. [33206]

  Mr. Malone
  North West Lancashire health authority is currently developing proposals for continuing health care needs. They will form the basis of a public consultation exercise which is expected to begin on 29 September 1995. They are also planning to boost general practitioner services along the Fylde coast by providing intensive rehabilitation services and primary care support centres.

  Community Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met organisations representing carers to discuss the impact of the community care changes. [33207]

  Mr. Bowis
  I frequently meet carers and organisations representing carers and discuss a range of matters including community care. Most recently we have worked together to achieve the parliamentary progress of the Carers (Recognition of Services) Act, 1995.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff took early retirement in 1994–95; and what was the cost to the NHS. [32814]

  Mr. Sackville
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many speech therapists there are for each health district in the United Kingdom. [33509]

  (2) what is the proportion of speech therapists per 1,000 head of population in each health district in the United Kingdom. [33510]
  1141
  Mr. Malone
  Information on the numbers of speech and language therapists will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Visiting (Reimbursements)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a fund for the reimbursement of the hospital visiting costs of the immediate family where they are on low incomes; and if he will make a statement. [33663]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no plans to establish such a fund, as it would divert resources away from direct patient care and would impose a considerable administrative burden on the NHS.

  Hospital Discharge
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will sponsor a national programme of research into(a) the incidence of inappropriate hospital discharge, including the extent to which this leads to re-admission to hospital and (b) hospital discharge arrangements which will identify examples of good practice and promote these through the publication of national guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [33662]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have already supported the unit of health care epidemiology at the university of Oxford to carry out work on readmissions.

  General good practice guidance on hospital discharge procedures—"Hospital Discharge Workbook—a manual on hospital discharge procedures" was issued in 1994 to all health authorities, local authorities, general practitioners, hospital and community health services, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Teenage Conceptions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many conceptions there were in England in 1992 by girls aged under 16 years; and what were the comparable figures for 1991. [34511]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is given in the table. The figures for 1992 update the provisional ones given in my answer of 13 February 1995,Official Report, column 497 to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) with final figures.

  Number and rate of conceptions to girls aged under 16 in England

  Year

  Number of conceptions

  Conceptions per 1,000 girls aged 13–15

  1991

  7,362

  9.3

  1992

  6,786

  8.4

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the number of residential homes providing care in North Yorkshire owned(a) privately and (b) by the county council; [34499]

  (2) what percentage of referrals by North Yorkshire county council are to council-owned residential homes owned by that council. [34500]
  1142
  Mr. Bowis
  In North Yorkshire at 31 March 1994, there were 307 residential care homes owned by the private sector, 66 by the voluntary sector and 70 by the local authority, excluding local authority children's homes.

  I understand that, in the financial year to 31 March 1995, North Yorkshire county council arranged 577 permanent admissions to residential care homes. Of these, 245, or 42 per cent., were to local authority residential homes. A further 668 placements were in independent sector nursing homes. In the period 1 January to 31 March 1994, the latest for which central information is available, 76 per cent. of short stay admissions of such residents were to homes owned by the local authority.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the economic impact on the independent sector of referrals by North Yorkshire county council to residential homes owned by that council. [34503]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department does not collect such information but we have made it clear, through conditions on the special transitional grant, that the bulk of the resources transferred to local authorities for their new community care responsibilities must be spent in the independent sector.

  Schizophrenia (Stroop Test)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into monitoring response to therapeutic intervention in schizophrenia using the Stroop test; what have been the results; and if he will make a statement. [34730]

  Mr. Bowis
  Our research programme is designed to support strategic policy development, not to test the effectiveness of specific therapeutic interventions for individual disorders. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid through the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what link has been ascertained between the lack of folic acid in the diet and the incidence of spina bifida and anencephaly; and what recommendations the Medical Officer of Health has made on this matter. [35135]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no good evidence that the incidence of neural tube defects—NTDs—is related to an habitual lack of folic acid in the diet. However, a Medical Research Council—MRC—trial published in 1991 showed that supplements of 5 mg daily of folic acid reduce the rate of recurrence of NTD in babies of women who have already had an affected pregnancy. The Chief Medical Officer wrote to doctors in August 1991 advising them to prescribe a folic acid supplement for the purpose of preventing reoccurrence of NTDs. Further data since then suggest that supplements as low as 0.4 mg daily might also reduce the risk of first occurrence.

  Following the publication of the MRC trial results, the chief medical officers of the UK health Departments set up an expert advisory group. Its report "Folic Acid and the

  1143
  Prevention of Neural Tube Defects", published in 1992, confirmed that, for the prevention of recurrence, women should take folic acid supplements of 5 mg daily, or 4 mg when these became available. For the prevention of first occurrences, the expert advisory group recommended that all women planning pregnancy should consume additional folate/folic acid prior to conception and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy by eating more folate rich foods including those fortified with folic acid, and by taking a daily supplement of 0.4 mg of folic acid.

  The chief medical officers wrote to all doctors and to other health professionals in December 1992 commending the expert advisory group's recommendations.

  A copy of the expert advisory group report is available in the Library.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Blood Authority to discuss the future of the service; and if he will make a statement. [35137]

  (2) what changes have taken place in the past 12 months in each blood service centre in its (a) staffing (b) service provided; and when he proposes to announce the future pattern of service provision by the national blood transfusion service. [35136]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers have regular meetings with the chairman of the National Blood Authority. Staffing of the national blood service and details of services provided by each blood centre are a matter for that authority.

  The National Blood authority has undertaken a thorough and widespread consultation on its proposals. The authority's revised proposals have recently been submitted and are being studied carefully. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Waiting Lists (Gynaecology)
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many women are currently awaiting an appointment with a specialist gynaecologist in each NHS trust area in England and Wales; [34738]

  (2) what is the current maximum waiting time to see a specialist gynaecologist for each NHS trust in England and Wales. [34739]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally for England. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  GP Fundholders (Preston)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders there are in Preston covering how many patients; and how many general practitioner non-fundholders there are in Preston covering how many patients. [35053]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the North West regional health authority for details.
  1144

  Leaving Care
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary for Health what action he is taking to ensure the welfare of young people leaving care. [35012]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare young people for leaving care and give them continuing support. The Department has commissioned studies which will assist in determining how best an effective service can be delivered and a national inspection by our social services inspectorate of leaving care and aftercare is planned. We have also funded conferences on care leavers and work with care leavers by organisations such as First Key, Who Cares? Trust and the Royal Philanthropic Society.

  NHS Organ Donor Register
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the publicity material produced by his Department supporting the national health service organ donor register is still currently being distributed; what plans there are to increase the scope of publicity for the register; and if he will make a statement. [35378]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are continuing to distribute a substantial volume of publicity material and registration forms in response to consistent high demand. We shall continue to promote the national health service organ donor register and to support publicity campaigns for this important initiative.

  Blood Bags
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he proposes to issue to hospitals on the purchase of blood bags; and if he will make a statement. [35357]

  (2) what were the reasons for the switch by the National Blood Authority to the purchase of blood bags from Tuta; and if he will investigate whether the National Blood Authority ignored warnings that there were problems with the new supply of blood bags. [35329]

  Mr. Sackville
  The supply of blood to hospitals, including the purchase of bags to be used for the collection of blood, is managed by the National Blood Authority.

  The National Blood Authority's national contract for blood bags was intended to replace 14 regional contracts to strengthen the negotiating position with the previous monopoly supplier, and to introduce one or more alternative sources of supply with no change in product specification.

  Isolated problems with Tuta bags which arose last year were resolved by the National Blood Authority as part of the normal monitoring and validation process which takes place on such a product change.

  Tuta is a global concern. It supplies about 20 per cent. of the bags used in England. Its products had been used successfully in other parts of the UK for almost 30 years.

  When the problem with Tuta bags became apparent, the NBA advised their use be discontinued. I understand that the National Blood Authority's investigation is continuing.
  1145

  Hospital Drug Infusion
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the risks to patients of accidental overdoses from hospital drug infusion machines; and if he will make a statement; [35269]

  (2) if safety guidelines issued by his Department concerning the use of hospital drug infusion machines include a requirement to keep accurate records of the machine use; [35274]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a list of the incidents involving accidental overdoses from hospital drug infusion machines, including dates and locations; [35272]

  (4) what action he is taking in response to the recent incidents involving accidental overdoses from hospital drug infusion machines; [35271]

  (5) what safety guidelines his Department issues to health authorities and NHS trusts concerning the use of hospital drug infusion machines; and by what means he ensures that they are passed on to staff who operate the machines. [35273]

  Mr. Sackville
  One hundred and sixty three incidents involving overdoses from infusion systems have been reported to the Medical Devices Agency over the past five years. A list of the dates and reports of incidents will be placed in the Library.

  The agency has investigated these reports and issued individual safety warnings and the recommendations for corrective action as necessary. In addition, the agency has recently issued its revised comprehensive advice to the Health Service (Device Bulletin DB 9503 May 1995). This makes recommendations, based on experience gained from investigating these reports, on safety, training, purchasing and management, including user record keeping. Copies of this document are available in the Library. Health service managers are responsible for passing on this information to their appropriate staff.

  Drug Addicts and Alcoholics
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority areas meet the Government requirements in respect of supporting drug addicts and alcoholics; and if he will list those which do not or only in part fulfil those requirements. [35287]

  Mr. Bowis
  If is for each local authority to decide what services to provide for substance misusers in the light of guidance issued by the Department.

  Residential Care for Older People
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the need for, and the provision of, social care in England with particular reference to an assessment of the quality of residential care for older people. [36197]

  Mr. Bowis
  The annual report of the chief inspector of social services provides such an assessment. It was published on 10 July and copies are available from the Library.
  1146
  The report highlights the fact that people are living longer and enjoying a better quality of life. This includes those who at an early stage of life have experienced handicaps of one kind or other. I pay tribute to the growing number of carers in our society and the contribution that they make to the quality of life of those who, for one reason or another, need help and support. As the report states,
  "Experience shows that social care touches the lives of most people at some time. It may be within the family or through friends or neighbours, but most of us are aware of at least someone who because of age, illness, disability or family disruption needs care and assistance in daily living.
  As the demographic changes continue to have an impact it is vitally important that social care becomes not only better established but better able to work within a framework of inter-agency and multi-disciplinary planning and assessment of need".

  A great deal of progress is being made by local authorities in working with the other statutory services such as health, housing and education and with a wide range of voluntary organisations and private agencies.

  The Social Services Inspectorate's—SSI—"Inspection of Hospital Discharge Arrangements for Older People Being Placed in Residential or Nursing Home Care" showed great commitment by health and social services staff to implementing new assessment and care management changes. Most users were satisfied with the help they had received and placement arrangements. In addition the SSI "Inspection of Residential Care for Older People" showed that in most homes the quality of care was good to excellent and in many homes there was an emphasis on choice.

  Solvent Misuse
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when solvent misuse mortality figures for 1993 will be available. [36198]

  Mr. Bowis
  "Trends in Death Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances—Report No 8" has now been published by St. George's hospital medical school. Copies will be placed in the Library. It gives solvent misuse mortality data for 1993 and shows an encouraging further reduction in deaths, a fall of 13 per cent. from 84 deaths in 1992 to 73 deaths in 1993. This follows the fall of 31 per cent. from 1991 to 1992 and is a further encouraging sign that the Government's initiative in this area is bearing fruit.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the eighth annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship. [36210]

  Mr. Sackville
  The chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship has submitted the eighth report to Health Ministers and the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Copies will be placed in the Library. I am very grateful to the committee and the chairman, Sir Clive Whitmore GCB CVO, for their valuable work in monitoring the agreements. The report shows that the industry has continued to honour its commitments.
  1147

  Typhoid and Malaria
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his responsibilities to the World Health Organisation in relation to typhoid and malaria. [33287]

  Mr. Bowis
  The United Kingdom plays a full and active role in the work of the World Health Organisation including help to identify programmes of high priority. Although contributions to the regular programme budget are not associated with a particular programme, the United Kingdom, through the Overseas Development Administration supports WHO's tropical disease research and control of tropical diseases programmes, whose highest priority is malaria. The ODA contributed £2.90 million over the two years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  The responsibilities which fall to the Department of Health under article 19 of the international health regulations for malaria require that we provide annual information about the measures taken to keep airports and their surrounding areas free from malaria-carrying mosquitoes in both their adult and their immature stages.

  Article 18 of the regulations require ships and aeroplanes to he "disinsected" if they visit a malarious area. If the port health authorities are not satisfied that such "disinsecting" has been carried out while the ship was abroad visiting another port, they may disinsect the aeroplane or ship.

  There are no requirements under the international health regulations that apply to typhoid.

  Single-sex Wards
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps he is taking to increase the number of single-sex wards; and if he will make a statement. [33336]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for trusts and health authorities to decide for themselves how to use the resources available to them. However, the revised patient's charter makes it clear that patients must be told in advance if they are to he admitted to a mixed-sex ward and patients' wishes should be taken into account wherever possible.

  Kernow House Nursing Home
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the Kernow house nursing home in Launceston. [35148]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  General dental service: number of adult and child patients registered at 31 May 1995 and patients deregistered from 8 July 1994 to 7 July 1995

  Family health services authorities in South and West region

  Registered at 31 May 1995

  Deregistered patients

  Number of deregistered as percentage of population of FHSA1

  FHSA

  Adults3

  Children3

  Adults2

  Children2

  Adults

  Children

  South and West

  2,831,452

  967,743

  68,994

  333

  1.36

  0.02

  Dorset

  319,913

  100,473

  11,881

  14

  2.22

  0.01

  Hampshire

  694,695

  229,716

  14,412

  0

  1.17

  0.00

  Wiltshire

  237.032

  88,336

  1,749

  0

  0.39

  0.00

  Isle of Wight

  46,785

  15,549

  1,206

  0

  1.22

  0.00

  Avon

  446,377

  152,262

  11,868

  0

  1.56

  0.00

  1148

  Radiation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what experiments have been conducted on civilians to assess the effects of radiation; and what information he has to the explanations given to the subjects of such research. [35157]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has funded a programme of work on radiological protection at the then United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, UKAEA, now AEA Technology, AEA, since April 1986, when funding on this programme by the Department of Energy was transferred to the Department of Health. The Department also contributes to funding of research conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB. Under these programmes, a number of experiments have been conducted on a small number of human volunteers to provide information on the metabolism and dosimetry of radionuclides which will improve knowledge on the health risks from radiation. These experiments involve trace levels of radiation which present a very low risk from radiation. These experiments involve trace levels of radiation which present a very low risk to health. The AEA research is published in AEA's annual report on radiological protection, copies of which are available in the Library. The NRPB publishes the results of its research in a number of board publications and a copy of its annual corporate plan is in the Library. Like AEA it also publishes in scientific journals.

  The studies are all approved by ethics committees which operate according to World Health Organisation guidelines, and informed consent from the volunteer is a prerequisite. The consent form cannot be signed until the nature, purpose and possible hazards of the study are explained to the volunteer. In addition, all studies using radioactivity in humans require a certificate issued by Health Ministers. The Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee advises Health Ministers on the granting of such certificates and the committee specifically considers the radiation hazards.

  NHS Dentistry (Deregistration)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been deregistered for NHS dentistry treatment in each of the health authority areas within South West region for the past 52 weeks for which figures are available; and what those totals represent as a proportion of the total population in each case. [34856]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table. Family health service authorities can help patients to find national health service dentists.
  1149

  General dental service: number of adult and child patients registered at 31 May 1995 and patients deregistered from 8 July 1994 to 7 July 1995

  Family health services authorities in South and West region

  Registered at 31 May 1995

  Deregistered patients

  Number of deregistered as percentage of population of FHSA1

  FHSA

  Adults3

  Children3

  Adults2

  Children2

  Adults

  Children

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  204,033

  70,648

  2,674

  180

  0.71

  0.17

  Devon

  467,172

  154,731

  14,088

  130

  1.70

  0.06

  Gloucestershire

  182,109

  80,828

  4,116

  0

  0.97

  0.00

  Somerset

  233,336

  75,200

  7,000

  9

  1.90

  0.01

  1 Population estimates at June 1993.

  2 The number of patients deregistered by dentists practising in the family health authorities shown; these are not necessarily residents of the family health services authorities.

  3 Numbers of registered with dentists practising in the family health services authorities shown.

  Vehicle Emissions (Asthma)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information Her Majesty's Government have and what assumptions are made on relations between the level of asthma and the level of vehicle emissions; and what information he has on the effect of diesel vehicle emissions. [35384]

  Mr. Sackville
  High levels of motor vehicle, including diesel, emissions may trigger attacks in some asthmatic people. There is no conclusive evidence that motor vehicle, including diesel, emissions cause asthma. The independent expert Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, COMEAP, advises the Government on the health effects of air pollution. In 1993, COMEAP, at the request of the Department of Health, established an expert sub-group to undertake a major review of the association between asthma and air pollution. The committee's report is expected to be published in September 1995.

  Wave 1

  Wave 2

  Wave 3

  Wave 4

  Wave 5

  Total

  Non-executive directors

  Anglia and Oxford

  15

  50

  95

  65

  —

  225

  North Thames

  38

  74

  82

  81

  35

  310

  North West

  49

  75

  65

  125

  10

  324

  Northern and Yorkshire

  20

  44

  108

  103

  10

  285

  South and West

  53

  73

  76

  35

  —

  237

  South Thames

  35

  65

  90

  90

  20

  300

  Trent

  15

  50

  73

  59

  15

  212

  West Midlands

  19

  18

  75

  119

  23

  254

  Chairmen

  Anglia and Oxford

  2

  10

  20

  13

  —

  45

  North Thames

  8

  15

  16

  18

  6

  63

  North West

  8

  14

  13

  25

  2

  62

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3

  9

  22

  21

  2

  57

  South and West

  10

  15

  16

  8

  —

  49

  South Thames

  6

  12

  19

  22

  4

  63

  Trent

  3

  10

  15

  12

  2

  42

  West Midlands

  4

  4

  14

  24

  5

  51

  All non-executive directors of National Health Service trusts receive remuneration of £5,000 per annum. Information about the banding of chairmen of National Health Service trusts is not held centrally.

  Residual Estate
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 551, what plans he has to dispose of parts of the residual estate of the NHS. [35501]
  1150

  NHS Administrative Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 16 December 1994,Official Report, columns 833–34, if he will update the figures on NHS administrative costs. [35497]

  Mr. Malone
  The provisional information given in my answer of 16 December 1994,Official Report, columns 833–34, in respect of 1993–94 administrative costs is now confirmed as final expenditure. Information for 1994–95 will not be available until later this year.

  NHS Trust Boards (Salaries)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by wave and region(a) the number of non-executive directors and (b) the numbers of chairs of NHS trust boards by salary band. [35504]

  Mr. Malone
  Details of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts, by region and wave, are shown in the tables.

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 12 July, if he will list the property and other assets not transferred to NHS trusts, indicating where possible an estimated value. [35500]

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of property and assets not transferred to trusts is maintained at regional level and is not available centrally. However, existing use value of
  1151
  these assets is estimated at £3.48 billion from the information provided through the capital charging arrangements. Property which is declared surplus to operational requirements is sold as soon as possible. Regions implement disposal programmes to achieve the best price possible on the open market. Proceeds are used for reinvestment in the provision of healthcare.

  Private Patient Income
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 195, if he will update the figures on private patient income. [35493]

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures for 1993–94 are no longer provisional. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Gorton Medical Centre
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 260, with regard to Gorton medical centre, if he will state the latest position both with regard to the judgment of the High Court and with regard to financial assistance to improve the premises of the centre. [35241]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 21 June Official Report, column 260 and to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 14 July.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 41–3 if he will now provide final rather than provisional figures for the costs of clinical negligence settlements by region in 1994–95. [35499]

  Mr. Malone
  Final figures for the period 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Health Care Purchasing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 9 December 1994,Official Report, column 401, if he will update the figures on non-NHS provider spending. [35495]

  Mr. Sackville
  Updated information is expected to be available in December 1995.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and senior managers, (b) administrative and clerical staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff were employed in each health region in 1994. [35385]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not yet available.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1994,Official Report, column 916, if he will update the figures on general practitioner fundholding management allowances. [35490]
  1152
  Mr. Malone
  Information on the level of expenditure on fundholding management allowances in 1994–95 is not yet available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 25 January,Official Report, columns 259–60, on computer costs associated with general practitioner fundholding, if he will now provide comparable figures for 1994–95. [35498]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Spend on information technology to support GP fundholding: £000s

  Region

  1994–95

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,717

  Trent

  2,662

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,894

  North Thames

  1,819

  South Thames

  2,659

  South and West

  1,906

  West Midlands

  3,129

  North West

  2,060

  Total

  18,846

  Note:

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

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35307]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  NHS Management (Salary Costs)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 13 December 1994,Official Report, column 616, if he will now update the figures on NHS salary costs.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table. The increase in general and senior management costs are largely a result of(a) the reclassification of staff from professional and administrative groups, including many senior nurses, as managers; (b) the devolution to trusts of areas of work formally covered by district health authorities or regional health authorities (c) deliberate strengthening of the management of corporate functions and clinical support.

  Hospital and Community Health Services salary costs for managerial staff at 1993–94 prices

  Region

  1993–94 £000s

  Northern

  34,347

  Yorkshire

  56,232

  Trent

  47,527

  East Anglia

  25,495

  N.W. Thames

  39,903

  N.E. Thames

  64,104

  S.E. Thames

  47,296

  S.W. Thames

  49,381

  Wessex

  36,742

  Oxford

  28,029

  1153

  Hospital and Community Health Services salary costs for managerial staff at 1993–94 prices

  Region

  1993–94 £000s

  South Western

  36,281

  West Midlands

  58,348

  Mersey

  32,089

  North Western

  46,554

  SHAs

  9,357

  Total

  611,685

  Hospital and Community Health Services salary costs for administrative and clerical staff at 1993–94 prices

  Region

  1993–94 £000s

  Northern

  91,995

  Yorkshire

  104,807

  Trent

  133,838

  East Anglia

  57,119

  N.W. Thames

  133,955

  N.E. Thames

  150,571

  S.E. Thames

  144,593

  S.W. Thames

  101,756

  Wessex

  80,697

  Oxford

  75,455

  South Western

  93,430

  West Midlands

  158,335

  Mersey

  73,092

  North Western

  131,502

  SHAs

  31,439

  Total

  1,562,584

  Hospital and Community Health Services salary costs for nursing and midwifery staff at 1993–94 prices

  Region

  1993–94 £000s

  Northern

  413,134

  Yorkshire

  450,659

  Trent

  584,876

  East Anglia

  245,503

  N.W. Thames

  423,533

  N.E. Thames

  531,040

  S.E. Thames

  453,885

  S.W. Thames

  387,124

  Wessex

  357,086

  Oxford

  282,770

  South Western

  430,190

  West Midlands

  617,172

  Mersey

  302,965

  North Western

  562,107

  SHAs

  91,968

  Total

  6,134,012

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of regional, district and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, and NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. Salaries and wages costs incurred by family health services authorities and the special hospitals service authority (HQ London, Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton hospitals) and the UK transplant support service are excluded as corresponding costs are not identified on the same basis.

  2. Managerial staff consists of general and senior managers.

  3. These final figures are based upon gross costs including employers' National Insurance and superannuation contributions.
  1154

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 9 December 1994,Official Report, column 396, if he will update the figures on NHS trust financial performance. [35502]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June,Official Report, column 359. There are no changes to this information.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 679–80, if he will update the figures on NHS trust start-up costs. [35496]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  London Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider again proposals to close St. Bartholomew's and other London hospitals. [33192]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The decisions made are in the best interests of patients and will ensure that London's health services meet future health needs.

  Cardiac Mortality
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cardiac mortality rate for each year between 1989 and the most recent year; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) region and (b) health authority area in England. [33326]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The information is shown in the table:

  Death rates from cardiac mortality (ICD1 390–429) per 100,000 population

  Regional health authorities

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Northern

  398.3

  388.7

  391.4

  374.8

  384.3

  Yorkshire

  378.7

  367.0

  355.7

  343.3

  360.3

  Trent

  364.0

  345.3

  349.1

  341.7

  378.2

  East Anglian

  318.2

  321.2

  327.4

  318.8

  334.4

  North West Thames

  279.3

  270.0

  277.8

  262.1

  273.1

  North East Thames

  309.8

  297.6

  297.5

  286.1

  303.1

  South East Thames

  345.5

  340.3

  345.6

  328.7

  347.6

  South West Thames

  336.4

  331.5

  334.6

  316.9

  332.2

  Wessex

  340.1

  339.3

  337.3

  331.4

  345.7

  Oxford

  255.9

  245.2

  252.0

  243.4

  257.7

  South Western

  370.8

  362.9

  362.9

  350.8

  372.8

  West Midlands

  343.9

  333.6

  333.6

  325.4

  347.8

  Mersey

  380.5

  362.8

  362.5

  352.7

  371.3

  North Western

  403.0

  391.6

  382.6

  379.9

  390.9

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage restrictions on smoking in public areas frequented by children. [35021]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.
  1155
  The Government's code of practice on smoking in public places, which provides practical guidance to owners and managers of public places on implementing smoking policies, advises that smoking should be prohibited in all public places frequented by children and other young people.

  Community Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health visitors, (b) district nurses, (c) community psychiatric nurses and (d) school nurses were employed in each region of England on 30 September 1993, and for the latest date available, expressed as whole-time equivalents and actual numbers; and if he will list the same information for student health visitors and student district nurses. [33250]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The information relating to the number and whole-time equivalent number of health visitors, district nurses, community psychiatric nurses and school nurses employed in each region of England on 30 September 1993 is shown in the tables. This is the latest available information.

  For the number of student health visitors and district nurses in each region in 1993, I refer the right hon. Member to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting annual report for 1993–94, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS hospital and community health services health visitors by England regions at 30 September 1993 (excluding agency staff) whole time equivalents and numbers (head count)

  Region

  Numbers

  Whole time equivalents

  Northern

  800

  690

  Yorkshire

  1,000

  840

  Trent

  1,110

  950

  East Anglia

  400

  340

  North West Thames

  910

  750

  North East Thames

  870

  770

  South East Thames

  770

  640

  South West Thames

  740

  590

  Wessex

  790

  640

  Oxford

  780

  660

  South Western

  800

  660

  West Midlands

  1,240

  1,050

  Mersey

  590

  500

  North Western

  1,260

  1,120

  England

  12,060

  10,190

  Source:

  PD (Stats) B Non-Medical Workforce Census, 30 September each year.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten, WTE and total numbers.

  2. Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  3. Health visitors excludes senior nurses 1–5. Included are senior nurses 6–8 in health visiting, health visitors, HV fieldwork teachers. school health visitors, TB visitors with HV certificates, bank health visitors, dual/triple posts (HV/DN/Mid) and clinical grades F to I in health visiting.
  1156

  NHS hospital and community health services district nurses by England regions at 30 September 1993 (excluding agency staff) whole time equivalents and numbers (head count)

  Region

  Numbers

  Whole time equivalents

  Northern

  1,010

  880

  Yorkshire

  730

  630

  Trent

  950

  850

  East Anglia

  350

  320

  North West Thames

  720

  620

  North East Thames

  750

  680

  South East Thames

  740

  620

  South West Thames

  740

  610

  Wessex

  780

  660

  Oxford

  720

  600

  South Western

  670

  590

  West Midlands

  1,190

  1,020

  Mersey

  540

  480

  North Western

  1,000

  890

  SHAs and others

  1—

  1—

  England

  10,890

  9,460

  Source:

  PD (Stats) B Non-Medical Workforce Census, 30 September each year.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten, WTEs and total numbers.

  2. Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  1 denotes figures less than five.

  4. District nurses excludes senior nurses 1–5. Included are senior nurses 6–8 in district nursing, district nurse practical work teachers, holders of dual post (DN/Midwife) bank district nurses and clinical grades C to I in district nursing.

  NHS hospital and community health services nurses working in psychiatric areas in the community by England regions at 30 September 1993 (excluding agency staff) whole time equivalents and numbers (head count)

  Region

  Numbers

  Whole time equivalents

  Northern

  380

  350

  Yorkshire

  400

  380

  Trent

  340

  330

  East Anglia

  170

  160

  North West Thames

  260

  260

  North East Thames

  360

  350

  South East Thames

  280

  280

  South West Thames

  260

  250

  Wessex

  300

  280

  Oxford

  200

  190

  South Western

  420

  390

  West Midlands

  430

  420

  Mersey

  240

  240

  North Western

  450

  440

  SHAs and others

  10

  10

  England

  4,510

  4,320

  Source:

  PD (Stats) B Non-Medical Workforce Census, 30 September each year.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten, WTEs and total numbers.

  2. Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  3. Community psychiatric nursing figures include qualified, unqualified and 'other' nursing staff working within the community psychiatric nursing area of work.
  1157

  NHS hospital and community health services school nurses by England regions at 30 September 1993 (excluding agency staff) whole lime equivalents and numbers (head count)

  Region

  Numbers

  Whole time equivalents

  Northern

  220

  170

  Yorkshire

  240

  180

  Trent

  400

  290

  East Anglia

  130

  100

  North West Thames

  240

  180

  North East Thames

  280

  210

  South East Thames

  180

  140

  South West Thames

  190

  130

  Wessex

  150

  110

  Oxford

  200

  130

  South Western

  230

  130

  West Midlands

  410

  300

  Mersey

  210

  150

  North Western

  350

  250

  England

  3,420

  2,470

  Source:

  PD (Stats) B Non-Medical Workforce Census, 30 September each year.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten, WTEsm and total numbers.

  2. Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies died or had serious illnesses due to listeriosis from July 1985 to the date of the Department's warning about the risk posed to the foetus and new-born babies from listeriosis resulting from the consumption of certain foods. [34309]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: It is not possible to derive a single underlying cause of stillbirth or neonatal death from the stillbirth or death certificate. However, between 1 July 1985 and 31 January 1989, there were 11 stillbirths and 23 infant deaths, babies dying under one year of age, in England and Wales where listeriosis was mentioned on the certificate1 Information on serious illnesses associated with listeriosis is not available centrally.

  Doctors in training by grade England 30 September to 1 October whole time equivalent (Wte)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Doctors in training

  22,590

  23,290

  23,970

  24,340

  25,080

  n/a

  Senior registrar

  3,110

  3,400

  3,540

  3,650

  3,770

  n/a

  Registrar

  5,950

  6,040

  6,140

  6,190

  6,320

  n/a

  Senior house officer

  10,580

  10,830

  11,230

  11,470

  11,900

  n/a

  House officer

  2,940

  3,010

  3,050

  3,040

  3,080

  n/a

  GP trainees

  1,740

  1,560

  1,640

  1,610

  1,530

  1,450

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Hospital doctor trainees as at 30 September; GP trainees as at 1 October.

  3. Wte data are not available for GP trainees. Answer is given as numbers.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the work his
  1158
  1 Since 1 January 1986 in England and Wales, a different certificate has been in use for stillbirths and neonatal deaths (babies dying under 28 days). In these cases the certifier is able to record both main fetal and main maternal conditions leading to the death without giving precedence to one particular condition. The certifier may also record other fetal and maternal conditions which contributed to the death without directly leading to it. Owing to these changes in certification it is not possible to derive a single underlying cause of stillbirth or neonatal death.

  Non-United Kingdom Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital doctors, (b) nurses and midwives, (c) general practitioners and (d) managers currently working in the NHS are from (i) European Union countries other than than the United Kingdom and (ii) non-EU countries. [34784]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The available information is shown in the tables.

  Hospital doctors and general practitioners (unrestricted principals) country of birth: as at 30 September 1993 and 1 April 1993 respectively1

  Hospital doctors2

  General practitioners

  EU countries other than UK

  1,930

  90

  Non EU countries

  14,500

  5,750

  Total

  16,430

  5,840

  Note:

  1 Latest available data on country of birth for General Practitioners.

  2 Whole time equivalents. Wte data are not available for general practitioners.

  All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Training (Doctors and Nurses)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses have been in training in each of the last five years. [34785]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The available information on doctors is shown in the table. For the number of nurses who have been in training in each of the past five years, I refer the hon. Member to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting annual reports for each year from 1989–90, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Department has carried out in the past 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34671]
  1159
  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office does not use the Internet and, hence, the server, and has no plans to do so.

DEFENCE

  Naval Stores Depots (Closure)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the closure of Royal Naval victualling depot, Wrangaton, and the transfer of the Royal Naval clothing storage task. [36268]

  Mr. Soames
  I announced decisions to implement the findings of the "Front Line First" studies as they affected future naval stores support to the Royal Navy on 14 February 1995,Official Report, column 611–12. These included the closure of RNVD Wrangaton by 31 March 1997.

  The Defence Clothing and Textile Agency, DCTA, purchases and controls stock management of all service clothing. Financial savings would have arisen from the collocation of Navy clothing with Army clothing at Bicester under DCTA control due to the ability to rationalise stockholdings and by sharing the same IT system. However, at the time of consultation we have not been able to identify sufficient spare storage capacity at Bicester to collocate Royal Navy clothing with the Army bulk stocks already held there. It has subsequently been confirmed that sufficient storage capacity will now be available.

  The proposal will now be subject to consultation. If it is confirmed, it would be implemented by 31 March 1996, which is now the planned closure date for RNVD Wrangaton.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received the independent medical audit report from the Royal College of Physicians of the assessments on Gulf war veterans; if he intends to publish it; and if he will make a statement. [34917]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal College of Physicians' independent medical audit report to the Surgeon General on my Department's Gulf war medical assessment programme has been received and its recommendations are currently being considered. It is intended that the report will he made public shortly and I will arrange for copies to he placed in the Library of the House.

  Contracts (Privatisation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts and for what total sum were awarded by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries, and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries, for privatisation, market testing and management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [34104]
  1160
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence has contracts with a number of the companies listed. However, details of the contracts and the values are a matter of commercial confidentiality between the Ministry of Defence and the companies concerned. Records held centrally by the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive does not include details of any contracts placed by the various agencies, nor do they indicate the precise nature of the individual contracts. To obtain the information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Napalm
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current policy on the production and use of napalm; on what date his Department adopted this policy; and what had been the previous policy with regard to the production and use of napalm [35085]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK holds no stocks of napalm, the use of which is restricted by protocol III of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

  Contamination
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that his Department(a) discloses all knowledge of contamination and (b) takes appropriate measures to tackle contamination before disposing of surplus military sites. [35352]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is already subject to the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which provide freedom of access to, and the dissemination of, environmental information it holds. Decontamination of my Department's land is undertaken where there is a significant risk to health and safety or the environment, or where land is being sold. In the latter case, decontamination work is limited, generally, to the removal of ordnance and other contaminants such as chemical warfare agents, radioactive and microbiological materials, in respect of which a civilian contractor could not be expected to have the appropriate expertise.

  Military Sites (Sales)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many surplus military sites are currently on the market in Hampshire; how many he expects to place on the market in the next five years; and if he will name them. [35353]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not immediately available. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will he placed in the Library of the house.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the past 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as www.open.gov.uk and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34673]
  1161
  Mr. Soames
  In the past 12 months, a MOD world wide web—(WWW)—server has been set up at the Internet address www.mod.uk with the specific aim of disseminating information about the Department. Liaison with the CCTA has ensured that the MOD home page on the server is accessible via the Government service WWW server at www.open.gov.uk.

  Information made available to date has included summary biographies and pictures of MOD Ministers, recruitment information for the individual services and MOD press releases. In addition, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has a number of WWW pages accessible from the MOD home page which publicises topical items from the defence research programme.

  It is planned in the next 12 months to increase the number of MOD WWW pages to make further information available to the public, one example being the coverage of major defence policy speeches.

  Dundrennan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the most recent environmental and radiological surveys undertaken at the Dundrennan test range. [35159]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Nevada Nuclear Test Site (Payments)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made to date to the United States Government to cover land remediation and the clear-up of toxic and radioactive contamination at the Nevada nuclear test site, arising from the use of the facility to test British nuclear warheads. [35155]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Charges negotiated in respect of the small proportion of tests conducted in the US involving UK-owned devices have included a site overhead element which, in its turn, has allowed for relevant waste disposal costs. The latter element has not, however, been separately identified.

  Chemical Weapons (Storage)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the present environmental status of sites in Wales used to store surplus chemical weapons before disposal at sea. [35164]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Llandwrog was the only site in Wales to store surplus chemical weapons before disposal at sea. After the disposal operation in 1956, the site was returned to private ownership following the issue of the standard clearance certificate confirming that it was free from explosive or chemical contamination.

  Gulf War Veterans (Blood Donations)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions now exist on the use of blood donated by British Gulf war veterans; and if he will make a statement on the original reason for implementing restrictions. [35163]

  Mr. Soames
  No restrictions have ever been imposed on the use of blood donated by British Gulf war veterans.
  1162

  Nuclear Weapons (A1)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions oncoming traffic was stopped by Ministry of Defence police to facilitate the passage of the nuclear weapons convoy on the A1 road between Musselburgh and Morpeth on 10 July; what is his assessment of the rise of road traffic accidents on that section of single carriageway road; and if he will seek to avoid routing such conveys on that part of the A1 road during peak or holiday traffic periods in future. [34428]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to discuss the details of particular military movements. However, as a matter of long-standing policy, the routing of individual nuclear weapon convoys is always agreed in advance with local civil police forces. Traffic management is undertaken as necessary by the Ministry of Defence police officers who form part of such a convoy. The incidence of road traffic accidents is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the reasons for extending the memorandum of understanding on chemical and biological defence between the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada in(a) November 1994 and (b) October 1984. [35567]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The memorandum of understanding—MOU—on chemical and biological defence between the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada was extended in October 1984 and November 1994 in order to ensure that the current activities conducted under the MOU could continue.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 369, when the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments exercised its right to veto studies, and why. [35613]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Although the committee had the right of veto it was more importantly concerned with the modification of protocols and maintaining the register of the work carried out. For these reasons it is difficult from the records available to identify specific occasions on which this right was exercised.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 370, if he will list the current members of the independent ethics committee; and if he will consider placing in the Library copies of the minutes of this committee with the matters of commercial and defence sensitivity removed. [35614]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  With respect to listing the names of the current members of the ethics committee, I shall write to the hon Member. Concerning the placing of copies of the minutes of this committee with matters of commercial and defence sensitivity removed, such a document would be meaningless and I see no reason therefore to do so.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 369, what is the function of the defence nuclear biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner; when it was set up; and which agency controls it. [35612]
  1163
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The original unit, which now forms the defence nuclear biological and chemical centre—DNBCC—at Winterbourne Gunner was set up in 1916. The DNBCC's function is to be the focal point for tri-service NBC defence matters, including training of selected personnel of all three services and foreign and Commonwealth forces in NBC defence measures on land. It also carries out staff studies and trials on all aspects of NBC defence and on equipment and procedures. The centre is sponsored by the inspector general training on behalf of the armed services.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 279, which sites have been visited by officials formulating the draft declaration; and which Departments other than the Ministry of Defence are helping to formulate this declaration. [35608]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Officials formulating the draft declaration have visited a number of sites. They include MOS Randle, CDRE Sutton Oak, CDE Nancecuke, MOS Valley, MOS Rocksavage, MOS Hillhouse, MOS Springfields, Barnham Heath, Norton Disney, Lord's Bridge and West Cottingwith. It is not anticipated that all of these sites will need to be declared under the terms of the chemical weapons convention. Officials from the DTI, the FCO and MAFF are involved in formulating this declaration.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the conclusions and recommendations of the meetings held in(a) May 1969 and (b) April 1990 of the sub-group E on chemical and biological defence of the technical co-operation programme. [35571]

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

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how Britain's decision to abandon production of chemical weapons contributed towards the signing of the chemical weapons convention; for what reasons Britain decided to abandon production of chemical weapons; and if this decision to abandon chemical weapons was taken in consultation with the United States of America. [35572]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The United Kingdom's decision in the 1950's to abandon its retaliatory offensive chemical weapons production capability and stocks of CW munitions was taken after reassessment of the most effective deterrents to aggression in keeping with national financial capabilities. The decision was not taken in consultation with the United States of America.

  The UK has long supported the implementation of international agreements on the control, destruction and the eventual abolition of these weapons, as is now offered by the chemical weapons convention, but we also accepted that in the absence of such an agreement, some retaliatory capability within NATO was a necessary deterrent.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 368, when the combined therapy auto-injector to combat the post-attack symptoms of nerve agent poisoning was issued for use by the armed forces; what antidotes can be used in the auto-injector and what is the effect of these antidotes; when the studies to develop the auto-injector took place with service volunteers; how
  1164
  many service volunteers took part in these studies; and what these studies entailed. [35611]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The current combined therapy auto-injector entered into service between January and July 1990. The injector contains Atropine, which directly counteracts the effects of excess Ach, nerve messenger; Pralidoxine Mesylate to reactivate inhibited acetylcholinesterase and Avizafone which acts as an anti-convulsant.

  Studies to develop this therapy have been conducted over many years, and to provide details of all the studies would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways the work of sub-group E on chemical and biological defence of the technical co-operation programme has promoted the successful collaboration in chemical and biological defence research between the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and Australia; how many meetings of this sub-group have been held since 1993; where they were held; which countries took part; and who represented the British Government. [35604]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The technical co-operation programme—TTCP—provides a means of acquainting the participating countries with each others' defence research and development programmes so that each national programme may be planned to avoid unnecessary duplication. It promotes action to identify and close gaps in the collective technology base. It also assures each country of the best technical advice available for their Governments and military forces.

  Sub-group E covers all aspects of chemical and biological defence including, inter alia, detection, survivability and medical treatment. It meets once a year to review programmes and exchange information and to oversee a number of collaborative research programmes.

  Three meetings have been held since 1993; Washington, 1993; Toronto, 1994; Melbourne 1995. Countries taking part were the United States of America, Canada, Australia and the UK. The UK representative was the Director (Physical Sciences) CBDE, now Director of the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of CBDE.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities exist underground at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; when each of these facilities was built; and what are the functions of each of these facilities. [35562]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the underground facilities belonging to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes CBDE as one of its Divisions.A small number of sampling chambers were constructed underground at CBDE between the First and Second World Wars. These were used in trials to determine the dispersion of chemical agents. They have now fallen into disuse.I hope this information is helpful.1165
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 276, if he will list the titles and subject matter of each of the 17 unclassified papers in the Porton technical papers series; and what was the name of the series of papers which replaced the Porton technical papers after they were closed. [35609]

  (2) how many scientific papers in the series called Nancekuke reports were produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke since 1965; when this series started and finished; and how many of them are unclassified. [35564]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 716–17, on what dates staff from the biological division and the chemistry and decontamination division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment published the results of their research in the scientific journals named. [35618]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, column 709, what was the conclusion of the research work on the nerve agent GB at Nancekuke to study the impurities and by-products found in the GB product; when this conclusion was reached; which by-products were studied; and when the results of this research were exchanged with the United States of America, Canada and Australia. [35621]

  (5) how many scientific papers in the series called Porton notes were produced by the Chemical Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1965; when this series started and finished; and how many of them are unclassified. [35565]

  (6) what research has been carried out on the nerve agent GF at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke; what quantity of the nerve agent GF has been used in this research at Porton Down; what was the aim of the research; when the results of this research were exchanged with other countries; and under which defence agreement the results were shared. [35615]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Elizabeth Reeve to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  I am writing to let you know that because of the research required I shall not be able to reply to a number of your priority written questions within the normal timescale. The questions concerned are as follows:

  Pursuant to answer of 16 March (Col 716–7), the dates on which CBDE staff published the results of their work;

  How many "Porton Notes" series papers were produced since 1965;

  How many papers in the Nancecuke Reports series were produced by CBDE since 1965;

  Titles & subject matter of "Portion Technical Papers" & name of series which replaced "Portion Technical Papers";

  Research on nerve agent GF;

  Conclusion of work on nerve agent GB at Nancekuke.

  I will of course let you have replies as soon as possible. I am sorry if this causes any inconvenience.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report,
  1166
  column 279, when the studies with service volunteers with nerve agent GB were conducted; how many service volunteers were involved; what was the purpose of the studies; what was the conclusion of the studies; and if the amount of GB used in these studies needs to be approved at ministerial level. [35619]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Elizabeth Reeve to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for further details of the research carried out with the nerve agent GB involving Serving Volunteers has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.Various nerve agent studies involving the use of Service Volunteers have taken place at CBDE since the late 1940's and have involved some 300 volunteers. The most recent series of studies which were completed in 1989 were carried out in order to ascertain the effects of exposure to low levels GB. The conclusions of the studies have resulted in enhanced protective measures for UK service personnel. The details of specific experiments are not subject to ministerial approval.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 278, what was the conclusion of the studies with mustard gas to determine the effectiveness of decontamination procedures and protective measures; what was the highest amount of mustard gas applied in small drops in patch tests; if this amount needs to be approved at ministerial level; and in what year the last study involving mustard gas and service volunteers was conducted. [35620]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the studies conducted with mustard agent using Service Volunteers has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.The studies referred to in my reply of 5 July, which were carried out over a number of years formed an integral part of the research programme at CBDE. I am unable to discuss the conclusions of this work in detail but can say that it has led to the introduction of more effective protective and decontamination measures for the UK Armed Forces. The amount of mustard applied in patch tests was determined after sensitivity tests had been carried out on the volunteer. This sensitivity test involved the application of one drop of a dilute solution of mustard to the forearm. Mustard agent had been used in studies at the research establishments at Porton Down since the First World War and we are unable to determine if Ministerial approval was sought before the work commenced. No studies involving the use of mustard agent with Service Volunteers have been carried out since 1979.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out by
  1167
  the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, on CS gas foam; what was the purpose and conclusions of these tests with the foam; when the tests were carried out with the foam; and if the tests involved service volunteers. [35573]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingston, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the use of CS foam in studies carried out by the Chemical and Biological Establishment (CBDE) has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes CBDE as one of its Divisions.The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has not carried out any studies on CS foam.I hope this information is helpful.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (Scientific Journals)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times staff in(a) the medical division and (b) the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, published the results of their work in scientific and other journals in the past two years; on what dates they were published; and in which journals they were published. [35566]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many times staff in the medical and defence microbiology divisions of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment have published the results of their work in scientific journals has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes CBDE as one of its Divisions.Staff from these two Divisions of CBDE have had a number of papers published in scientific journals in 1993 and 1994. A list of the journals and volume of numbers appears below:

  Journals

  Applied and Environmental Microbiology

  60(11), 1994

  British Journal of Surgery

  81(2), 81(3), 1994

  FEMS Symposium No. 73 Proceedings

  1994, 3 papers

  FEMS—Microbiology Letters

  110(1), 111(2–3), 1993:116(2), 1994

  Government Reports—Announcement Index

  14, 1994

  Human Experimental Toxicology

  12(1), 12(1), 12(3), 1993

  Injury

  24(9), 1993

  Infection and Immunity

  61(9), 1993

  International Journal of Experimental Pathology

  74(2), 1993

  Journal of Immunological methods

  159(1–2), 1993

  Journal of Applied Toxicology

  14(6), 1994

  Journal of Trauma

  36(3), 1994

  Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps

  139(3), 1993

  Journal of Virological Methods

  44(2–3), 1993

  Lancet

  342(8879), 1993

  1168

  Journals

  Letters in Applied Microbiology

  18(4), 19(3), 19(4), 1994

  Microbiological Reviews

  57(2), 1993

  Microbial Pathogenesis

  16(4), 1994

  Microbiologica

  16(2), 1993: 17(2), 1994

  NATO ASI Series Series A

  245, 1993

  Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere

  23(1), 1993

  Vaccine

  11(12), 1993: 12(15), 1994

  It is possible that other results have been published, but it has not been possible to identify these from central records in the time available to answer your question.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on whether a comprehensive test ban treaty should prohibit any underground explosive testing which produces a fission yield; [35417]

  (2) what is his Department's policy on a low threshold test ban treaty as an alternative to a comprehensive test ban treaty; [35418]

  (3) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that some further explosive nuclear testing should be permitted under the terms of a comprehensive test ban treaty;. [35425]

  (4) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to retain the ability to conduct further underground nuclear tests after it has signed a comprehensive test ban treaty; [35431]

  (5) what is his Department's assessment of whether a comprehensive test ban treaty that included a provision for small-scale testing would be compatible with the commitments made by the United Kingdom at the non-proliferation treaty extension conference. [35423]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our aim is to establish an effective and verifiable comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty—CTBT—commanding universal adherence as soon as practicable. We have noted the statement in the nuclear non- proliferation treaty review conference document "Declaration on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear and Non-Proliferation and Disarmament" calling for the conclusion of negotiations on a CTBT by the end of 1996, and for the nuclear weapon states to exercise restraint until that time. The United Kingdom has no plans at present to carry out any nuclear weapon tests. However, we have made it clear that the CTBT must not prohibit those activities required to fulfil our responsibility to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which of the Anglo-US joint working groups have met to discuss nuclear testing issues during the past three months; and what were the names and rank of those officials from his Department involved; [35419]
  1169
  (2) what representations his Department has made to officials of the United States Government concerning a resumption of nuclear testing prior to negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty; [35428]

  (3) what discussions officials from his Department have had with officials from the United States Government concerning a United Kingdom requirement to conduct further underground nuclear tests prior to signing a comprehensive test ban treaty; [35426]

  (4) what discussions representatives from the Atomic Weapons Establishment have had with officials from the United States Government concerning nuclear testing issues in the last three months. [35427]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have no plans to conduct further underground nuclear tests prior to the introduction of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Officials of this Department and the Atomic Weapons Establishment hold regular discussions with United States authorities on a wide range of nuclear issues. Including matters relating to nuclear testing.

  LSD Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the regard and small change experiments involving service volunteers and LSD took place. [35106]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking where the Regard and Small Change studies took place has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.
  There has been no study named Regard involving Service Volunteers and LSD carried out by CBDE. There was, however, a study with LSD called Recount. That and study Small Change took place on the trials range at CBDE Porton Down.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of reports and laboratory data outlining the results of experiments in respect of the projects(a) Moneybags, (b) Recount and (c) Small Change carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down on service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [34852]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will place the reports of the studies called Moneybags, Small Change and Recount in the House of Commons Library has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.
  1170
  The use of LSD in studies with Service Volunteers has been public knowledge for decades and a film of Operation Moneybags was shown to the media and public during the Open Days held in 1969. Newspapers on 12 June 1969 carried detailed stories on the LSD trials and, more recently, replies to parliamentary questions have provided a great deal of information. The reports of the actual studies themselves are, however, well over 10 years old. It is not clear at the moment, and in the time available, whether the contents of them can now be released. I will look into this and write to you again.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if service volunteers taking part in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down called(a) Moneybags, (b) Recount and (c) Small Change were specifically told that they were to be given LSD; and in what terms they were advised of the possible (i) long-term and (ii) short-term effects of LSD. [34853]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if Service Volunteers involved in the studies using LSD were informed that they would be exposed to LSD and given indications of its long and short term effects has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.The purpose of the Moneybags, Small Change and Recount trials was to identify the effects of the drug LSD on behaviour in military operations. The Volunteers were briefed prior to the study as to the nature of the drug which would be administered. They were also informed that some of them would be given a placebo rather than the active drug so as to provide controls for the investigation. Prior to the study the Volunteers were not told specifically which individuals would have the drug rather than the placebo as this would have negated the validity of the study. After the exercise was completed the individuals were told whether they had had the drug or placebo administered.The short term effects of the administered LSD were not suggested to the Volunteers prior to their exposure because of the risk that their response would be modified to meet the expected effects. No long term effects for single or low doses of LSD had been identified in clinical medicine and there were no possible effects to advise on.I hope this information is helpful.
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the service volunteers involved in the Moneybags experiments who were given 200 micrograms of LSD were affected by the dose. [34854]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how long Service Volunteers involved in the Moneybags experiments were affected by the dose of LSD they had been exposed to has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now

  1171
  includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.
  All the Volunteers who were exposed to LSD had fully recovered from the effects of the drug within 24 hours of their exposure.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who decided the amounts of LSD given to volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Establishments at Porton Down; if permission at ministerial level was required for the amounts and the experiments; and if he will make a statement. [35105]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking who decided on the amount of LSD given to volunteers and if permission at Ministerial level was required to conduct this work has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.Prior to beginning any programmes of work with Service Volunteers a review of the proposed study is conducted to assess the military requirement and the acceptability of the procedures. Since 1991 this reviewing role has been fulfilled by an Independent Ethics Committee but prior to this date a Committee of medical practitioners from the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down, known as the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments (COSHE), carried out this function. The protocols approved by this Committee were then considered by the ethical sub-group of the Medical Committee of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council which included independent experts.The studies involving the use of LSD with Service Volunteers began in the early 1960's and were completed in 1968. The studies would have been reviewed by COSHE. They would also have been approved by the then Director of the Establishment who had overall responsibility for the running of the Establishment. At this distance in time we are unable to say whether Ministers were involved in the detailed decisions on dosage levels but consider this unlikely.I am sorry that I could not be more helpful.
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments involving LSD and service volunteers other than Moneybags, Recount and Small Change were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Establishment at Porton Down. [35107]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments involving LSD and Service Volunteers, other than Moneybags, Recount and Small Change, were carried out at CBDE has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.1172 In addition to the studies mentioned above a small number of Volunteers were exposed to LSD under medical supervision in the establishment medical facilities. These studies, which have no generic name, were carried out between 1962 and 1968.I hope this information is helpful to you.
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when was the last time that medical checks were carried out on the service volunteers who took part in tests and studies involving LSD at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, to assess whether the tests had any long-term effect on the mental or physical health of the volunteers. [35101]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when was the last time that service personnel involved in studies with LSD were medically checked to assess whether there were any long term effects on the mental and physical health of the volunteers has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.The Service Volunteers were medically screened for their suitability prior to their participation in the studies involving LSD. All Volunteers are medically examined on completion of their attendance at CBDE and this included those who participated in the LSD studies. As published clinical studies had not identified long term effects with single, low doses of LSD, it was not therefore considered appropriate to recall Volunteers for further assessment.I hope this information is helpful.

  Mutual Defence Assistance Programme
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Britain and the United States of America set up the mutual defence assistance programme; what was the scope and aim of the programme; why it was set up; when it ended; and which branches of his Department were involved in the programme. [35574]

  Mr. Soames
  The United States and United Kingdom concluded a mutual defence assistance agreement on 27 January 1950, which provided for either Government to make available to the other equipment, materials or other military assistance designed to promote the integrated defence of the north Atlantic area and to facilitate the development of defence plans under the North Atlantic treaty. The agreement, presented to Parliament as Cmd 7894, was made as part of the US Government's action at that time to provide military aid to Europe, in accordance with the US Military Defence Assistance Act signed by President Truman on 6 October 1949. The agreement remains in force. It is not possible at this time to identify particular branches of the Ministry of Defence that may have been involved in the programme.

  Service Volunteers Programme
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements have existed to warn service personnel who took part in tests and studies in the service volunteers programme at the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down since 1965 of
  1173
  the risks to their health, both in the short-term and long-term, of the experiments; when these arrangements were put in place; and if they have conformed to the Nuremberg code and Helsinki declarations on medical research on humans. [35570]

  (2) what arrangements have been made by the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down to obtain the voluntary informed consent of service personnel who have participated in tests and studies in the service volunteers programme since 1965; when these arrangements were set up; and what steps he has taken to ascertain whether they conformed to the Nuremberg code and Helsinki declarations on medical research on humans. [35563]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the arrangements since 1965 for warning Service Volunteers about the nature of the research in which they participate and what steps were taken to obtain their consent, have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions. This reply covers both questions.
  All work with Service Volunteers since 1991 has required the approval of the Independent Ethics Committee before the study can begin. Protocols submitted for review by this Committee include a lay statement which is read to the volunteers by a military officer prior to them participating in the investigation. The lay statement explains the purpose, nature and any discomfort which may be experienced. Further briefing by the investigators carrying out the study is also carried out and the volunteers can withdraw from the study at any time without requiring to give a reason. Prior to the creation of the Independent Ethics Committee all studies involving the use of Service Volunteers were subject to review by the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments (COSHE). Similar methods were used to acquaint the volunteers with the nature of the investigation in which they participated.
  All work involving the use of Service Volunteers since 1965 has conformed to the Nuremberg code and Helsinki Declaration on the use of humans in medical research.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 714–15, what the studies to investigate the physiological load imposed by wearing the mark 4 NBC suit in various climatic conditions entailed; what exercises and tasks were performed by service volunteers; where these studies took place; what chemicals were used in the studies; and what was the conclusion of the studies. [35606]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the physiological studies on the MkIV NBC suit has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisons.
  1174
  Physiological studies on the Mk1V NBC suit conducted at CBDE involve performing various levels of exercise under different conditions of humidity and ambient temperature. The nature of the exercise includes walking on a treadmill or lifting loads of varying weights. All such studies are carried out with constant physiological monitoring and under medical supervision. Volunteers are encouraged to drink water and are provided with food while participating in the investigations. No chemical agents have been used in these studies. The conclusion of these studies have led to recommendations on the level of workload and its duration for personnel wearing protective clothing under different climatic conditions.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 367–68, if the policy of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, is such that service personnel who took part in the service volunteers programme at the establishment can have copies of the original laboratory reports and data held by the establishment on the experiments in which they participated; and if he will make a statement; [35610]

  (2) what records are held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, on service personnel who take part in tests and studies in the service volunteers' programme; what details are kept in these records; and if these records are kept in a computer or on paper. [35569]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the records of Service Volunteer studies held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) and also if they could be released to the individuals involved has been passed to me to reply as the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which now includes CBDE as one of its Divisions. I am replying to both questions in this letter.
  It is currently the practice to keep records of the personal details of the volunteer, including name, rank, service number, unit, date of birth and age at the time of the study, as part of a paper folder raised for each volunteer. This folder also includes full details of the volunteer's medical history, the results of the pre and post study medical examinations and details of any medical condition arising co-incidental to the study. In order to facilitate administration the name, rank and service number of volunteers is held on computer but not the medical details contained in an individual's folder.
  My answer to your previous question about records, dated 5 July, covered CBDE's long standing policy concerning the release of information held on Service Volunteers.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what tests and studies have been carried out since 1965 at the Chemical Warfare Establishment at Porton Down on service volunteers with Lewisite; what was the aim of these experiments; how the vesicant was administered to volunteers; what was the conclusion of these experiments; when these tests were carried out; how many service volunteers were involved in these tests and studies; and where and what dates the results of these tests were published in open literature. [35568]
  1175
  (2) what tests and studies have been carried out since 1965 at the Chemical Warfare Establishment at Porton Down on service volunteers with compound cyclohexyl methylphosponefluoridate; what was the purpose of these tests; how the compound was administered to volunteers; what were the conclusions of these experiments; when these tests were carried out; how many service volunteers were involved in these experiments; and where and on what dates the results of these tests were published in open literature. [35617]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what studies with Service Volunteers have been carried out since 1965 with the chemical warfare agents Lewisite and cyclohexyl methylphosphonofluoridate (GF) have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.
  There have been no studies involving Service Volunteers using either Lewisite or GF since 1965.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Cost Sharing Agreement
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 723, how much money was owed by the United States Government under the bilateral cost-sharing agreement on (a) 31 March 1994 and (b) 31 March 1995; what percentage of the annual expenditure under this agreement this figure represented on each date, excluding administration costs; and whether, under this agreement, the United States Government refund the cost of construction and maintenance carried out at their request and pay 7.5 per cent. of the works expenditure as a contribution towards the administration costs of the Ministry of Defence, Defence Works Service (United States Forces). [35616]

  Mr. Soames
  Bills with the US Government for payment amounted to £5,400,000 on 31 March 1994 and £3,600,000 on 31 March 1995 representing 6.5 per cent. and 3.6 per cent. respectively on the annual expenditure on US works under the cost sharing agreement. The US Government refund the cost of construction and maintenance carried out at its request by Ministry of Defence, Defence Works Service (USF) and pays 7.5 per cent. of the works expenditure as a contribution towards the adminstration costs of hte MOD, Defence Works Service (USF).

  Safety Audits
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 274, if he will place in the Library copies of the 21 safety audits with the classified information removed. [35607]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.
  1176
  Letter front John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State of Defence asking if copies of the safety Aduits with the classified information removed will be placed in the Library has been passed on to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions.
  The Safety Audits of CBDE by the Ministry of Defence are valuable because they deal in a frank and detailed manner with a range of complex safety issues. Publication of the reports would he unhelpful, not only because the removal of classified information would make the documents unbalanced and possibly unintelligible, but also because the knowledge of publication would inevitably affect to the content of reports. For these reasons I am not prepared to publish even edited Audits in the way you suggest.
  I am sorry I could not be more helpful.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 888, in which month the contract from the Directorate of Science (Ballistic Missile Defence) is due to end; whether the further option of one year on the contract is to be taken up; how much this option is worth; how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment are working on the contract and what their work entails; and how the contract is progressing. [35603]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter form John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 18 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for further information concerning the contract between the Directorate of Science (Ballistic Missile Defence) and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes CBDE as one of its Divisions.
  The then Director General of CBDE wrote to you on this matter on 3 February. The option of a further year on the contract has been taken up by the US and the contract end date is now May 1996. The total value of the work (including the further option year) is $11.2 million. Thirty five staff at CBDE are employed for some of their time on this contract. The nature of the work is as previously described, namely technological research into the defeat of attacks by ballistic missiles with chemical or biological warheads. The programme of work is progressing well. I hope this information is helpful.

  Small Arms (Sales)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 468, what were the total receipts in each of the last three years received from the sale of surplus small arms, handguns and rifles. [35436]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Receipts from the sale of surplus small arms, handguns and rifles in the last three years were:

  1992–93: £142,500

  1993–94: £168,250

  1994–95: £200,260

  1177
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received that surplus small arms sold by his Department have come into the possession of criminals. [35439]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have been informed by the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police that the possession of surplus small arms by criminals, after they had been sold by the Ministry of Defence, is being investigated by the South Yorkshire police.

  Nuclear Warheads (Reliability)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment on whether the safety and reliability of Britain's nuclear warheads can be maintained only through a continuation of testing that produces a fission yield. [35420]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for the development of new nuclear warheads of the United Kingdom signing a comprehensive test ban treaty which prohibited any further nuclear testing which produced a fission yield; and if he will make a statement. [35421]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 10 July 1995,Official Report, column 469.

  Small Arms (Disposal)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 469, if he will specify the cost in each of the last three years for the destruction of small arms. [35437]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The annual cost, in each of the past three years, for the destruction of small arms is in the order of £90,000.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 468, what assessment he has made of his Department's disposal methods of surplus small arms; and if he will make a statement. [35438]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Current policy and procedures guard against unauthorised disposal. Ministry of Defence police investigations are under way to ascertain whether these controls have been properly observed.

  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment of whether a comprehensive test ban treaty that prohibits nuclear tests below 1 kiloton would be verifiable; [35424]

  (2) what is his Department's assessment of the minimum yield of a nuclear test that could be adequately verified under a comprehensive test ban treaty. [35430]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban of the conference of disarmament is examining a narrow range of options for an international monitoring system which would be capable of providing assurance to the states parties to a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty that any explosion of 1 kiloton or more would be detected, identified and located. There is general agreement that it would be impractical to undertake global monitoring below this level.
  1178
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current definition of what constitutes a nuclear weapon test. [35422]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This term has hitherto been applied to nuclear weapon tests of the sort that the UK has previously carried out at the Nevada underground test site.

  Green Minister
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 530, who the green Minister is within his Department. [35435]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is the green Minister in my Department.

  Engineering Bases and Workshops
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of his Department's engineering bases and workshops in each of the three services. [35358]

  Mr. Soames
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Official Residences (Costs)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount spent on(a) maintenance and building works, (b) furniture and fittings, (c) domestic staff costs and (d) entertaining and hospitality for each official service residence for 1994–95. [34432]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could not be collated within the time available. My Department is, however, in the process of gathering this information for internal reporting purposes and for work that is in hand as a result of recommendations contained in Sir Peter Cazalet's report into representational entertainment in the armed forces. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Royal Ordnance (Memorandum of Understanding)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum of understanding agreed by his Department with Royal Ordnance in December 1994. [35340]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State for Defence and the chairman of Royal Ordnance plc was published in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report "Ministry of Defence: Incorporation of the Royal Ordnance Factories" published in April 1985 (HC 343).

  Royal Ordnance (Iran)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the information and reports received by his Department concerning the shipment of goods from Royal Ordnance to Iran between 1984 and 1988. [35337]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Such information, if it existed and if it pointed to potentially illegal activity, would have been
  1179
  passed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise as the enforcement authority.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department received reports from Swedish customs of the outcome of their investigation into shipments to Iran which mentioned Royal Ordnance; and what action it took. [35336]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No arrangements exist for the provision of information by overseas customs authorities to the Ministry of Defence. Any such information would be provided to HM Customs and Excise.

  Supplies to Iran
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department received concerning the shipping of goods to Iran in September 1985 by MV Sea Trader, June 1986 by MS Jotun and in August 1986 by MV Gritt Clipper IV; and if he will make a statement. [35343]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is unable to trace any such reports.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Royal Ordnance joined the Federation of European Explosives Manufacturers; which other companies were in membership at the same time; and what contracts and with which countries were entered into under the auspices of the federation. [35344]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not available from within the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many shares his Department held in Royal Ordnance from 1 January 1985 to 1 January 1987; and what percentage this was of the total share issue. [35341]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Royal Ordnance plc was incorporated on 2 January 1985, with an authorised share capital of £60 million, in shares of £1, all issued. Until its privatisation in April 1987, all 60 million shares were owned by the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trading agreements were entered into by Royal Ordnance from January 1985 to January 1987 which required the agreement of the Secretary of State; and what were the countries involved, the subject matter and precise dates on which such agreements were given. [35339]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am not aware of any trading arrangements which required the agreement of the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of Royal Ordnance plc.

  Private Soldier (Cost)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average annual cost, excluding wages and wage on-costs, of maintaining a private in the army. [34810]

  Mr. Soames
  Based on current capitation rates, the average annual cost, excluding wages and wages on-costs, of maintaining a private in the Army in £14,019.
  1180

  Radiation Tests on Humans
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department is making into research relating to radiation tests on humans. [34476]

  Mr. Soames
  This subject has been investigated and no evidence has been found of any Ministry of Defence involvement in unethical radiation experiments on humans.

  Cadets (Education)
  Mr Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officer cadets were educated in the(a) private and (b) public sectors of education; and what were the corresponding figures for non-commissioned ranks for the last three years for which figures are available for (i) male and (ii) female recruits into the Royal Navy. [34215]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. L. Chilton to Mr. Robert Hicks, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about the number of Naval officer cadets and ratings, expressed in terms of male and female recruits, who were educated in both the private and public sectors of education for the last three years for which figures are available. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive.
  I must advise you that, whilst the Directorate of Naval Recruiting records basic details of the school, college or university history of all officer and rating recruits, it does not record whether these institutions are based in the private or public sector. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to provide you with this information.

  Employment
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of service personnel and civilians employed at RN College, Dartmouth and HMS Raleigh, Torpoint, for the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on their contribution to their local economies. [34216]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Robert Hicks, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of Service personnel and civilians employed at the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth and at HMS Raleigh, and the economic contribution that these establishments make to their respective local economies. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive.

  The number of Service and civilian employees at the establishments for the last three years is as follows:

  1181

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  BRNC Dartmouth

  Service personnel

  n/a

  120

  119

  MOD civilian personnel

  n/a

  186

  165.5

  HMS Raleigh

  Service personnel

  600

  565

  553

  MOD civilian personnel

  154

  122

  120

  It is impossible to accurately quantify the contribution of Naval shore training establishments to their local economies. Both establishments provide local employment and the spending power of establishment personnel and students contributes to the local economy and that of the surrounding area. In the case of BRNC in particular, the College is the major employer for the isolated town of Dartmouth and also provides opportunities for trade to local businesses and shops. This is especially important during winter months as the town's micro-economy is principally based on tourism.

  Recruits
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected intake of officer cadets and ratings into the Royal Navy for each of the next three years. [34217]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. L. Chilton to Mr. Robert Hicks, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning the projected intake of officer cadets and ratings into the Royal Navy for each of the next three years. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive.
  The projected target figures for the recruitment of RN officers and ratings for each of the next three years, are shown below. It should be recognised that these figures are projections only and as such are subject to periodic revision in order to reflect variations in outflow and requirement.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  RN officers

  252

  337

  349

  Ratings

  2,500

  2,700

  2,800

  RN College, Dartmouth
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds, excluding capital projects, of RN college, Dartmouth; and if he will list the nature and number of the courses provided, the number of officers, ratings and students involved in these courses and the average annual occupancy of the resident accommodation at the college for each of the past three years for which figures are available. [34218]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Robert Hicks, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to reply to your
  1182
  Parliamentary Question about the cost to public funds, excluding capital projects, of Britannia Royal Naval College (BRNC), Dartmouth and the nature and number of the courses provided, the number of officers, ratings and students involved in these courses and the average annual occupancy of the resident accommodation at the college for each of the past three years for which figures are available. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive.
  The Cash Costs of BRNC Dartmouth, excluding Capital Costs, Sea Training costs and VAT, for the Financial Years' 1993/94 to 1995/96 is as follows:

  1993–94: £11.8M

  1994–95: £11.2M

  1995–96: £11.3M

  BRNC Dartmouth provides 22 Courses, instructed by 28 RN Officers, 28 Civilian Lecturers and 17 RN Ratings (excluding Support Staff). Information relating to Students is now only available for 1994/95 and 1995/96. This data, together with the list of College courses, is as follows:

  Student Intake

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Naval General Training Course

  127

  125

  SD Officers Pre-Qualifying Course

  26

  49

  Naval Studies Course

  100

  39

  Flight Academic Course

  36

  34

  International Young Officers' Course

  58

  42

  International Sub Lieutenant's Course

  16

  18

  Modular Graduates Course

  55

  40

  Consolidation Course

  1(21)

  0

  Short Introductory Course

  29

  22

  Naval Aircrew Training Course

  24

  4

  Royal Naval Reserve Course

  25

  29

  RM Young Officers' Acquaint Course

  162

  68

  Careers Officers Course

  0

  0

  University Royal Naval Unit Course

  48

  105

  Potential Officer Course

  82

  130

  Combined Cadets/Sea Cadets

  375

  242

  Undergraduates' Language Course

  15

  58

  Undergraduates' Academic Course

  13

  2

  Undergraduates' Strategic Studies Course

  12

  8

  Surgeon S/Lt Naval Introductory Course

  0

  19

  Bursars' Acquaint Course

  27

  21

  Engineering Sponsorship Scheme Acquaint

  0

  0

  1 Included in NGT Course.

  The average annual occupancy of the resident accommodation at the college since 1992/93 is as follows:

  1992–93: 99.7% of capacity

  1993–94: 91% of capacity

  1994–95: 68% of capacity

  In the context of student throughput, you will also wish to be aware that the Agency is developing initiatives with private industry and academic institutions to market the unallocated irreducible training capacity that exists at the shore training establishments which is caused by fluctuating recruiting levels.

  HMS Raleigh, Torpoint
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds, excluding capital projects, of HMS Raleigh, Torpoint; and if he will list the nature and number of the courses provided, the number of officers, ratings and students involved in these courses and the average annual occupancy of the resident
  1183
  accommodation at the college for each of the past three years for which figures are available. [34219]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Robert Hicks, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the cost to public funds, excluding capital projects, of HMS Raleigh and the nature and number of the courses provided, the number of officers, ratings and students involved in these courses and the average annual occupancy of the resident accommodation at the college for each of the past three years for which figures are available. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive.
  The Cash Cost to public funds, excluding capital projects, of HMS
  Raleigh for the last three years is as follows:

  1992–93: £16.8M

  1993–94: £18.5M

  1994–95: £19.5M

  HMS Raleigh's Course Catalogue currently lists some 140 courses that range in duration from 2 days to 13 weeks. The nature of the courses provided falls into the following categories:

  Part 1 and New Entry Courses

  Nuclear, Ballistic and Chemical Defence Courses

  Seamanship Courses

  Supply Specialisation Courses

  The total number of establishment personnel employed overall in support of the training task for the last three years was:

  HMS Raleigh

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Service personnel

  600

  565

  553

  MOD civilian personnel

  154

  122

  120

  Total student throughput expressed in Student-days for the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 was as follows:

  1992–93: 28,896

  1993–94: 27,456

  1994–95: 25,084

  Records concerning occupation of resident accommodation are only retained for two years. It is not possible, therefore, to provide figures for 1992–93. The average daily occupancy of the resident accommodation at HMS RALEIGH over the past two years was:

  1993–94: 526

  1994–95: 470

  In the context of student throughput, you will wish to be aware that the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency is developing initiatives with private industry and academic institutions to market the unallocated irreducible training capacity that exists at the shore training establishments caused by fluctuating recruiting levels.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on contaminated land. [34654]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has instituted a land quality assessment procedure for all sites being considered or allocated for disposal. In addition, steps are being taken to prioritise the rest of the defence estate for future assessment work. Decontamination of my Department's land is undertaken where there is a significant risk to 1184
  health and safety or the environment, or where land is being sold. In the latter case, decontamination work is generally limited to the removal of ordnance and other contaminants such as chemical warfare agents, radioactive and microbiological materials in respect of which a civilian contractor could not be expected to have the appropriate expertise.

  Submarine Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of submarine allowance; what changes he plans to make; and if he will make a statement. [34016]

  Mr. Soames
  Submarine pay is paid to assist in the recruitment and retention of suitable naval personnel into the submarine service. The levels of submarine pay for 1995–96 are between £8.41 and £13.54 per day, depending on rank and responsibilities, for active submarine service. An additional £5.59 or £8.21 per day is paid to senior rate nuclear propulsion watchkeepers. A reserve band of between £8.05 and £10.72 per day is paid to submariners who have a continuing liability for submarine service after three years in a shore appointment. As I announced on 26 June,Official Report, column 503, my Department is studying the recommendations of the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms of service, which included a recommendation that a number of additional pay items, including submarine pay, should be assimilated into the basic pay structure. I shall keep the House informed of progress.

  Naval Vessels (Running Costs)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest available annual running costs for each of the classes of vessel currently in service with the Royal Navy. [34232]

  Mr. Soames
  The 1994–95 figures for the average annual running costs of each class of vessel currently in service with the Royal Navy are given below. These are an average of the annual operating costs of each individual vessel within a class, based on those vessels' activities over the preceding six years.

  Class of Vessel

  1£ million

  Resolution Class Submarine

  21

  Vanguard Class

  2—

  Swiftsure Class Submarine

  25

  Trafalgar Class Submarine

  19.5

  Invincible Class Carrier

  35

  Landing Platform Docks

  17

  Type 22 Frigate (Batch 1)

  17

  Type 22 Frigate (Batch 2)

  19.5

  Type 22 Frigate (Batch 3)

  15

  Type 23 Frigate

  15.5

  Type 42 Destroyer (Batch 1)

  17

  Type 42 Destroyer (Batch 2)

  17.5

  Type 42 Destroyer (Batch 3)

  17

  Hunt Class MCMV

  3.5

  Sandown Class MCMV

  2.5

  Castle Class Offshore Patrol Vessel

  3

  Island Class Offshore Patrol Vessel

  3

  Hong Kong Patrol Craft

  1

  River Class Patrol Craft

  1

  Coastal Training Craft

  0.5

  Royal Yacht

  10

  1185

  Class of Vessel

  1£ million

  Ice Patrol Ship

  6.5

  Ocean Survey Vessels

  6

  Coastal Survey Vessels

  3

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to nearest halt million.

  2 Figures not available for VANGUARD Class.

  Nimrod (Loss)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the impact on United Kingdom defence capability of the recent loss of a Nimrod R.I aircraft; what plans he has to replace the aircraft; and what is the estimated cost. [35644]

  Mr. Soames
  The Nimrod R aircraft which was lost in the Moray firth on 16 May was one of a fleet of three aircraft which provide the UK with an airborne reconnaissance capability, the details of which are classified. The potential loss of capability resulting from the crash is being managed by adjusting the maintenance programme of the remaining two aircraft. Whilst there will therefore be no immediate effect on the United Kingdom defence capability, it is important that the aircraft is replaced as soon as possible. Our plans are to retrieve a reserve Nimrod airframe from storage and have it converted to the reconnaissance role. Contractual negotiations for this work are under way, therefore details of costs are at present commercially sensitive.

  Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning (Workshop)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department, and of what grades, participated in the NATO advanced research workshop on nuclear submarine decommissioning held in Moscow from 19 to 22 June; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the workshop on the development of his policy on storage and disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines. [35629]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No Ministry of Defence personnel attended this NATO workshop. Our policy remains that decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines are stored safely afloat at a suitable berth, pending eventual disposal.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35308]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Rapid Reaction Force (Insurance)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for insurance facilities for members of the armed forces currently serving with the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. [34811]

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to the cover given to all personnel as members of the armed forces pension scheme, the following insurance facilities are available to service men serving with the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. Personnel are able to enrol in PAX+ personal 1186
  accident insurance in theatre. Also available are the forces safeguard life insurance scheme and membership of the relevant dependants fund appropriate to their particular branch of the services; these are available in theatre. Prior to embarcation or deployment, and throughout their service career, all personnel are thoroughly briefed on the availability and advisability of taking out life, personal accident and kit cover.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for insurance facilities for the families of members of the armed forces currently serving with the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. [34812]

  Mr. Soames
  All members of the armed forces, including those serving with the rapid reaction force in Bosnia, are able to obtain personal accident and optional life insurance cover for themselves and their families by enrolling in the PAX+ personal accident insurance scheme. It is a matter for individual service personnel as to whether they take out family insurance and, if so what company, policy and level of cover they choose.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities for insurance arrangements, through PAX+ insurance he is making available to members of the armed forces currently serving with the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. [34813]

  Mr. Soames
  Like other members of the armed forces those serving with the paid reaction force in Bosnia can obtain insurance within the PAX+ scheme. The facility to enrol in this scheme is available in theatre. PAX+ provides cover 365 days a year, 24 hours a day whether on or off duty. This scheme, started in 1989, gives a range of benefits covering both death and disability as a result of an accident with the level of cover dependent on the number of units purchased by the service person. PAX+ was set up specifically for service personnel and gives cover for military service up to and including general war. The MOD will refund a proportion of a life premium loading for hazardous duties.

  Uranium Projectiles (Eskmeals and Kirkcudbirght)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received the environmental impact assessment on the trials of depleted uranium projectiles at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright announced on 1 July 1993. [35819]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The report was received by my officials from the contractor, W. S. Atkins Environment, on 20 January 1995. I have today arranged for a copy of the full report, together with the MOD's response to its findings and recommendations, to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and what targets he has set for the Agency for 1995–96. [35820]
  1187
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, was launched as a trading fund on 1 April 1995, and is an enlargement of the former Defence Research Agency, DRA. It remains a defence agency headed by a chief executive who derives his authority from, and is directly accountable to, the Secretary of State for Defence. Its aim is to provide independent, high quality, efficient and cost effective advice and support for its customers, primarily within the MOD. DERA personnel remain civil servants.

  The DERA comprises all the MOD's major non-nuclear evaluation and research organisations, in particular those establishments listed below, together with the existing DRA organisation and certain smaller scientific units:

  The Director General of Test and Evaluation

  The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down

  The Defence Operational Analysis Centre, West Byfleet

  The Centre for Human Sciences

  The British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre

  The DERA is structured as four operating divisions, supported by a number of service sectors:

  The Centre for Defence Analysis

  The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  The Defence Research Agency

  The Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation

  The Secretary of State for Defence invited John Chisholm to continue as chief executive of the enlarged agency until his present contract expires in 1996.

  The targets set for the DERA in 1995–96 are as follows:

  (a) To meet profit and cash targets consistent with an average 6 per cent. return in capital employment over a period of three years, the target for 1995–96 being 4.7 per cent.

  (b) To achieve divisional utilisation of 68 per cent. in DRA, 49 per cent. in DTEO, 61 per cent. in CBDE, 67 per cent. in CDA and 57 per cent. for the DERA overall.

  (c) To achieve on time divisional milestone delivery of 85 per cent. in DRA, 80 per cent. in DTEO and 90 per cent. in CBDE and CDA.

  (d) From the December DRA 1994 customer survey baseline. while maintaining an overall level of performance at 22 per cent. above average, to improve quality and project management from 4.8 per cent. and 12 per cent. above average to 15 per cent. above average and to conduct similar surveys in DTEO, CDA and CBDE.

  (e) To improve scientific quality in the DRA, as measured by the external assessment of the MOD's corporate research programme, by 2 per cent. and to produce similar measures for CBDE and CDA.

  (f) To meet by 31 March 1996 all the 1995–96 rationalisation project milestones.

  (g) To achieve a non-MOD income of £98 million in 1995–96.

  (h) To achieve formal quality certification to ISO 9000 for an additional five DRA sectors and two DERA service sectors by 31 March 1996.

  (i) To have implemented the reward management review project processes in DRA and CDA by 31 October 1995.

  (j) To complete by 30 September 1995, a strategic review of all DERA business and project support functions making an assessment of the scope to introduce private capital. outsourcing and market testing and to publish this as part of the corporate plan.

  1188

  BMARC
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answers of 4 April,Official Report, column 1097, and 19 June, if he will list the companies other than Astra/BMARC to which the documents discovered on 16 June referred; [30225]

  (2) on what date he was informed by his Department's police that further documents have been found relating to BMARC and Astra plc; whether these documents included sales documentation of arms exports by BMARC and Astra; and if he will make a statement. [30049]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: The documents and files were seized by the Ministry of Defence police, MDP, pursuant to powers given by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the case of Marcel (1992 Ch. 225), the Court of Appeal decided that where documents were seized by the police under those powers, the police owed a private law duty of confidence to the owners of the documents and that this private law duty had the effect that no further disclosure of the documents by the police was permitted unless the disclosure was for a purpose contemplated by the 1984 Act, or was necessary in the public interest. The Department has received legal advice that the same principles apply to a description of the documents by categories. Having regard to that advice I do not propose to list or describe the documents seized by the Ministry of Defence police.

  A re-sort of the seized property store, expedited by the deputy chief constable of the MOD police, has accounted for all schedules of documents seized from the Astra group of companies by the MDP during the course of corruption investigations involving those companies. All Astra company documents have been returned to the liquidators; other documents belonging to other owners have been or are shortly to be returned to their rightful owners. No papers have been or are being destroyed by MOD police.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list under convenient headings the categories of documents and files taken by the staff of his Department from Astra plc or any of its subsidiaries between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1991; and which of them have been(a) retained and (b) destroyed; [30101]

  (2) what information he has on the whereabouts of documents relating to the Paveway bomb, as referred to in the minutes of BMARC on 2 November 1988. [30113]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: The documents and files were seized by the Ministry of Defence police, MDP, pursuant to powers given by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the case of Marcel (1992 Ch. 225), the Court of Appeal decided that where documents were seized by the police under those powers, the police owed a private law duty of confidence to the owners of the documents, and that this private law duty had the effect that no further disclosure of the documents by the police was permitted unless the disclosure was for a purpose contemplated by the 1984 Act, or was necessary in the public interest. The Department has received legal advice that the same principles apply to a description of the documents by

  1189
  categories. Having regard to that advice I do not propose to list or describe the documents seized by the Ministry of Defence police.

  A re-sort of the seized property store, expedited by the deputy chief constable of the MDP police, has accounted for all schedules of documents seized from the Astra group of companies by the MOD during the course of corruption investigations involving those companies. All Astra company documents have been returned to the liquidators; other documents belonging to other owners have been or are shortly to be returned to their rightful owners. No papers have been or are being destroyed by MOD police.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions on which Ministers were in contact with Ministry of Defence police concerning the affairs of Astra plc between 1989 and 1991, naming the Minister in each case. [30109]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: So far as is known, there are none.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was the person directly responsible for losing the BMARC documents which were found on Saturday 17 June; and who rediscovered them. [30610]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 29 June 1995]: An inquiry has been initiated by the Deputy Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police into the separation by MDP in its property store of documents relating to its investigations into the Astra group of companies. I shall write to the hon. Member when the report is finalised.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department had responsibility for the Ministry of Defence police on 27 January 1993. [30104]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: The Ministry of Defence police is an independent police force with full constabulary powers operating under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The responsibility of the Secretary of State is limited to his general superintendence of MDP under the Act and through the mechanisms of the MOD police committee, delegated to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who on 27 January 1993 was my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton).

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the results from the training for working leavers survey for the period September 1993 to August 1994 or most recent 12 months for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of leavers who(a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) had obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; what was the number and proportion of training for work leavers who six months after leaving were (i) in a
  1190
  full-time job with their work experience employer, (ii) in a full-time job with another employer, (iii) employed in their own business, (iv) in a part-time job, (v) in voluntary work, (vi) on another Government training programme, (vii) on a full-time education or training course, (viii) unemployed and claiming benefit, (ix) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (x) in a jobclub and (xi) doing something else; what was the number and proportion of training for work leavers who had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan; and if she will make a statement; [34054]

  (2) what were the results of the YT leavers survey for the period September 1993 to August 1994 or the most recent 12 months for each TEC area in England and Wales and each LEC area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of YT leavers who (a) were in full-time work with the same employer, (b) were in full-time work with a different employer, (c) were in part-time work, (d) were on a full-time course at a college/training centre, (e) were on another YT scheme, (f) were doing something else, (g) were unemployed and (h)had obtained a vocational qualification; what was(i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers; and if she will make a statement; [34057]

  (3) what were the results from the training for work leavers survey on the number and level of NVQs and SVQs gained by people leaving training for work for the period September 1993 to August 1994 or the most recent 12 months, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for all leavers, and by ethnic group, disability and gender; and if she will make a statement; [34059]

  (4) what were the results of the YT leavers survey for the period September 1993 to August 1994 or the most recent 12 months for each TEC area in England and Wales and each LEC area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of YT leavers who (a) were in full-time work with the same employer, (b) were in full-time work with a different employer, (c) were in part-time work, (d) were on a full-time course at a college/training centre, (e) were on another YT scheme, (f) were doing something else, (g) were unemployed and(h) had obtained a vocational qualification; if she will list (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate; and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers; and if she will make a statement; [34055]

  (5) what were the results from the youth training leavers survey on the number and level of NVQs and SVQs gained by people leaving training for work for the period September 1993 to August 1994 or the most recent 12 months, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for all leavers, and by ethnic group, disability and gender; and if she will make a statement; [34058]

  (6) what were the results of the training for work leavers survey for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the period between September 1993 and August 1994 or the most recent 12 months for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of training for work leavers who (a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) had obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification or (d)were awaiting their

  1191
  results; what was the number and proportion of training for work leavers who six months after leaving were (i) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (ii) in a full-time job with another employer, (iii) employed in their own business, (iv) in a part-time job, (v) in voluntary work, (vi) on another Government training programme, (vii) on a full-time education or training course, (viii) unemployed and claiming benefit, (x) in a jobclub and (xi) doing something else; what was the number and proportion of training for work leavers who had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan; and if she will make a statement. [34056]

  Mr. Paice
  As this information is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the work her Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about her Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server know as "www. open. gov. uk" and her plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34675]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The then Department for Education created a site on the Government world web server on 24 April 1995 with the launch of "Superhighways for Education" consultation paper on broadband communications. The site had a brief note on the aims and objectives of the then Department for Education. It will shortly carry departmental press notices and the 1994 schools and colleges performance tables. The jobseekers, parents, further education and higher education charters are available on the citizen's charter unit site. In addition, an announcement on the launch of Socrates, the European Community's new education programme, was placed with a UK educational Internet newsgroup. The Department's policy for future use and business potential is under consideration following the recent merger of the Departments for Education and Employment.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the work of the Employment Service in 1994–95. [36080]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am pleased to announce that the Employment Service achieved excellent results in 1994–95. It placed over 1.87 million unemployed people into work, of whom 29.7 per cent. had been out of work for six months or more. It also exceeded its targets for placing people with disabilities and people in inner cities.

  The ES has exceeded all but one of its targets this year giving unemployed people a record level of help. Its results in placing people into work are excellent and it has made steady improvements over the last five years.

  The targets agreed for 1995–96 will enable the ES to build on its exceptional results last year, and help yet more unemployed people while preparing for the introduction of jobseeker's allowance.
  1192
  These targets include placing 1.9 million unemployed people into jobs, of whom at least 560,500 should be people unemployed for six months or more; and 76,000 should be people with disabilities—the highest total yet.

  Exclusions (Lincolnshire Schools)
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the numbers of exclusions from Lincolnshire schools for the most recent year for which data are available, and if she will give the figures of the two previous years. [34830]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that her plans are listed in her press statement to de-regulate standards in respect of child:adult ratios, premises and equipment are consistent with her policy of maintaining standards as found within the current requirements of the Children Act 1989 and other relevant Acts; [35559]

  (2) which of the four bodies listed in her answer of 14 June, Official Report,column 520, as favouring introduction of a voucher scheme for pre-school education, advocated or had consented to her plans for de-regulation as described in her oral statement on 6 July, Official Report, columns 517–19; [35556]

  (3) by what means she expects to publicise the de-regulated or lower standards of provision for nursery education and play group provision she announced in her oral statement of 6 July. [35558]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Health are jointly consulting on whether the existing Children Act guidance on child; adult ratios, premises and equipment remains appropriate for institutions registered to exchange vouchers for pre-school education.

  In addition, my right hon. Friends and the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 14 July their intention to consult on a new set of school premises regulations. Those regulations apply to all maintained schools, including maintained nursery schools. They will continue to do so.

  All essential health and safety requirements in the current Children Act guidance and school premises regulations will be retained.

  None of the written responses to the consultation advocated deregulation, but most of them were received before deregulation became an issue for debate. A number of informal requests were made to deregulate existing requirements on child:adult ratios premises and equipment, planning, and publication of statutory proposals to establish nursery places at maintained schools.

  My right hon Friend plans to publish a consultation document on quality assurance shortly.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means the relevant proportion of voucher value is assigned to four-year-olds
  1193
  attending local authority infant schools to be deducted from the value of parental purchasing power arising from her proposed scheme for financial assistance for four-year-olds. [35557]

  Mr. Squire
  The parents or guardians of all four-year-olds will receive a voucher worth around £1,100 with which to purchase three terms of good-quality pre-school education before compulsory school age if they wish.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she initiated with the 74 bodies listed in her answer to the question of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), of 7 February,Official Report, columns 145–47, in respect of her plan announced on 6 July for pre-school provision. [35576]

  Mr. Squire
  The head of the official task force on under-fives wrote to the majority of the bodies listed on the day of the announcement, requesting their views.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), of 6 July,Official Report, column 522, if the value of the proposed education vouchers will be subject to assessment of income support and family credit. [35605]

  Mr. Squire
  No.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, what is the average (a) pupil: adult ratio and (b) pupil: qualified adult ratio in (i) reception classes in primary schools, (ii) nursery classes in primary schools, (iii) nursery schools classes and (iv) playgroups. [34110]

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

  Pupil: staff ratios in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England

  January 1994

  Teaching staff1

  All adult staff2

  Nursery schools

  19.4

  8.8

  Nursery classes

  26.8

  11.7

  1 Includes all qualified teaching staff.

  2 Includes all teaching staff and nursery assistants.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, what changes are planned in the training of primary and early years' teachers to take account of the expansion of pre-school provision for all four-year-olds. [35510]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to revise the criteria for primary ITT courses set out in DFE circular 14/93.

  We are currently reviewing targets for intakes to initial teacher training for 1996–97 onwards, and the Teacher Training Agency will take account of the Government's plans for the education of under-fives in carrying out its responsibilities for initial and in-service teacher training.
  1194

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places in teacher training for primary and early years' teachers were available in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; and what plans she has for an expansion in places for primary and early years' teachers, following her oral statement of 6 July, Official Report, columns 517–19. [35511]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of places for primary teachers in England for the years requested is as follows:

  1990

  1992

  1994

  1995

  Intake target

  11,313

  12,078

  12,950

  12,115

  Actual intake

  13,155

  16,658

  13,713

  —

  The targets did not distinguish between courses specialising in early years—three to seven—and other primary ITT courses.

  We are currently considering whether the targets for intakes into initial teacher training courses given to the Teacher Training Agency for 1996–97 onwards need to be revised to take account of new information and policy developments. The agency will take the Government's plans for the education of under-fives into account when allocating student numbers from 1996–97 onwards.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is made in the training of primary and early-years teachers for the study of early child development. [35434]

  Mr. Squire
  The competences expected of newly-qualified primary teachers are set out in DFE circular 14/93. It is for course providers to determine course content, in order to ensure that newly qualified teachers have the ability to teach effectively and to secure effective learning.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what legislation she plans to introduce; and if she will make a statement. [35309]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of state-funded postgraduate students in the United Kingdom as a proportion of the entire United Kingdom higher education student population; and if she will make a statement. [34965]

  Mr. Forth
  In the academic year 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, there were 44,500 postgraduate award holders in the United Kingdom—3 per cent. of all home students in higher education and 25 per cent. of the postgraduate population.
  1195
  In addition, an unknown number of postgraduate students will have received state support from other sources including access funds and student loans—where studying for a postgraduate certificate in education.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to safeguard the funding of the youth service in the next Budget. [34455]

  Mr. Paice
  The local authority financial settlement for 1996–97 is currently under consideration. It will be for individual authorities to decide how to fund different parts of their education services, including the youth service, in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been capital expenditure on colleges of further education in both cash and constant price terms in every year since 1979. [34022]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is available only since 1989–90, and is set out in the table.

  Capital expenditure at colleges of further education in England, 1989–90–1993–94

  Year

  £ million (cash)

  £ million (1994 prices)

  1989–90

  141

  173

  1990–91

  123

  140

  1991–92

  98

  105

  1992–93

  107

  110

  1993–94

  261

  261

  Notes:

  1Expenditure between 1989–90 and 1992–93 was incurred by local authorities. It does not include expenditure at sixth form colleges, for which separate data are not available.

  2 The 1993–94 figure shows expenditure incurred by colleges, including sixth form colleges, in the further education sector between April 1993 and July 1994 (16 months).

  3All the cash figures show outturn expenditure from all sources. Those for 1989–90–1992–93 are derived from local authorities' expenditure returns to DOE. That for 1993–94 has been aggregated by FEFC from colleges' accounts.

  At local education authority nursery and primary schools

  Pupil numbers as at January

  (1)

  Clwxd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Wales1

  1980

  Full-time pupils

  Aged 3

  269

  412

  446

  114

  2,598

  240

  98

  217

  4,394

  13

  Aged 4

  3,450

  3,489

  3,886

  2,249

  6,017

  1,267

  2,733

  3,174

  26,265

  77

  1990

  Part-time pupils

  Aged 3

  2,977

  673

  2,512

  306

  1,137

  13

  1,709

  3,131

  12,458

  33

  Aged 4

  1,513

  271

  1,262

  155

  516

  8

  1,321

  1,467

  6,512

  17

  Full-time pupils

  Aged 3

  5

  1,001

  286

  140

  2,633

  309

  59

  6

  4,438

  12

  Aged 4

  3,449

  3,284

  4,124

  1,753

  6,259

  1,075

  2,920

  3,160

  26,024

  69

  1994

  Part time pupils

  Aged 3

  3,322

  681

  2,975

  430

  1,163

  10

  2,105

  3,357

  14,043

  37

  Aged 4

  1,689

  269

  1,488

  222

  512

  6

  1,046

  1,520

  6,752

  18

  1196

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has carried out into the employment histories of young people who have left care. [33836]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The Department has not commissioned research on the employment histories of young people after they have left local authority care.

WALES

  Nursery School Places
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of each local education authority of providing(a) a nursery school place and (b) a nursery class place; and what element of the cost relates to capital expenditure. [35406]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he plans to continue to fund all the places that local education authorities currently provide for(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds. [35404]

  Mr. Richards
  Provision is currently at the discretion of local education authorities. The local government revenue settlement is unhypothecated in Wales and it is for local authorities themselves to decide how that settlement is spent.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds in each local education authority had (i) a full-time place or (ii) a part-time place in a nursery school or class in (1) 1980, (2) 1990 and (3) the last date for which figures are available; and what percentage of the age group this was in each year. [35408]

  Mr. Richards
  The following table shows pupil numbers at local education authority nursery or primary schools. For primary school pupils, all pupils aged three or four are included irrespective of whether they are taught in nursery or ordinary classes. Comparable figures for part-time pupils are not available for 1980.
  1197

  At local education authority nursery and primary schools

  Pupil numbers as at January

  (1)

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Wales1

  Full-time pupils

  Aged 3

  1

  1,134

  159

  5

  2,896

  334

  84

  3

  4,616

  12

  Aged 4

  3,552

  3,294

  4,138

  1,900

  6,388

  1,143

  3,784

  2,985

  27,184

  71

  Source:

  Schools' Census.

  Notes:

  (1) Age at 31 December of the preceding year.

  1total as a percentage of estimated age group at 31 December of the preceding year.

  Pre-school Places
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the additional staff required to ensure that all four-year-olds will have a pre-school place in April 1997, listing teaching and other support staff separately and indicating the qualifications that staff in a typical pre-school establishment will be expected to have. [35405]

  Mr. Richards
  We will be consulting further on such issues as staff:pupil ratios and staff qualifications. There are no plans to impose new qualification requirements.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement about his proposals for deregulation in the pre-school sector, and what effect his proposals will have on the level of child:adult ratios, the quality of premises provided and the equipment which should be available; and [35403]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the inspection framework he intends to establish to cover pre-school places provided under the nursery voucher scheme and what will be the relative roles of ACAC, Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and local authority social services and education departments. [35401]

  Mr. Richards
  These matters are still under consideration and will be the subject of further consultation with interested bodies. I intend to issue a document outlining final details of implementation in the autumn.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of administration and inspection of pre-school places eligible for the nursery voucher scheme when it is in full operation. [35399]

  Mr. Richards
  No final decisions regarding administration arrangements and inspection regimes have been taken. I do not expect administration overhead costs to be significant in relation to the value of the voucher.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he estimates will be recouped from each local education authority of the money already spent on pre-school places to finance the nursery voucher scheme when it is fully in operation; and what percentage this will represent of the money currently provided for pre-school places. [35398]

  Mr. Richards
  Details of the arrangements for recoupment will be the subject of further consultation with local authorities. Final decisions will depend on the outcome of the public expenditure survey although of course no specific provision is made within the local authority revenue settlement for pre-school education.
  1198

  Pre-school Play Groups
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many three and four-year-olds had a place in a pre-school play group in each local education authority in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the last date for which figures are available; what was the percentage of the age group in each year; and what was the average number of sessions attended by a child in each year. [35407]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of places provided in pre-school playgroups at 31 March each year is shown in the table. Information is not collected centrally on the number of children who attend or on the number of sessions attended.

  Places in playgroups at 31 March

  1980

  1990

  1994

  Clwyd

  3,802

  4,394

  5,140

  Dyfed

  2,443

  3,371

  3,089

  Gwent

  2,277

  2,843

  3,193

  Gwynedd

  2,418

  3,107

  3,348

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,163

  3,517

  3,928

  Powys

  1,067

  1,491

  1,513

  South Glamorgan

  2,695

  3,502

  4,093

  West Glamorgan

  888

  1,247

  1,318

  Wales

  17,753

  23,472

  25,622

  Note:

  Places in playgroups provided by a local authority, registered private playgroups and in playgroups exempt from registration, e.g. those on Crown property, are included.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding he provides for pre-school playgroups in Wales; how this is shared between recipient organisations; and what is the average amount per child attending playgroups run by recipients of Welsh Office funding. [35396]

  Mr. Richards
  Wales Pre-School Playgroups Associations and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin have been awarded departmental grants in 1995–96 of £164,400 and £152,872 respectively towards their core administrative costs. Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin has also been awarded a grant of £537,000 in 1995–96 under the scheme of support for the Welsh language. Local playgroups are not funded directly by the Department. Therefore, there are no figures on average departmental funding per child.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much each local authority provides for funding to the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin; and what is the average amount of funding for each place the respective organisations provide. [35402]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.
  1199

  Firland's Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council in relation to the termination of the youth training and training for work 1995–96 contracts with Firland's Training; what representations he has received in relation to these contracts; and if he will make a statement. [35239]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no consultations with the chairman of South Glamorgan training and enterprise council and have received no representations on this matter.

  Contracts between training and enterprise councils and their training providers are a matter for the contractual parties concerned.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Sectretary of State for Wales what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35302]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated to general practitioner fundholders in management allowances in each year since the start of the scheme. [35386]

  Mr. Richards
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trust Boards (Salaries)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by wave and region(a) the number of non-executive directors and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust boards by salary band. [35506]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of(a) non-executive directors and (b) chairs of NHS trusts by salary band, by wave, is as follows:

  Number of chairmen in band

  Number of non-executive directors

  1

  2

  3

  First wave (1992)

  5

  —

  1

  —

  Second wave (1993)

  62

  5

  7

  1

  Third wave (1994)

  43

  2

  5

  3

  Fourth wave(1995)

  17

  2

  1

  2

  Note:

  Remuneration of chairmen is:

  Band 1 £19,285 p.a.

  Band 2 £17,145 p.a.

  Band 3 £15,125 p.a.

  Nursery Vouchers Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the value of the voucher for four-year-olds in Wales under the provision for regional variations in value. [35397]
  1200
  Mr. Richards
  The voucher will initially be worth £1,100. Further consideration will he given to the desirability of regional variations in its value in the light of experience.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to review the participation of the Welsh Development Agency in urban development schemes following the 29th report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Welsh Development Agency; what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning compensation to affected third parties and the future of joint venture schemes. [35588]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government will be responding to the 29th report of the Committee of Public Accounts in the usual way in the form of a Treasury Minute.

  The Welsh Development Agency's participation in urban development and joint venture schemes is governed by guidelines which were revised in March this year. The revised guidelines took full account of the recommendations of the Grant Thornton report, and were subject to consultation between the WDA and my Department. Copies of the revised guidelines were placed in the Library of the House. The agency has also revised its procedures.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he will be giving to the role of the Welsh language in places provided under the nursery voucher scheme. [35400]

  Mr. Richards
  I will be giving the matter full consideration following consultation with interested bodies and advice from ACAC.

  Dental Students
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of places for dental students in Wales, in each of the past 10 years; and if the trend in the number of dental student places in Wales differs from the figures for the United Kingdom as a whole. [35233]

  Mr Hague
  Forty five until the intake in October 1989, and 55 since that date. Following the last review of medical and dental manpower in 1982, there has been an expansion of 20 per cent. at the Welsh dental school compared with a reduction of 10 per cent. elsewhere.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department first received representations in relation to the acquisition of land from Associated British Ports for the purposes of constructing the proposed Cardiff bay opera house; on what date representations were received with particular reference to potential conflicts of interest; on what date the Cardiff bay opera house trust transaction with Associated British Ports was completed; and on what date the conflict of interest issue was resolved. [35234]
  1201
  Mr. Hague
  The acquisition of land for the proposed Cardiff bay opera house is an operational matter for Cardiff bay development corporation. At the end of 1992, the Welsh Office became aware that a site owned by Associated British Ports was being considered. A possible conflict of interest was raised with the Welsh Office and resolved in September 1993. The heads of terms agreement between CBDC and Associated British Ports was signed on 9 December 1994.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh health common services authority regarding the inclusion of an in-house bid in the feasibility studies for the market-testing of the estatecare division of the authority; and if he will make a statement. [35237]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Butetown Link
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff bay development corporation concerning the level of grant-in-aid to South Glamorgan county council for the Butetown link and its intended completion as a fixed-price contract; and if he will make a statement. [35238]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning overspending on the Butetown link road; what impact this has had on the calculations of transport supplementary grant; and what amount has been paid under this heading in each financial year during which there has been significant public expenditure on the Butetown link road. [35240]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received no representations. Revisions to the cost of the scheme have been taken into account in the annual transport grant settlement. Grant has been made available as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  2.4

  1988–89

  2.2

  1989–90

  2.2

  1990–91

  6.2

  1991–92

  14.0

  1992–93

  13.2

  1993–94

  14.1

  1994–95

  11.8

  1995–961

  1.3

  1 Provisional

  National Health Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 420, (1) if he will update the figures on non-NHS provider spending and; and [35441]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1994, Official Report, column 422, if he will update the figures on private patient income. [35507]
  1202
  Mr. Richards
  The information is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  National Health Service (Staff)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) general and senior managers, (b) administrative and clerical staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff were employed in each health region in 1994. [35410]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the table. Staff employed by NHS trusts are included in the health authority area in which they are situated.

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) at 30 September 1994

  Health authority area

  General and senior managers

  Administrative and clerical staff1

  Nursing and midwifery staff2

  Clwyd3

  154

  933

  3,349

  East Dyfed4

  119

  653

  2,023

  Gwent

  159

  992

  3,508

  Gwynedd

  65

  575

  2,004

  Mid Glamorgan

  189

  1,240

  4,790

  Pembrokeshire

  17

  238

  725

  Powys

  53

  227

  995

  South Glamorgan5

  286

  1,705

  4,418

  West Glamorgan

  98

  1,042

  3,334

  Welsh Health Common Services

  153

  1,008

  73

  Authority6

  Wales

  1,292

  8,613

  25,220

  1 Excluding general and senior managers.

  2 Excluding pre-registration learners.

  3 Includes staff employed by the North Wales Ambulance Trust.

  4 Includes staff employed by Dyfed FHSA.

  5 Includes staff employed by the South and East Wales Ambulance Trust.

  6 Includes staff employed by Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1994,Official Report columns 346–47, if he will update the figures on trust start up costs. [35589]

  Mr. Richards
  The following contributions have been made available for the shadow running periods of NHS trusts established in Wales in 1995:

  £250,000 to: Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust;

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust;

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust.

  £275,000 to: West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust.

  £75,000: Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust.(1)

  Note:

  1This figure represents interim costs only. Cost details for shadow running in 1995–96 are awaited.

  European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Welsh Office first considered whether to sign the European charter for regional and minority languages; what meetings have taken place between Welsh Office Ministers and(a) representatives of the European Union, (b) members of the Welsh Language Board and (c) other

  1203
  interested parties on the matter since the Government first considered the issue; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on this matter. [35626]

  Mr. Richards
  The charter was opened for signature in November 1992, and the Government have had the matter under consideration since that time. The question of signature is not one for the Welsh Office to consider independent of other Government Departments, since any signature by the Government would be for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Welsh Office Ministers have had no meetings with representatives of the European Union on this matter. The charter is a product of the Council of Europe rather than of the European Union. Officials have discussed the charter with officials of the Welsh Language Board on a number of occasions since the board was established in 1993.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the slaughtering capacity that currently exists in Wales conforms to EU required standards; and what proportion of the animals that are currently slaughtered in Wales can be slaughtered in slaughterhouses that conform to EU standards. [35627]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proportion of the slaughtering capacity that currently exists in Wales that is licensed for trade with European Union member states, is approximately 75 per cent. It would be possible for those abattoirs to accommodate the current levels of throughput at other Welsh slaughterhouses, on an annual basis.

  Panteg Monitoring Project (Rechem)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish the results of the final phase of monitoring work by the university of East Anglia on polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxin contamination in the Panteg area of Pontypool. [36074]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have today published the outcome of the final elements of monitoring work commissioned by the Welsh Office on contamination levels in the Panteg area of Pontypool. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House, together with a commentary from Professor Roberts, the Secretary of State's independent adviser for this study.

  This report—the seventh in the series of reports which have been published since the study began in January 1991—contains the results of additional poultry produce and grass sampling. It represents the conclusion of a most significant piece of environmental research, meticulously undertaken by independent experts. The results have helped considerably to resolve uncertainties and concerns over possible PCB and dioxin contamination in the vicinity of the Rechem incinerator at Pontypool.

  The main part of the study was completed and published in April 1993 and the overall findings were reassuring. No evidence of widespread contamination in the Panteg area was found. A small area with elevated concentrations was revealed close to the Rechem plant and the company identified as a source of this localised contamination. Although the levels of contamination
  1204
  detected were not considered to pose any significant risk to public health or to the food chain, some additional monitoring was recommended to clarify certain points. This work was quickly put in hand by the Welsh Office and the subsequent results have been published as they have become available.

  In addition, over the past two years or so, considerable improvements have been made on the Rechem site itself, including significant investment in new incineration and emission control plant. This should reduce emissions from the site and monitoring is taking place in order to verify this.

  The seventh report concludes the environmental investigation. This report and the earlier results have shown that, with the exception of eggs from one property neighbouring the Rechem plant, estimated human exposure to PCBs and dioxins in the Panteg area is similar to that in other areas. The additional research has also provided useful reassurance that locally produced fruit and vegetables are safe to eat. No further monitoring in the wider Panteg area is therefore proposed, a view fully endorsed by the technical steering group which has been overseeing this project, and by Professor Roberts. However, some additional monitoring in relation to the one property mentioned above is recommended and this will be followed up by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Meanwhile, earlier advice to the owners of this property not to consume produce from their poultry is being updated in the light of the latest findings.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government World Wide Web server known as www.open.gov.uk and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34688]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has made available information, in both English and Welsh languages, on private finance initiative projects within Wales via the CCTA Government Information Service. The portfolio "Investment Opportunities in the South Wales Valleys" will also be published shortly via the CCTA service.

  The Department continues to review information suitable for dissemination via the Internet and expects to make greater use of it in the near future.

  Consideration is currently being given to the Welsh Office being an Internet information site in its own right.

  Baglan Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what grounds there has been a delay in inviting tenders for contracts for financing and building the new hospital at Baglan; how much slippage is involved and when the advertisements for tenders will be ready for publication. [34353]

  Mr. Richards
  The Glan-y-Mor NHS trust is producing the outline business case for the new hospital at Baglan. They expect to submit the document within four weeks. Subject to the acceptability of the proposals,
  1205
  the trust hopes to be in a position to advertise for expressions of interest in August or September.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34690]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. It continues to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administrative and tax burdens. It also provides direct assistance where appropriate.

  The White Paper published in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  My Department works with local authorities, training and enterprise councils, the development agencies and local enterprise agencies in providing a range of services for small businesses in Wales. We have established eight business development consortia to streamline the assistance available and to make it more easily accessible through a single all-Wales telephone number. I expect that service to be fully operational within the next 6 months.

  Some of the specific measures promoted by my Department are as follows:

  ENTERPRISE PROMOTION

  In 1994–95, TECs helped 2,235 people to start their own businesses, compared with 2,200 in 1993–94. The number of counselling sessions undertaken by business start up scheme applicants/participants increased from 10,438 in 1993–94 to 13,569 last year.

  The Welsh design advisory service which was launched in December 1994 provides advice on all aspects to small businesses throughout Wales.

  GRANT SUPPORT

  The Welsh Office continues to provide grant support for small firms, having regard to the level of demand in each year. During the year ending June 1995, 122 firms employing under 200 people accepted offers of regional selective assistance totalling £11.676 million. The grants were forecast to help create or safeguard 2,501 jobs and generate £72 million private sector investment. In the previous year, 130 firms accepted offers totalling £16.876 million, forecast to create or safeguard 3,411 jobs and help generate £100 million private sector investment. Also in the year ending 30 June 1995, 74 small firms—those with fewer than 25 employees for investment grant and fewer than 50 for innovation grant—accepted offers of regional enterprise grant totalling £1.346 million. The grants were forecast to help generate £3.91 million private sector investment. In the previous year,138 firms accepted offers totalling £2 million with forecast private sector investment totalling £7.16 million.

  My Department is also continuing with an active programme under the small firms merit award for research
  1206
  and technology—SMART. In the last two years, small firms from Wales have done well, gaining 17 and 21 awards respectively—approximately 9 per cent. of the UK total. Under the support for products under research scheme—SPUR—grant support for small firms in Wales fell from £1.21 million in 1993–94 to £0.9 million in 1994–95 but utilised the full balance remaining for the initial three year programme.

  Elsewhere, the national "Managing in the 90's" best practice awareness programme, which is aimed primarily at small and medium-sized enterprises—SME's—has recently been relaunched with a new three year, £15 million package. My Department supports local activities under the programme including workshops and seminars, plus the acclaimed "Inside Welsh Industry" programme of free visits to exemplar companies. Last year seven highly successful workshops were organised in Wales on best practice themes attracting over 200 delegates. Meanwhile, visits were arranged to 10 exemplar companies involving some 120 visitors representing Welsh SMEs. Also of specific interest to Welsh SMEs are the Welsh Office technology transfer facilitation grants which encourage close collaboration between industry and academia involving new and emerging technologies. Eight grants were awarded under this programme last year.

  In addition, there have been 14 new teaching company scheme programmes started in Wales since July 1994.

  Grants to business formerly made available by the DBRW and WDA are now the responsibility of local authorities.

  DEREGULATION

  The Welsh Office is continuing to contribute actively to the Government's drive to reduce the burden of regulations on business. No Wales-only regulations have been identified as placing a burden on business.

  Sport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express general Government expenditure in Wales on sport as a proportion of the corresponding United Kingdom figure; and if he will make a statement. [35127]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1993–94 the amount of grant in aid paid to the Sports Council in Wales represented about 9 per cent. of comparable expenditure in the United Kingdom.

  Food-Related Industries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution in percentage terms(a) the fishing industry, (b) agriculture, (c) catering, (d) food and drink distribution and (e) food and drink manufacturing make to the Welsh GDP; and if he will make a statement. [34964]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1993 agriculture accounted for 2 per cent. of Welsh GDP according to estimates from the Central Statistical Office. The latest available data for food, drink and tobacco manufacturing are for 1992, when these industries accounted for 2.7 per cent. of Welsh GDP. Equivalent information for fishing catering, and food and drink distribution is not available.
  1207

  Flooding and Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on action to alleviate flooding and coastal erosion in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34972]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amounts of grants provided by the Welsh Office to the National Rivers Authority and local authorities in Wales for action to alleviate flooding and coastal erosion in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 were £3,513,326 and £1,418,632 respectively.

  CADW Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express general government expenditure in Wales on historic buildings and ancient monuments as a proportion of the corresponding United Kingdom figure; and if he will make a statement. [35128]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Provision for assistance towards the conservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings is made available via Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency. Expenditure by Cadw in the year 1993–94, including running costs, represented 8 per cent. of comparable costs in the United Kingdom.

  Film Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is spent annually promoting the film industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [34961]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Beef Special Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of the beef special premium scheme for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34992]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  £17,220,370, including extensification premium of £3,867,761.

  Management Allowances
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the estimated costs of management allowances for GP fundholders to date. [34737]

  Mr. Richards
  The estimated cost over the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95, is £8.9 million.

  Source: Family Health Services Receipts and Payments returns.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the estimated costs of the management allowances for the preparatory year for GP fundholders since their introduction. [34736]

  Mr. Richards
  The estimated cost over the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95 is around £2 million.

  Agricultural Labour Force
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the total Welsh agricultural labour force works on land with less-favoured area status; and if he will make a statement. [34971]
  1208
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the agricultural census in 1994, approximately 67 per cent. of persons engaged in work on main agricultural holdings, work on holdings with less-favoured area status—that is those with a majority of the land within their boundaries defined as less-favoured areas. This includes spouses of farmers, partners and directors.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average hygiene assessment system score for Welsh slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement. [34977]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The last set of health assessment scores for Welsh red meat slaughterhouses gave an average score of 58.

  Milk Licence Holders
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of contracted milk licence holders in Wales; what proportion of the total figure for England and Wales this represents; and if he will make a statement. [34976]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Licences for the sale of untreated milk are no longer required under the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much money has been given by his office each year since 1990 to youth organisations that promote the Welsh language; [35487]

  (2) how much of the money that has been given each year since 1990 to youth organisations that actively promote the Welsh language by the Welsh Office comes from Europe; and from what scheme it is paid. [35485]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was given by his office to voluntary organisations that teach the Welsh language to adult learners in each year since 1991–92. [35486]

  Mr. Richards
  Since 1 April 1993, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales has been able to fund voluntary organisations via sponsorship and franchise arrangements with further education institutes. The funding council does not hold information on the level of funding that voluntary organisations receive for Welsh adult provision. However, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Language board have made the following contributions to the National Language centre at Nant Gwrtheyrn since 1991–92.

  1991–92: £73,500

  1992–93: £79,000

  1993–94: £93,600

  1994–95: £105,000

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the Welsh Language board's budget is spent on administration; and if he will make a statement. [34978]
  1209
  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Language Board's running costs for 1995–96 are £1,123,000. Within that allocation central administration costs, accommodation costs and the salaries of the staff employed on central administrative duties are estimated to be £400,000, about 20 per cent. of the board's total budget for the year.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average class size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Wales and (ii) in each local education authority area in Wales. [35208]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is published in tables 3.06 and 4.13 of "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 3 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the annual report and accounts of the Coal Authority will be laid before Parliament. [36073]

  Mr. Page
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

  Lloyd's of London
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of ministerial responsibilities toward Lloyd's of London. [36071]

  Mr. Lang
  I am an underwriting member of Lloyd's for 1995, and I have instructed my underwriting agents to give immediate notice that I shall cease underwriting at the end of 1995. Until such time as my outstanding open syndicate commitments have been closed, I have instructed my officials and ministerial colleagues not to brief me on Lloyd's issues, and I shall stand aside from all decisions concerning Lloyd's. The Minister for Trade will have responsibility for Lloyd's, assisted by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department will respond to the fourth report from the Trade and Industry Select Committee of Session 1994–95, HC 356, on regional policy. [36075]

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today published a command paper setting out the Government's response to this valuable report and announcing measures to improve the delivery of RSA by the Government offices for the English regions.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory has been completed, and if he will make a statement. [36077]

  Mr. Lang
  On 22 July 1994, my predecessor informed the House of his decision that, following a prior options 1210
  review, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory should remain an executive agency of the DTI. An evaluation report on the performance of the laboratory has now been completed and a revised framework document has been prepared. Copies of these documents, which complete the agency review process, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about further inshore petroleum licensing. [36076]

  Mr. Richard Page
  I am today inviting oil and gas companies to apply for licences in all unlicensed areas of onshore Great Britain in the seventh landward petroleum licensing round. This new round will encourage exploration particularly in new areas where more field may be discovered.

  It is now three years since the last onshore licencing round and much has changed since then. Last month the Minister for Industry and Energy announced the new landward areas licensing regulations which will enable companies to obtain a single licence, the petroleum exploration and development licence covering all stages of activity. This round is the first opportunity for companies to apply under this new, more flexible regime put in place by the regulations.

  Privatisation of British Coal has also taken place since the previous onshore licensing round so ownership of unworked coal has passed to the Coal Authority, which has a duty to have regard to the desirability of exploiting coalbed methane where that is economically viable. This change will assist those companies seeking to exploit coalbed methane and I am very keen that the potential of this new source of energy should be realised.

  Holders of existing exploration, appraisal and production licences can also apply to convert their existing licences to the new petroleum exploration and development licences to take advantage of this opportunity to extend the duration of their licences. In order to obtain a new licence, the holders of these existing licences will need to provide to my Department an acceptable programme of work which they will undertake in exploring for and developing onshore fields in their licensed area.

  Application for the seventh round will need to be considered carefully, in particular the proposed work programmes, before I am able to announce licence awards.

  I will now publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a formal announcement giving the detailed terms for the seventh round, including the format of applications, the information required with the application and the basis on which awards will be made. This is the first time the Official Journal has been used to announce a licensing round and follows our implementation of the EU hydrocarbons licensing directive at the end of June. The closing date for applications will be announced in the Official Journal.

  I will place copies of this announcement in the Libraries of both Houses.
  1211

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of bill are paid on time by Government Departments and their agencies. [36070]

  Mr. Page
  Government Departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and publish the results in their departmental or annual reports. The following table lists, by Department, the proportion of bills paid within the agreed credit period, or within 30 days where no credit period has been agreed, for 1994–95.

  The Government recognise that late payment is a serious problem, particularly for small businesses. It is essential that the Government set and example of prompt settlement of bills. The Government expect all other public sector bodies to follow their lead. I do not regard my own Department's performance as satisfactory and intend to ensure that it improves.

  The full results are:

  Ministerial departments

  Per cent, invoices paid within target

  Cabinet Office

  82

  Central Statistical Office

  86

  Crown Prosecution Service

  81.4

  Ministry of Defence

  99.99

  Department of Education

  95

  Employment Department/ACAS

  96.3

  Employment Service

  98.3

  Department of the Environment

  92

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  92

  Department of Health

  91.9

  Health and Safety Executive

  90.3

  Home Office

  92

  Lord Chancellors Department

  93.5

  Department of National Heritage

  91

  Department for National Savings

  97.3

  Northern Ireland Office

  94.7

  Overseas Development Administration

  87

  Her Majesty's Paymaster General

  94.3

  The Scottish Office

  96

  Department of Social Security

  96

  Department of Trade and Industry

  84

  Department of Transport

  93.1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  82

  Welsh Office

  95

  Non-ministerial Departments

  Per cent, invoices paid within target

  Charity Commission

  91

  Forestry Commission

  82

  HM Customs and Excise

  91.8

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  99.7

  Office of Fair Trading

  92

  Friendly Societies Commission/Registry of Friendly Societies (including the Building Societies Commission)

  96

  Office of Gas Supply

  98

  Inland Revenue

  86.3

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100

  Office of the National Lottery

  50

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  93.8

  Office of HM Chief Inspector of Schools (Wales)

  94

  Serious Fraud Office

  74

  1212

  Non-ministerial Departments

  Per cent, invoices paid within target

  Office for Standards in Education

  95

  Office of Telecommunications

  91

  Office of Water Services

  1-

  1Department of Environment return

  Assistance for Exceptional Projects Scheme
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement about the future of the assistance for exceptional projects scheme of financial support for investment and research and development projects. [36072]

  Mr. Eggar
  Assistance for exceptional projects operated in all areas of Great Britain under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. The House will know that AEP has been suspended since March 1993 because of the Government's doubts about the effectiveness of the scheme. A further announcement about its continued suspension was made in March 1994. During the five years 1988–89 to 1992–93 that the scheme was open for applications, only three projects met the very exacting criteria for support out of 60 applications made. The Government continue to be satisfied that it has the necessary means to support exceptional projects and has concluded that the AEP facility should not be reintroduced.

  Military Exports (Licences)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates the details of export licences covering military list applications in(a) 1985 and (b) 1986 were destroyed; and who authorised their destruction. [35345]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  These records have not been destroyed.

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the President of the Board of Trade's oral statement on BMARC of 13 June,Official Report, column 595–97, in what month in 1986 the first intelligence report was received and which other companies, countries and subject matter were mentioned. [35346]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is not Government practice to comment on intelligence matters. The Trade and Industry Select Committee is now undertaking an inquiry into the BMARC affair. I shall consider in due course what information can be given to the Committee for the purposes of that enquiry.

  Overseas Projects Board
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the success of the Overseas Projects Board at helping small businesses to win overseas work. [34533]

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not possible to apportion to the Overseas Projects Board an amount of overseas work successfully won by small businesses. Nevertheless, I am confident that the success of the board and of the Overseas Trade Services in general has been invaluable to small businesses in winning overseas work.
  1213

  Staff
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average annual salary of staff seconded to his Department from the private sector; what are the salaries of(a) private sector staff seconded to the DTI and (b) civil servants performing similar duties; and if he will make a statement. [34529]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Staff seconded to the Department from the private sector remain the employees of their parent companies, who determine their remuneration. Civil service salaries may vary considerably as any given grade; and the provision of details of the salaries of civil servants performing similar duties to secondees could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the exporters seconded from the private sector have come from small and medium-sized enterprises. [34532]

  Mr. Evans
  Since the launch of the export promoter initiative, 120 export promoters have been seconded from the private sector to the DTI. To determine what proportion of these secondees have come from small and medium sized enterprises could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria his Department uses to determine the remuneration of staff seconded from the private sector. [34531]

  Mr. Evans
  Staff seconded to the DTI from the private sector remain the employees of their companies, who determine their remuneration.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in 1994. [34530]

  Mr. Evans
  During 1994, a total of 186 people were seconded from the private sector to the Department.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of what constitutes an appropriate level of business investment; and what are the equivalent figures for ASEAN countries. [34534]

  Mr. Nelson
  The appropriate level of investment is a matter for business, not Government, to decide. Since 1980 business investment as a share of GDP in the UK has similar to other major economies, apart from Japan. Figures for ASEAN countries are not available on a comparable basis.

  Life Companies (Distribution of Funds)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those life companies which have applied to vary the distribution of long-term funds between shareholders and policyholders, in the past year, and provide in each case, the sum involved and the agreed distribution ratio. [35347]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  On 24 February 1995, United Friendly Insurance plc announced the basis on which it proposed to allocate surplus from then on. This followed 1214
  discussions, starting in 1992, on how the rules in section 30 of the Insurance Companies Act—governing variations between the shareholders' and policyholders' share of distribution surplus—should apply to the circumstances of the company. Policyholders will be entitled to receive 90 per cent. of surplus arising on those parts of United Friendly's business in respect of which it had been determined that they were eligible to share in such surplus.

  On the same day, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary set out the Department's general approach to such issues in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), Official Report, column 362–63.

  Following that announcement, each of the companies listed below has announced that it would be approaching my Department for similar discussions:

  Britannic Assurance plc;

  Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd.;

  Refuge Assurance plc.

  Some other companies have also approached the Department on a commercially confidential basis at this stage. The outcome of all such discussions will be made public, if they appear to have a bearing on policyholders' reasonable expectations in respect of allocation of surplus.

  Southern Electric
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the profit or loss reported by the retail activities of Southern Electric in the last financial year prior to privatisation. [35348]

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1989–90 Southern Electric reported operating profits for its appliance retailing business of £1.8 million—current cost accounting—or £1.9 million—historic cost accounting.

  Brent Spar
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests have been made to Shell by his Department for reports on onshore dismantling of Brent Spar by Smit Engineering and Heeremac; and if he will make a statement. [34662]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has made no such requests. As indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on 4 July 1995,Official Report, column 154, two reports dealing with onshore disposal, one by McDermott Engineering (Europe) Ltd. the other by Heerema Engineering Services (UK) Ltd. were submitted to my Department by Shell in support of its abandonment programme.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many tests have been conducted on the radioactivity of the scale on the inside of the Brent Spar; how many samples of sludge from the Brent Spar's six tanks were analysed; and if he will give the reasons for the amount of testing; [34509]

  (2) how many samples were taken, and what analysis was conducted, on the Brent Spar and its waste water at any stage since shell indicated its wish to remove it from its former site. [24510]
  1215
  Mr. Eggar
  Independent surveys were carried out which enabled Shell to assess the contents of the Spar and to satisfy Government that deep-sea disposal is the best practicable environmental option.

  Oil Installations (Dumping at Sea)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department has carried out into the cumulative effect of dumping 50 to 60 oil installations at sea. [34661]

  Mr. Eggar
  Such matters will be addressed in considering any particular case.

  Liquefaction Plant, Point of Ayr
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the future use of the liquefaction plant site at Point of Ayr, Clwyd; and if he intends to initiate further discussions on the site and its future; [34879]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to prevent demolition of the liquefaction plant site at Point of Ayr, Clwyd; and if he will list the representations he has received on this subject to date; [34880]

  (3) what has been the total investment to date (a) by his Department and (b) by British Coal in the liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr, Clwyd. [34878]

  Mr. Page
  The future of the liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr is a matter for British Coal. The coal liquefaction R and D project has successfully completed the demonstration of technology to produce high grade petrol and diesel fuels from a wide range of coals. British Coal has explored in some considerable detail the options for alternative uses of the site now that this R and D project has been completed, but unfortunately these have proved not be commercially viable. My Department has received no representations on this subject.

  My Department, along with the industrial participants in the project, has been consulted on all the assessments on the future use of the site by British Coal. The Department has no plans to initiate any further discussions on the future of the site. However, I understand that Delyn borough council has recently expressed an interest to British Coal in developing the site offices, laboratories and workshops.

  The total investment in the Point of Ayr coal liquefaction project by the participants is as follows:

  £ million

  Department of Trade and Industry

  5.413

  British Coal Corporation

  20.602

  European Commission (DGXVII)

  14.354

  Industry and other contributions

  3.947

  Total cost

  44.316

  Note:

  Theses figures are the projected outturn cost of the project.
  1216

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those companies or organisations which have expressed an interest in purchasing the National Engineering Laboratory. [34567]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 January 1995,Official Report, column 225.

  Legislative Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35314]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government's plans for legislation will be announce in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of(a) the margin and (b) the premium payable by firms on funds obtained under the Government's loan guarantee scheme for small firms. [34504]

  Mr. Page
  The margin over base is a commercial matter between the lender and the borrower. However, for variable rate lending most lenders are generally charging 2 to 2.5 per cent. over base.

  The premium payable to the government is 1.5 per cent. a year of the outstanding balance for variable rate loans and 0.5 per cent. a year for loans at a fixed rate of interest. Borrowers who trade in the inner city task force and city challenge areas pay 0.5 per cent. a year for both fixed and variable rate lending

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of loans given to Welsh firms under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34938]

  Mr. Page
  A total of 310 loans valued at £11 million were given to Welsh firms in 1994–95.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment in each year since 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [35009]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial years from 1992–93 to 1994–95, the number of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment projects are as follows:

  Year

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  1992–93

  17,822

  43,825

  1993–94

  30,536

  69,754

  1994–95

  36,876

  51,113

  1217
  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of inward investment into(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales comes from the USA; and if he will make a statement. [34957]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial year 1994–95, there were 434 inward investment decisions to locate in the UK, of which 212–48.8 per cent.—were from the USA with Wales's share of USA projects being 25–11.7 per cent. These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of total inward investment into the United Kingdom went to Wales in each year since 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [34948]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial years 1992–93 to 1994–95 the proportion of inward investment decisions that went to Wales are as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Per cent, of UK total

  1992–93

  66

  19.8

  1993–94

  64

  14.8

  1994–95

  50

  11.5

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total number of jobs created or safeguarded in the United Kingdom as a result of inward investment were created or safeguarded in(a) Wales, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) England in each year since 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [34949]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial years 1992–93 to 1994–95 the proportion of the total number of jobs created or safeguarded in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are as follows:

  1992–93

  Number of jobs

  Percentage of overall total

  Wales

  7,321

  11.8

  Northern Ireland

  6,099

  9.8

  Scotland

  8,695

  14.1

  England

  39,532

  64.1

  Total

  61,647

  1993–94

  Wales

  6,564

  6.5

  Northern Ireland

  3,631

  3.6

  1218

  1992–93

  Number of jobs

  Percentage of overall total

  Scotland

  12,274

  12.2

  England

  77,821

  77.5

  Total

  100,290

  1994–95

  Wales

  5,003

  5.6

  Northern Ireland

  5,146

  5.8

  Scotland

  10,795

  12.2

  England

  66,715

  75.8

  Total

  88,009

  These figures are based on the number of projects notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of the decision to invest. Companies are under no obligation to notify their investment decisions and the figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment in each of the last three years were in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [35025]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial years 1992–93 to 1994–95 the proportion of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment in Wales are as follows:

  Year

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs

  1992–93

  2,382

  4,939

  7,321 (11.8 percent, of UK total)

  1993–94

  3,913

  2,651

  6,564 (6.5 per cent, of UK total)

  1994–95

  2,989

  2,014

  5,003 (5.6 per cent, of UK total)

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken in each of the years since 1992–93, to help the creation and survival of small businesses. [34756]

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual report "Small firms in Britain," produced by this Department, contains the information requested. A copy of the 1994 report is in the Library of the House. The 1995 report will be published shortly and a copy will be sent to all Members of Parliament.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34693]

  Mr. Page
  "Helping Smaller Firms," published as a companion document to the new White Paper "Competitiveness—Forging Ahead" sets out in detail the progress that has been made since the publication of the
  1219
  1994 competitiveness White Paper in helping small businesses. It also annouces a new package of support, aimed largely at smaller firms, and amounting to over £200 million over 4 years.

  The DTI report "Small Firm in Britain 1995" due to be published shortly sets out current Government policy for small businesses and includes key statistical indicators. It will be distributed to all Members, as was the 1994 small firms report."

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33569]

  Mr. Lang
  The answer is as follows:

  Number of consultancy contracts let centrally by the Department of Trade and Industry, 1990–94, plus value (including amendments)

  Year

  Number

  Value £

  1990

  517

  27,620,000

  1991

  597

  38,491,000

  1992

  543

  36,612,000

  1993

  402

  29,369,000

  1994

  184

  8,901,000

  The above figures exclude consultancy contracts let independently by the Department's executive agencies.

  Gas Regulation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards will be put in place in respect of review and appeal procedures with regard to decisions made by the Director General of Ofgas in the granting of licences and operating mechanisms following enactment of the Gas Bill. [30074]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Gas Supply has followed an open, pro-competitive and consultative approach in reaching regulatory decisions. In the light of her policy on this, and of the safeguards already in the Bill, we would not envisage a need for further statutory procedures to be imposed.

  However, we are considering whether it is appropriate for the Bill to provide for an explicit reserve power which would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe procedures for consultation before taking decisions and the giving of reasons in writing afterwards, should the situation change.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to dispose of leasehold and freehold obligations and interests in the central London area. [34375]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The DTI plans to pass back to Property Holdings the leasehold obligations for Ashdown house, 123 Victoria street, London SW1E 6RB and for 1 Palace street, London SW1E 5HE.
  1220
  DTI's Radiocommunications Agency is relocating from Waterloo Bridge house, Waterloo road, London SE 1 8UA, to South quay III, 189 Marsh wall, London E14 9SX. If another use cannot he found for Waterloo Bridge house, the lease will be surrendered to the landlord.

  This reply does not take account of the recent machinery of Government changes.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which properties in central London his Department will vacate and which they will continue to occupy on the completion of 1 to 19 Victoria street. [34374]

  Mr. Evans
  The central London buildings which will be vacated by the Department of Trade and Industry after the re-occupation of 1 Victoria street is complete are:

  Ashdown house,. 123 Victoria street, London SW1E 6RB

  1 Palace street, London SW1E 5HE

  The Department will then continue to occupy, in central London:

  Bridge place, 88–89 Eccleston square, London SW 1 V 1PT

  151 Buckingham Palace road, London SW1W 9SS

  Kingsgate house, 66–74 Victoria street, London SW 1E 6SW

  1 Victoria street, London SW1H OET

  10–18 Victoria street, London SW1H ONN

  There are a number of central London buildings occupied by the Department's executive agencies which are not affected by the re-occupation of 1 Victoria street. These are:—

  Insolvency Service

  21 Bloomsbury street, London WC1B 3QW

  Patent Office

  25 Southampton buildings, London WC2A 1AY

  Hazlitt house, 45 Southampton buildings, London WC2A 1AR

  Radiocommuications Agency

  Waterloo Bridge house, Waterloo road, London SE1 8UA

  This reply does not take into account any consequences which might result from the recent machinery of Government changes.

  Late Filing Penalties
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been recovered under section 242a of the Companies Act 1985 in penalties and how much has been claimed in penalties and is still outstanding; how many claims for payment of a civil penalty under section 242a have ben made; and in how many cases the Registrar of Companies has exercised his discretion under subsection (3) of section 242a. [35230]

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

  Letter from David Durham to Mrs. Joan Ruddock, dated 18 July 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question about late filing penalties

  1221
  The late filing penalty system was introduced on 1 July 1992 and details of the information you requested are set out in the table below.

  Penalties recovered £ million

  Penalties claimed £ million

  Penalties outstanding £ million

  Penalties claimed (Number)

  Penalties waived (Number)

  July 1992–June 1995

  42.2

  55.9

  9.1

  259,878

  8,853

  I hope this is helpful.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new initiatives he is planning to make funds available for the expansion of manufacturing industry. [35069]

  Mr. Eggar
  The second competitiveness White Paper "Forging Ahead", published on 22 May 1995, set out a range of policies designed to help UK manufacturing industry, and other parts of UK industry and commerce, improve their performance and compete in world markets. It announced a package of new support for industry worth around £240 million over four years.

  Radiation (Effects on Humans)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what experiments have been conducted on civilians in Wales without their knowledge by the Medical Research Council to assess the effects of radiation on humans. [35156]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Since at least 1963, it has been the Medical Research Council's established practice to obtain consent from volunteers, patients or otherwise, and to explain the procedures, in relation to all studies which are not specifically geared to contributing to the benefit of the patient. This includes studies assessing the effects of radiation on humans. The MRC has issued its own statement.

  Nuclear Power (Privatisation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his best assessment of the net present value of the seven advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear plants which are earmarked for privatisation; [35172]

  (2) what is his best estimate of the net present value of the Sizewell B nuclear plant; [35171]

  (3) what assumptions are built into his assessment of the net present value of the nuclear plants earmarked for privatisation in regard to (a) reactor lifetimes, (b) average annual load factors, (c) future annual savings in operating costs, (d) future electricity prices, (e) the discount rate for operational cash streams and (f) the discount rates for liability cash streams. [35169]

  Mr. Eggar
  These figures are not available. The prospectus and listing particulars, which it is intended will be issued in advance of the flotation of the company that will own the UK's AGR and PWR power stations, will contain the information needed by potential investors to form a judgement about the value of the business.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the 6 per cent. discount rate in the evaluation of the 1222
  back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle activities by the consultants KPMG in its report prepared for the nuclear review for his Department, at paragraph 3.4.3. [35165]

  Mr. Eggar
  The 6 per cent. pre-tax is the rate specified by HM Treasury as an appropriate rate to be used for evaluating investment projects for organisations not operating in commercial markets. KPMG considered this at length and concluded that 6 per cent. was an appropriate rate in the medium-term for the purposes of this study.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to prevent imports from countries where child labour is employed. [34272]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are fully committed to international action to stop the exploitation of child labour, but do not believe that preventing imports from countries where it occurs is the answer. The best way of tackling the problem is by raising living standards in developing countries. Restricting imports would be counter-productive, as it would deprive such countries of the income from trade.

  Civil Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish the 1995 compilation of civil plutonium production and storage figures, and if he will place a copy in the Library. [35158]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested was published on 13 July and copies of the press release have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Iran and Iraq (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiry he has conducted into whether any United Kingdom bank contravened mandatory UN resolutions by facilitating the export of arms to Iran or Iraq during the period covered by the Scott inquiry(a) for profit or (b) for any other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [34321]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: There are no mandatory UN resolutions covering the export of arms to Iran and Iraq during the period covered by the Scott inquiry. If the hon. Member has any information concerning a possible breach of export controls, he should inform my Department.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months, how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34617]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: One case of unfair dismissal against DTI was concluded in the last 12 months. The case was unsuccessful. Total costs amounted to £5,251.17.
  1223

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff employed in the former Department of Employment as a result of that Department's abolition,(a) will be made redundant, (b) will take early retirement, (c) will be employed on a temporary contract instead of a permanent contract and (d) will be employed on a part-time basis instead of a full-time basis, and if he will make a statement. [34659]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The detailed arrangements for the transfer of staff from the former Employment Department to the DTI are under discussion. It is not currently expected that the employment status of the staff concerned will change as a result of the transfer. All DTI posts are subject to regular review in the annual MINIS process.

  Minewater Discharges
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those research projects into the effect of the discharge of minewater which are currently supported by the Natural Environment Research Council; and how much funding the council provides for each project. [33556]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The Plymouth Marine Laboratory—an institute of the Natural Environment Research Council—as apart of its longer-term studies of the Cornish rivers and estuaries is studying metal contamination of estuarine and coastal environments, much of which derives from past local mining activity in south-west England.

  No systematic assessment of the environmental impact of coalfield abandonment has been commissioned from the NERC.

  Business Links
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements his Department has considered to respond to the financial collapse of an individual business link. [33277]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The DTI has not considered arrangements to respond to the financial collapse of an individual business link because the Department is not aware of any instances where a business link is facing or is likely to face this situation.

  Nevertheless I would expect the board of any business link facing or likely to face financial difficulties to consider all the options for continuing to provide business support in its locality, including a reduction in overheads and the potential for increasing income.

  My officials would be ready to assist in any such examination.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration led him to diverge from his policy of not divulging details of export licences granted or applications for export licences in his answer to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), of 2 March,Official Report, column 716, on the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia. [35146]
  1224
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: An exception was made in this case because the Government were satisfied that it was in the public interest to make a statement. The exporter had also made an announcement to the Stock Exchange about this particular contract.

  Privatisation (Advisers)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those companies providing advice on the privatisation of(a) the coal industry, (b) the electricity industry and (c) the gas industry and the total amounts paid to the date for the advice in each industry. [34643]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The answers are as follows:

  (a) Coal

  The advisers to the Department of Trade and Industry and the former Department of Energy on coal privatisation were listed in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ms Walley) on 21 July 1994, Official Report, columns 522–23.

  Total net expenditure on coal privatisation advisers in 1991–1992 to 1993–1994 was £15.8 million. Provisional outturn in 1994–95 was £16.7 million and £4.3 million has been provided for 1995–96.

  (b) Electricity

  The advisers to the former Department of Energy on privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales were listed to a question in reply from the hon. member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 23 January 1992, Official Report, columns 281–84.

  Total net expenditure on electricity privatisation advisers to the former Department of Energy was £51.5 million.

  (c) Gas

  The advisers to the former Department of Energy on gas privatisation were:

  N.M. Rothschild

  Cazenove

  Slaughter and May

  Touche Ross

  Price Waterhouse

  Engage Resource Consultants

  The following bodies advised both the former Department of Energy and British Gas:

  Goldman Sachs

  Wood Gundy

  Swiss Bank Corporation

  Nomura

  Dewe Rogerson

  Young and Rubicam

  Total net expenditure for gas privatisation advisers was given in a reply to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 8 December 1993, Official Report, column 231

  Digital Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy that additional regulation is needed to ensure fair access to conditional access services. [31915]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  At present, conditional access services for subscription or pay television are provided by cable TV operators and by the satellite operator, BSkyB. The activities of these companies in respect of conditional access services are subject to general competition law, as well as conditions contained in the relevant licences issued under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The
  1225
  Government consider this sufficient to deal with any anti-competitive behaviour which might arise.

  The introduction of digital television services will mean a greater role for conditional access services and associated subscriber management systems. The Government are keen to encourage the substantial investment needed to establish digital services in the United Kingdom, and to provide consumers with wider choice of programming.

  The Government therefore welcome the agreement reached last week among EC member states on a draft directive on advanced television services. This will allow important technical standards to be established, paving the way for digital services. The directive also contains reference to the regulation of conditional access services, as a result of an amendment proposed by the European Parliament. The Government have secured agreement from all other member states and the Commission to interpretative declarations, making clear that this will provide an appropriate level of regulation for conditional access services—but not transmission networks—without leading to an unwelcome open access requirement, which would deter investment and delay the launch of innovative new services. Definitive versions of these declarations will shortly be released by the Council secretariat, and a copy will then be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what the Government are doing to encourage the development of a common digital platform; [31912]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) whether conditional access systems will remain proprietary and (b) when a common digital platform will be developed; [31913]

  (3) what steps the Government have taken to encourage the major media organisations in the United Kingdom to develop a common digital set-top box as opposed to proprietary systems. [31955]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am replying to these questions because of my responsibility for policy on broadcasting technology.
  1226
  The United Kingdom Government have played an active role in bringing into being the European digital video broadcasting project—DVB—a body which now comprises about 150 organisations, including major media organisations in the UK. The DVB has been developing specifications for the transmission and reception of digital television signals, and, as a result, European standards for satellite, cable and terrestrial digital television, based on DVB specifications, have been agreed or are in prospect. The DVB has been successful in ensuring a high degree of commonality in these standards, which will greatly ease the development of set-top boxes designed to receive signals over more than one transmission medium.

  The Government have also supported the adoption of a directive on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals. This stipulates that digital television services in the EU use a transmission system which has been standardised. The Government's earlier concerns that European Parliament amendments to this directive would deter investment in digital services have now been met by declarations to be adopted by the Council and Commission.

  The directive also follows DVB recommendations on the provision of a common descrambling system in set-top boxes which have conditional access facilities. The DVB recognised that the most practicable way of countering the threat to pay-TV braodcasters' revenues from "piracy" was by using proprietary conditional access systems and have developed a "common interface" which, if fitted to a set-top box, would enable the use to "plug in" additional conditional access systems.

  In general, the Government look to private investment to develop future digital conditional access or subscription television systems as part of the more general move by the broadcasting industry to introduce digital television services. Such systems are likely to include a proprietary element.

  The Government's policy is to avoid impediments to private sector investment in digital television, whether terrestrial or satellite transmission. The advantages to UK-based industry and to the consumer of an early move to digital television are considerable.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Pollution Levels
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the high pollution readings in Manchester and elsewhere, and what steps they intend to take to reduce these figures.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, improving air quality across the whole country is one of the Government's environmental priorities. Proposals for a national programme are contained in the Environment Bill. These implement the proposals the Government published earlier this year in Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge. Although some short-term peaks in pollution levels have been observed in Manchester, air quality there is comparable to other major cities in the United Kingdom.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed Answer, and naturally welcome the new legislation. However, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that under Sir Robert Thomas, who led the council in the 1960s, Manchester became the first smoke free city of the major cities in this country, but it is now threatened by far more menacing pollution created by the monster called the motor car? Can the Minister give us an undertaking that if the working party that has been set up in Manchester to deal with this problem produces recommendations that cost money the Government will look at this matter sympathetically, as they have done in the case of the City of Westminster, bearing in mind that that will save money in terms of health resources? Manchester and other major cities are being seriously threatened by this pollution and time is not on their side. The Government must assist these cities and enable them to deal with this problem.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course we will look at any such proposals sympathetically. Manchester is a great city and deserves to have better air quality than it has. However, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot make promises about expenditure any more than his own Front Bench can.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I turn from the City of Manchester to the City of Westminster. Is the noble Lord aware that Westminster City Council notifies interested parties weekly of pollution levels, but what it fails to state is what is being done about them? In addition to information about where pollution levels might lie at any time of day, could we not also be told in such communications, which may or may not lie within the control of government, what action is being taken when pollution levels are too high?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, pollution problems of this sort are essentially local in nature and usually depend on the weather. It is therefore best, I believe, for local councils to be in charge of making sure that local people have the information they need. When we have episodes of severe pollution we help councils with advice on what they should advise people to do, in terms mostly of using motor vehicles less because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, they are the primary cause of the great peaks in pollution which occur at times of calm weather in the winter. So far as information is concerned, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that there is a nationwide hotline available on pollution which is widely used. There is even now a page on the world wide web.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as with traffic congestion, it is always someone else's car or truck that is causing the pollution and never one's own? However, the more serious point is that our economy is now so transport dependent because it is a sophisticated and developed economy that, while there are dangers in atmospheric pollution, we might create even greater dangers if we rushed, without proper consideration, to stop it. Does my noble friend agree with that point?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government believe that a sustained programme of improvement towards the achievement of long-term goals is the right way to control atmospheric air pollution. We are doing a great deal in this country and across Europe to reduce the pollution from motor vehicles over the long term, and the denationalisation of the railways should also play its part.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I was glad to hear the comment about the denationalisation of railways. Is the noble Lord aware that services have been seriously disrupted by the uncertainties arising from this ridiculous piece of legislation? Is he aware that trains getting into King's Cross from the North yesterday were on average three hours late, and that on the eve of a national strike? Does he agree therefore that to get more traffic onto the railways should be a top priority in order to relieve the pollution arising from the use of the motor car? Can he look again at the privatisation proposals and their effect on that public transport system?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in almost everything he said. It is important that we use railways more. The way to achieve that is to make railways such that they provide what people want. As we have demonstrated many times in other industries, the best way to do that is through privatisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we agree with the Government's view that the main problem in pollution in Manchester and other cities is the motor car? Is the noble Lord further aware that encouragement of the car economy has been a matter of government policy for the past 16 years, and indeed was proclaimed by the previous Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher as she then was, as being the liberation

107
of the individual? Will he therefore tell us whether government policy is now reversed on this matter and in what sense?
Lord Lucas: No my Lords, it is not reversed at all. Of course we are concerned to provide people with the transport that they want. Most people want to travel by car. Most human activities have consequences and side effects which are undesirable. We intend to minimise them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how the air quality measures that the Government are passing, which are shortly to receive Royal Assent, will deal with the alleged continuation of that policy for the car economy? There is a clear difference.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as concerns transport, the policies are clearly directed towards making individual vehicles cleaner and more efficient than they are now so that they pollute less, and to providing alternative forms of transport and social urban structures such that people need to use cars less than they do at the moment. The choice whether to use cars in particular circumstances is and will remain an individual choice unrestricted by government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the need to encourage use of the railways and diminish that of motor cars a strong argument in favour of restoring the motorail services?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are drifting a little way from Manchester.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place complain so vehemently about use of the motor car, can the Minister say whether the Government are considering ending the mileage allowance for Members of another place and of your Lordships' House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would not dare say any such thing.

Avebury World Heritage Site
2.46 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to remove the metalled surface which has been laid on the Ridgeway within the Avebury World Heritage Site, and to ensure that all motor vehicles except agricultural ones are banned from the Ridgeway west of the Thames.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government may only intervene on these matters at the request of the Countryside Commission. The Ridgeway is a local highway and direct responsibility lies with the relevant local highway and traffic authorities. We would nevertheless expect them to take due account of the designation of Avebury as a world heritage site in exercising their responsibilities.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Ridgeway is the most spectacular of the neolithic roads left in England and that for 5,000 years people have been walking along it? Is he aware that it is now being churned up by vehicles designed specifically to be able to be driven off the roads? Does he share the opinion of his opposite number in the other place who said yesterday that the Government were aware of the groundswell of opinion that legislation in this matter was inadequate and that we need to put it right?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think that he went quite that far. He said that we are aware that public opinion is in the process of changing on this matter and that we are very conscious of the need to keep in touch with the way people feel about it. This is very much a matter of dispute between one type of user of these highways and other types of user. These are matters which to our mind are best dealt with locally by local consultation and local decision except where damage is occurring. In that event, local authorities have the powers to deal with the matter and to prohibit vehicular traffic if that is appropriate.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Countryside Commission has in the past commissioned professional reports to predict the environmental and heritage impact of such works; for example, the admirable collaboration with English Heritage in respect of Hadrian's Wall? Can he explain why the Countryside Commission failed to do so in this case? Will his department be so good as to encourage the Countryside Commission to commission such reports in future before undertaking works in such highly sensitive areas as the Avebury World Heritage Site?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to be fair, it was not the Countryside Commission's fault. Wiltshire County Council undertook the works without consulting the commission. I do not believe that it will do that again.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider his statement that this is a local matter? The Ridgeway is a trailer for the whole of the country. You might as well say that Stonehenge is only a pile of old stones as say that the Ridgeway is no more than a local road.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Ridgeway is many things, but it is also a local road.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the Ridgeway is far more than a local bridleway? It is a major national asset. As there are thousands of acres of tarmac and concrete reserved for motor vehicles, do the Government really feel that it is appropriate for a small number of people who want to use the Ridgeway, not to transport themselves but for fun, to largely destroy significant parts of the Ridgeway?
Is the Minister aware that under Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the Government have reserve powers to declare traffic regulation orders for such long distance routes as the Ridgeway? Will he urgently consider the matter again? I know from my time several years ago on the Countryside Commission

109
that there is a tremendous feeling among all those concerned with rural England that such activity must be stopped.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, as recently as 1992 there was a public inquiry on the subject of traffic management on the Ridgeway. It concluded that no additional measures were justified. The Countryside Commission has not approached us to say that it wishes us to review that position. Until that happens, and certainly in view of the fact that the inquiry was so recent, we believe that the matter is essentially a local one.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, before asking my question, I must declare an interest in that I own and manage race horses working alongside the Ridgeway. Will the Minister confirm that there is a code of conduct for use of the Ridgeway? Is that code enforced in the winter months?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a voluntary code of conduct and cannot therefore be enforced. However, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, most of the damage to green lanes and similar tracks occurs from farm vehicles. If we can persuade farmers to do better than at present, most of the problems should disappear. There are local areas where recreational vehicles cause a problem. In general, county councils have dealt with those matters expeditiously.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, a study of the Countryside Commission, which I believe took place some eight years ago, discovered that the average tourist moves less than half a mile from his car. Does that study still carry weight? If so, is the answer to the Avebury Ring to move car parks further away?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord did not reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the powers that Government have. Do the Government have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the restrictions which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, implies? If the answer is yes, it stops being a local matter and becomes a government matter.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I believe that the noble Lord is right. However, as I said in my initial Answer, it depends on the Country Commission requesting us to intervene. We had exactly this situation at the end of the public inquiry in 1992. The inspector recommended that there should be no additional restrictions, against the background of the Government having proposed that there should be. The Government accepted the inspector's recommendations. We cannot continue reviewing matters every three years.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I walked the Ridgeway some four years ago when it was in very good condition? It stands to reason that the damage to the Ridgeway is extremely recent. Therefore, the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, are real and should be urgently addressed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is damage to localised parts of the Ridgeway. However, most of the Ridgeway is in good condition to this day.

Piracy: International Measures
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in international co-operation designed to reduce piracy in the seas of South-East Asia and the Far East.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is the competent international body that considers maritime safety. At a meeting at the IMO in May, the Indonesian delegation announced further measures in tackling the problem of attacks on shipping in their waters, including an increase in sea patrols, made jointly with Singapore police. IMO officials have also raised the problems with the Chinese authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. It is my impression that the situation has improved since the last occasion on which I raised the subject in the House. May I ask whether British authorities have considered two disquieting incidents this year, when ships with valuable cargoes were hijacked while on lawful voyages by the crews of Chinese patrol boats, apparently acting as privateers? As the pretext of prevention of smuggling was palpably bogus, were not those Chinese sailors guilty of piracy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, under the Law of the Sea Convention, acts of piracy committed by a government ship whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship are, in the words of the convention,
"assimilated to acts committed by a private ship".
We are not aware that this happened in the case that my noble friend cites. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there are occasions when boats are stopped by persons who look like officials, indeed may be officials, their cargoes snaffled, the boats held in some far off port, and no one hears any more about it. That is a problem on which the IMO is working very hard at present.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is any strict action being taken by those countries concerning unofficial ships pretending to be members of those countries? Will there be a conference, perhaps headed by our nation, the nations which the noble Baroness mentioned, the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America, to bring about a forceful end to this cruel piracy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not know whether there is need for a further conference. In 1993 the United Kingdom took part in an IMO experts group with Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. They visited South-East Asia. The United Kingdom was one of the main players behind the IMO resolution on

111
piracy which followed. The joint patrols which now take place are a result of that initiative. If there is need for further action, we shall certainly take it. We continue to support the co-ordination of international action against piracy.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, serious as the threat of piracy undoubtedly is, is there not an even greater risk to peace from conflicting claims to the Spratly Islands and their oil and fishery resources? Will the Government take steps to refer those conflicts and disputes to the International Court of Justice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the issue of the Spratly Islands is a long way from piracy and the International Maritime Organisation. However, it is important that we understand that islands in dispute, whether in the China Sea or anywhere else in the world, should go to international bodies to have those disputes resolved peaceably. That is an approach that we have always supported.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we support the fact that the International Maritime Organisation is the appropriate organisation to deal with these issues. However, can the Minister indicate how many British ships during the past 12 months have been subjected to piracy of this kind?
Is the noble Baroness also aware that the union dealing with officers, NUMAST, has been making representations to the Government over many years for effective action to be taken? Do any of the nations involved in carrying cargoes in that area permit their seafarers to carry arms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly the IMO and the International Maritime Bureau's regional piracy centre in Kuala Lumpur report that attacks against shipping worldwide decreased in 1994 from a peak in 1992. The IMB has suggested that within those figures incidents both in South-East Asia and off the coast of Brazil have increased. Therefore we are seeking all ways of achieving the effective action which NUMAST requests. Certainly there is no sense in which we are prepared to let the matter slip. At the IMO meeting in May, it was agreed that the IMO should produce summary lists of attacks on a monthly basis rather than quarterly, and that those should be followed up promptly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the final part of my question. Is she aware that any of the advanced maritime nations permit their seafarers to be armed in order to resist acts of piracy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not aware which nations permit their seafarers to be armed and which do not. However, it is well known that a number of nations probably do not permit their seafarers to carry arms, but whose seafarers do.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for those who live in Asia or who sail in Asian waters, the term "Far East" is regarded as derogatory? Indeed, from their point of view we live in the Far West.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that I have said on each occasion "South-East Asia". In no way do I intend to be derogatory; I only wish demographically to be a little more correct than I might otherwise be.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, while recognising that the Question refers specifically to the East, has there not been a disturbing increase in incidents of piracy in Somalia and around the Horn of Africa recently? As the noble Baroness mentioned Brazil, could we learn something from the action taken by the Government of Brazil as a result of representations made by international shipping bodies? The government have set up a security committee which over the past few months has had marked success in reducing incidents of piracy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right. Where the acts of piracy have taken place, either on the high seas or in or just off the port of a country, as in Brazil, at the time that happened it reflected the generally poor security in nearby areas. However, when security overall in a country has improved, we see an improvement, as in the security in Brazil which the noble Lord mentioned.

Nigeria
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet received a copy of the final report of the national constitutional conference in Nigeria, and what is their reaction to its contents.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a copy of the final report of the national constitutional conference and draft constitution was received by the British High Commission in Abuja on 14th July and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Its contents are a matter for the Nigerian people. However, I regret that the Nigerian authorities have yet to respond positively and rapidly with a credible timetable for a transition to civilian democratic rule.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that far-ranging reply. What measures might be implemented, should the Nigerian authorities not adhere more closely to the Harare principles? Would there be a Commonwealth consensus? What is the reaction to today's reports of possible retaliatory measures against UK subsidiary companies—I understand Shell and BP have been targeted—for perceived government meddling in Nigeria's internal affairs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as both the former Foreign Secretary and I have made clear on many occasions, the Harare principles adopted at the 1991 Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference on respect for human rights and for democratic rule are principles which are still good and to which all members of the Commonwealth seek to aspire.
What the Commonwealth will do at the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland I cannot foretell. However, we have made it absolutely clear that we share

113
the widespread concern across the Commonwealth about continued military governments, wherever they occur. If the principles of the Harare Declaration are not put into practice, it is difficult to see how any single country could play a full role in the Commonwealth until it puts its house in order.
As regards the oil companies, I understand that the Nigerian oil minister summoned local representatives of BP and Shell to inform them of the Nigerian Government's displeasure about Her Majesty's Government's recent statements on the political situation in Nigeria. The oil companies have informed us about it and the contacts took place last week. I am not quite sure why the Nigerian authorities chose to communicate their concerns through private companies. Political and diplomatic channels would have been more appropriate. However, many of the matters about which they complained were comments in the press which were quite a variation on what had actually been said.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I accept that this is a matter for the Nigerian people. However, how can opponents of the regime express their view when they are arrested by a corrupt regime, imprisoned on false evidence and there is no voice for the opposition? Is it not a matter for the Commonwealth to discuss at its forthcoming meeting? Perhaps the British Government may consider suggesting to the meeting that the head of the military regime, who has shown himself to be a complete tyrant, should be excluded from the next meeting.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Nigeria. He is absolutely right that people who are denied a voice in the political scene are bound to have a real problem. I suppose that the announcement on 27th June that the formation of political parties is now legal is a step forward. However, we were all dismayed to find that any further announcement on a political future for Nigeria has been postponed until 1st October.
We agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter for the Commonwealth. I am quite certain from the representations which have been made, both to us on a bilateral basis and to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, that the matter will be discussed at Auckland. I sincerely hope that there will be progress before then and also that the rumours that have been reaching us about what might happen to the 40 people found guilty by a military tribunal will be found to be without foundation. If those now detained were to be subject to summary justice or capital sentences, it would be incomprehensible and totally without justification. I am sure that the Commonwealth would then respond in the only way it can. At present, our efforts are to ensure that no one is summarily executed and that civilian democratic rule is restored in Nigeria.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what assistance, such as help in preparing an electoral register, might be forthcoming if the Nigerians work out an election timetable?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have received no request for help in drawing up an electoral register. If there were such a request we would be prepared to look at ways in which we might help, once a credible process of transition was engaged in. We have helped other nations and are fully prepared to help Nigeria. But the country must go down the path of restoring civilian democratic rule.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, following the answer given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has her attention been drawn to the report in the Daily Telegraph today? It indicates that General Shehu Yar'Adua and 13 other officers have been sentenced to death and that General Obasanjo and 10 other civilians and military men have been gaoled for life. Can the Minister give the House any information about that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have indeed read the reports in the press today. I can only say that we know no more than is contained in the reports. We have had no collateral on the matter. It is well known that there is widespread concern throughout the Commonwealth, the European Union and across the world because there is no way in which a country as big and important as Nigeria has been, with a population of well over 100 million, can continue in this way. The people of Nigeria are suffering. The reputation of Nigeria—indeed, of Africa—is suffering. The sooner that is understood by the military regime in Abuja, the sooner the country can set matters going in the right direction.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.15 p.m., my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Barings. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Government's response to the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "disability" and "disabled person"]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Provisions Supplementing Section 1]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 47, line 15, at end insert (", HIV disease").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is rather a surprise. I was concerned that we might not arrive at my amendment before supper time, so I am quite pleased.
This amendment is almost self-explanatory. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in Committee. Sufferers from HIV disease are the most

115
discriminated against among those who have any adverse medical condition. The inclusion of this term in the list of progressive conditions in the schedule would signal to employers that the Government are not prepared to tolerate the unreasonable and often very ill-informed attitude that people have towards sufferers.
I should also like to take up various points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in Committee. He was concerned that, were this amendment relating to HIV disease to be accepted, people could, and would, put forward a case for almost every other disease to be included. I point out to him that no other amendment relating to any other type of condition has been put forward. This is the only one where such a condition has been specified, either in Committee or on Report. That is evidence that the situation is quite unique and that the condition should be included in the schedule.
Accepting this amendment now would be in line with the declaration that the Government signed at the December 1994 paris AIDS Summit. I wonder, also, how they chose the three conditions that they did choose without considering HIV. It is very serious and very important; it should be considered. This addition to the Bill would be a recognition of the true medical situation in relation to this progressive condition. It would do a great deal to offset some of the almost hysterical, and very often inaccurate, reporting on this illness, so distressing to sufferers and to relatives and others who dearly love them and who have to suffer alongside them what is almost invariably—some people say entirely invariably—a terminal condition. It is not always terminal because people die of other related illnesses before AIDS itself. This matter should not be taken lightly. I hope that the noble Lord realises how seriously the House feels. This is an issue of great importance. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I personally, wearing my medical hat, strongly support this amendment. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to agree to it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, to which my name is attached. I hope very much that it will be acceptable to the Minister, especially as it excludes what the noble Lord described in Committee on 13th June as a latent condition with no symptoms as yet. That is what I believe caused him the most concern on the last occasion. The noble Baroness's new wording solves that difficulty. Also, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the amendment is in the spirit of the commitment made by the Government at the Paris AIDS Summit on 1st December 1994, at which all signatories solemnly declared,
"our determination to ensure that all persons living with HIV/AIDS are able to realize the full and equal enjoyment of their fundamental rights and freedoms",
as well as,
"our determination to fight against poverty, stigmatization and discrimination"—
the last being particularly the subject of this Bill. All signatories also undertook in their national policies to,
"protect and promote the rights of individuals, in particular those living with or most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, through the legal and social environment".
116
Those are the undertakings that the Government accepted. They may not like the style of that type of continental declaration, but that is what they put their name to, in the person of Mrs. Bottomley.
There is also an important domestic point. I did not realise that this would be the first amendment discussed, the previous batch of amendments not being moved. Therefore I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Baroness's opening remarks. She may have made this point. If the Government want to police this Bill merely through an advisory council rather than through a commission with teeth, it is even more important that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill, both to those likely to be affected and to their advisers, what rights and remedies are available to them in the normal courts and tribunals of the land.
There are in addition important employment points to be considered. They were made notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and to some extent by me in Committee. Although, as the noble Lord said on 13th June, this is not a general anti-discrimination Bill, it is certainly an employment discrimination Bill, at any rate in this part. We do not want young people to be thrown on to benefits when it is quite unnecessary for long periods during the progression of their disease. On all those grounds, I find it hard to see how the noble Lord can resist the noble Baroness's redraft of her amendment. I look forward very much to hearing his reply.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I was meant to have my name added to this amendment. I support it. There are many progressive conditions, such as Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease, which are other good examples. But HIV is different.
Last Sunday in church, in the bidding prayers, was one that asked for special understanding and compassion for those who had HIV and AIDS. There seems to be something that encourages discrimination against those who have HIV. One of my fellow health authority members on the FHSA, for instance, just cannot understand what HIV means, and the devastation and loneliness that it can bring if the needs of those who have HIV are not understood. I hope that the Government will include this amendment on the face of the Bill. We should continue to do all that we can to make society understand the continuing need for education in respect of these most complicated and life threatening viruses. When this matter is not heard about, people—especially the young—think that the problem has gone away. It is very dangerous. I hope that the Government will understand this.
Lord Addington: My Lords, briefly, we on these Benches support this amendment. It is sensible and most appropriate.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I come to this amendment quickly, and with some surprise. The debate was much shorter than I expected.

117
I think my noble friend knows that I have some sympathy with the need to reassure people who have symptomatic HIV that their condition is covered by the definition in the Bill. I hoped that I had made it clear in Committee that we agree that current medical opinion recognises that HIV is a progressive condition. I said then that if courts or tribunals took a view contrary to medical opinion, then we would put the position beyond doubt through regulations. I believe that at the time my noble friend expressed some disquiet about that and indicated to me that she did not think that I was going far enough—indeed, she has done so on a number of occasions since the Committee stage.
I had intended to offer reassurance to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken that we would make regulations to make clear that HIV is a progressive condition, that we would consult to see just how the regulations should be framed and that we should bring forward those regulations from the beginning. But I know from conversations that I have had with my noble friend and the speeches that I have just heard that some noble Lords would not feel that that was a sufficiently certain course of action and would prefer something on the face of the Bill where, in paragraph 8 we indicate three examples of a progressive condition; namely, cancer, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy.
I have listened with some care to that argument over the past few weeks and to the speeches this afternoon. I am not entirely sure whether or not it was their brevity which helped to convince me, but I think that I now accept the argument that it would perhaps be right to put this matter on the face of the Bill in the place that I have just mentioned—paragraph 8—as one example of a progressive condition. I should underline the fact that the list is a list of examples. It is not meant in any way to be a complete list. There are other conditions, some mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, which would also come under the heading of "progressive condition" and will be dealt with.
There is a fairly marginal difference between putting something on the face of the Bill and making the same provision in regulations, but I appreciate that that marginal difference is very important to those people who have HIV and those who work with those who have it. I am not entirely certain whether I can accept the words "HIV disease" as defining clearly the change from simply having HIV in the bloodstream diagnosed by a medical test and in fact beginning to see some symptoms.
I should like to consider further with the draftsman exactly what the best form of words might be in order to indicate this crossover position. When I have done so and he has come up with an exact term so that we mean what we all want to say, I shall bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading. Third Reading of the Bill will not take place until the spillover, so there is time for it. It is the speed with which we reached this amendment that slightly threw me off balance. I am still trying to work out the consequence of such speedy action. I do not suppose that it will allow me to get home early this evening!
118
I come back to the serious point that I am making to my noble friend. I hope that she will feel that my assurance to come forward at Third Reading with an amendment properly worded, in order to do exactly what she and other noble Lords have asked, will enable her to withdraw her amendment. I hope that she will accept that I have agreed to her argument in its entirety and that I can completely satisfy her when we come to Third Reading.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to hear that. I shall wait with interest to see what emerges. Some years ago when, on a similar occasion, the amendment came forward, the draftsman had simply altered a capital "T' to a small "t" or vice versa. I shall wait to see what happens.
The Bill makes quite clear that one must have one's day-to-day activities affected. It cannot simply be that one has had a positive test. My noble friend need not be concerned on that point. I am very grateful to him. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who is chairman of the All-Party Aids Group, that ordinary people will use this Act if there is no commission—I support the noble Lord in that view—makes it particularly important to have it. I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall not delay the House any longer. I thank him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Past disabilities]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Past Disabilities]:
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 47, line 32, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to government Amendments Nos. 11, 21 to 23, 34, 39, 65 to 67, 69, 71, 75 to 77 and 80. I shall also speak to a number of other amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords.
Clause 6 as presently drafted has come under criticism for allowing too much discretion to employers to treat disabled people less favourably and for being too complex, particularly in the formulation of its relationship to Clauses 5 and 7. Noble Lords and Members in another place have themselves raised concerns. The fact that the justifications would be subject to an employer's opinion, albeit one which must be shown to have been reasonably held, has caused concern. The use of the undefined and perhaps vague word "unsuitable" has also led to adverse comment.
We listened carefully to the points raised by Members in another place and noble Lords on all sides of the House. It has become clear that Clause 6 as presently drafted does not meet the requirements for which it is intended. To address those issues, Clauses 5 and 6 have been redrafted to reduce the complexity and provide a simpler and clearer test for reasons which would justify less favourable treatment. The amendments considerably simplify this part of the Bill, including removing an entire clause. Amendments to Part III are

119
not so substantial. Because of the importance of those clauses, I feel that I must be clear about the implications of the changes. I beg the indulgence of the House while I explain the position at some little length.
Amendment No. 23 substitutes for a fixed list of specific justifications a principle that can be applied much more easily in the wide and varied range of circumstances that can arise in the field of employment. Less favourable treatment of a disabled person would thus be justified if the reason for it were both material to the circumstances and substantial. It is clear that the set of conditions in Clause 6(4) is too limited to cope with every set of employment circumstances. For example, issues may depend on the type of job, the type of disability and its effects, the nature of the position being taken and many other factors. For that reason we have found it immensely difficult to draft a satisfactory, exhaustive list. The new provisions will be easier to understand and operate.
We are keen to take a consistent approach in Part III of the Bill. Therefore, we have brought forward amendments to improve the wording of Clauses 14, 15 and 16 in relation to goods and services and Clauses 19 and 20 relating to premises. The approach that we now propose for the right of access differs from that proposed for the employment right.
Amendments Nos. 67, for goods and services, and 78, for premises, retain the concept of a reasonably held opinion and fixed list of justifications. We are satisfied that this continues to be right and relevant in the very different context.
Service providers often have to take very quick and perhaps less informed decisions when serving someone. So an opinion-based approach remains appropriate. Nevertheless, the proper degree of objectivity is imposed because the opinion must be shown to be reasonably held. We also propose to retain the key circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified. We believe that it is possible under Part III to identify the key reasons which might justify less favourable treatment by service providers due to the more limited relationship between a customer and a service provider. Those are set out in Amendments Nos. 67 and 78, and are essentially the same as those presently contained in Clauses 15(3) and 20(2), although we have tightened the wording of subsection (4) (c) to refer to where treatment is "necessary" in order for the service provider to provide the service to members of the public rather than "reasonably necessary". We have taken account of the views of those who are concerned that service providers might be able unfairly to pass on the extra cost of service provision to disabled clients and customers. Let me be clear that service providers will not be able to pass on to disabled people the costs of complying with their duties.
Subsection (5) of Amendment No. 67 ensures that any increase in the costs of the goods or services resulting from compliance with a Clause 16 duty should be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (4) (e). With both approaches, there are regulation-making powers which could be used to clarify areas of difficulty that might arise.
Amendment No. 21 deals with the comparator for assessing whether treatment is "less favourable". In the Bill, discrimination occurs against a disabled person if, for a reason which relates to his disability, he is treated less favourably and the employer cannot justify the treatment. If an individual cannot demonstrate that he has been less favourably treated in some way, then there will have been no discrimination. However, it is important to define the test correctly to avoid confusion and unnecessary litigation.
Currently the comparison is with the treatment of a person who does not have the disability in question. For example, there may be two employees who cannot type—one because of arthritis and one (who is not disabled) because he has never been taught. Both would argue that he is not treating the disabled person less favourably than someone without that disability. He is treating all people who cannot type in the same way. That argument may well succeed and the person with arthritis would have no ground for complaint, even though the employment was refused for a reason relating to disability.
Amendment No. 21 would ensure that the comparison is made with people to whom the reason in question does not apply. It correctly reflects the need to show that the treatment was for a reason relating to the disability and not necessarily the mere fact of disability. Thus, if the employer is rejecting people who cannot type he will be treating more favourably those who can. The person with arthritis who did not get the job can show that he or she was treated less favourably than the person with typing abilities who did. The employer may well be able to justify that treatment—for example, if a disabled person was not adequately able to do the job, even taking account of any reasonable adjustment. But at least the disabled person would have to be given the consideration due under the Bill.
With regard to the right of access, Amendment No. 65 mirrors Amendment No. 21 in providing that the comparison in the definition of discrimination should be with,
"people to whom that reason does not apply".
The wording of Amendment No. 65 will provide a more objective definition of discrimination than the provision as presently drafted, which refers to,
"other members of the public".
The revised wording will make it clear that if a disabled person is refused service—for example, in a cafe—for a reason connected with his disability, where non-disabled people are happily served, that will be a prima facie case of discrimination unless the service provider can prove that the less favourable treatment was justified under subsection (4) of Amendment No. 67. The service provider could only refuse service if, for example, the presence of the disabled person effectively meant that other customers were not receiving the service that they had paid for. Service could be refused in that case under subsection (4) (c). Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 re-word in a similar manner the definition of discrimination in relation to premises.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 34 are consequential as a result of the re-draft of Clauses 5 and 6. Amendment No. 22 deletes the words, "under section 6". They would

121
no longer be appropriate because Amendment No. 34 deletes Clause 6 as the issues of adjustment have been incorporated into the new Clause 5 resulting from Amendment No. 23. Amendments Nos. 66 and 69 mirror those for the purposes of the right of access to goods and services, as do Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 in relation to premises.
Amendment No. 39 is a consequential amendment which makes clear that the duty on employers to make adjustments is not self-standing. It is only relevant to determine whether an employer has discriminated against a disabled person. It transfers what is currently in Clause 5(3) to Clause 7. Amendment No. 71 replicates that change for the right of access. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are consequential and are needed because the provision to which they refer has been deleted by Amendments Nos. 21 and 23.
I believe that these amendments considerably improve and clarify the provisions of Parts II and III and I hope that I have the support of the House in moving them. I shall not address the other amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at this time. If she wishes to speak to them, when I wind up I shall address the various points that she and others raise. In the meantime, I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this long group of amendments and also thank the Government for what they have done. They have taken on board the arguments that we made in Committee and have thoroughly redrafted the sections of the Bill in order to meet our criticisms.
The only point arising in the three amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend, to which the Minister referred, arises in Amendment No. 24 where we suggest that the employer should take advice as indicated in the code of practice as a basis for his opinion. Apart from that, the Government appear to have encompassed all the arguments we made in Committee and we are grateful that they have done so.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this great layer of government amendments has effectively dealt with the problems I raised in Amendments Nos. 26 and 28. I can only thank the Government and say that I hope that this atmosphere of co-operation will continue throughout the passage of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as someone who came to this Bill rather late, I find it strange to be among such sweetness and light. I hope that I shall enjoy this stage and the later stage. I am also grateful to noble Lords for sparing my voice, which I fear may not last the evening.
Perhaps I can briefly address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in her Amendment No. 24, which seeks to place a duty on the employer to take advice, as indicated in the code of practice, as a basis for his opinion. The effect would be that the employer would have to seek advice every time he made a decision which might or could result in less favourable treatment of a disabled person.
122
We agree that employers ought to seek help and assistance, if they need to do so, when making a decision which may affect a disabled person. The duty under this clause may not be fulfilled unless the employer is knowledgeable, follows the code or seeks advice from a knowledgeable source on disability. However, where we differ is in regard to the need to make it compulsory in every case to seek advice, regardless of the necessity, before he can lawfully make that decision. That would be a bureaucratic requirement which takes no account of the many different avenues of advice that are available to employers through a number of different groups. For example, in some situations there may be no need to take specific advice, whether or not the code of practice suggests doing so, because the employer has adequate information available from another source. In any event, the code will not be an exhaustive manual on when to seek advice, on what and from whom, in all the various possible cases. Its job is to provide practical guidance. We are sure that it will prove helpful but it cannot cover every single circumstance. It would be wrong, therefore, to place such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
I hope the noble Baroness accepts that explanation and I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 47, line 38, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Guidance]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("issued under this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 15. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about matters to be taken into account when determining whether an impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The guidance which Clause 3 introduces is already subject to consultation before being issued by the Secretary of State. The consultations must be with people whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Your Lordships will recall that some anxiety was expressed in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Renton about the question of parliamentary scrutiny. As I said in Committee, the Government accept that there is a strong case for making the guidance under Clause 3 subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as we have in Clause 38, which deals with the codes of practice on employment. I repeat what I said on that occasion: I am very conscious of the importance of the powers of Parliament, as are all Ministers; and we accept the point that Parliament must be given adequate opportunity to scrutinise the guidance.
We have chosen to apply the negative procedure. This is in line with the code of practice and the majority of the regulation-making powers. Noble Lords will recall

123
that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee regarded this procedure as appropriate for these regulation-making powers and I do not believe it is any less appropriate for the guidance under Clause 3. I very much hope that the amendments will be welcomed.
Noble Lords will notice that subsection (4) of Amendment No. 15 states:
"In preparing a draft of any guidance, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate".
I see that my amendment is grouped with an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which tries to set out the people whom the Secretary of State might consult. That amendment comes up on all occasions and at all times. I am not sure whether it will help the speed of proceedings if I indicate that my answer to this attempt to put on the face of the Bill a list of the people the Secretary of State might consult is the same as it has been to other attempts in other Bills to include such a requirement. Perhaps I may make it clear that when we go out to consultation we shall ensure that we take account of all the sectors which will be affected. We shall be consulting all those whom we believe have an interest. Where appropriate, that will include the CBI, business organisations, the TUC and others. Interestingly enough, over the past few days I have seen the beginnings of some of the consultation documents arising from the Pensions Act. I recall some of the discussions we had previously about who should be consulted. I can assure the noble Baroness that we seem to be consulting as wide a range of people as she requested me to consult on a number of occasions when she asked me to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, why did not the noble Lord accept our amendment?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the point I make, and have made before, is that I believe it is unnecessary to start listing the organisations. On various occasions consultation may be on a different angle, and a different group of people or organisations may require to be consulted. It is much more important that the Secretary of State should be under a general obligation to consult those he thinks appropriate and whom he thinks are interested. There is the further point that the consultations are usually accompanied by some form of press release and anyone who has missed out is well able to come in and give us their views. In my years in government I have never found that people were, so to speak, backwards in coming forwards.
I hope that I have explained not only why I commend my amendment to the House but why on this occasion, as on every other occasion when this attempt is made, I do not think it wise to add to the Bill what the noble Baroness wishes to add.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that, as the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 15, if it should be agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 16.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is the problem, is it not? The noble Lord said that he likes it when we have brevity and that he likes it when we spring surprises.
124
When we do that he is apt to agree with us. We agree with him that his amendments seem to be a significant advance on the previous position. We accept and welcome them. All I want to say about Amendment No. 16 is that it arose out of previous amendments moved in Committee and there are subsequent amendments which cover this ground. We shall be raising them then. Therefore, in that context, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 16.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to what my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has said. First, we ought to feel indebted to him for having strengthened and clarified the position of Parliament in this matter. I expect it has dawned on noble Lords that in recent years we have entered a new phase in our legislation. For centuries we thought of primary and secondary legislation. We also knew that in the background there were departmental directives which did not require the consent of Parliament, or consultation with Parliament, or parliamentary approval of any kind, and did not have the force of law. Now we have entered this new and third phase of parliamentary consent. We have to give guidance. One wonders to what extent the guidance is more than just casual advice to those concerned and to what extent it is binding upon them. One has to read Amendment No. 15 in order to the best of one's capability to find out the answer to that vital question. The answer is contained, first, in subsection (7). I shall refer to subsection (9) in a moment.
Subsection (7) states:
"If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed guidance".
That gives Parliament a negative function—to disapprove the guidance if it does not think it is right. But it does not mean, from the positive point of view, that parliamentary approval is necessary in advance. It is a fine distinction, I know. Then we come to subsection (9), which states:
"The guidance shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order".
The words "come into force" seem to suggest that the guidance has the force of law and that if the guidance is not obeyed those who fail to obey it will incur some kind of penalty, not necessarily a criminal penalty but will find themselves at a disadvantage of some kind. However, that does not seem to be the case.
I wonder whether my noble friend can clarify that point because I think it is constitutionally quite important. The subsection states:
"The guidance shall come into force".
That seems to give it something approaching the force of law and yet it cannot have the force of law unless there is a sanction to enforce it. We are entitled to be enlightened on that point.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I spoke on this point during the first day of Committee on 13th June. I welcome the government amendment which my noble friend then indicated he would bring forward. I am a member of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of

125
Delegated Powers but I speak for myself in the House. The Select Committee's report on the Bill did not draw the attention of the House to this matter because it was not subordinate legislation—regulations—but guidance. This is a precedent, and a good one, because we have all noted that under the guise of guidance very significant matters as important as regulations—perhaps more so—could be issued without Parliament having any chance to discuss them or to throw them out.
In the Bill as originally drafted the guidance had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament but neither House could do anything if it disagreed with it. The negative procedure is appropriate, as I indicated when I spoke on this point on 13th June. My noble friend Lord Renton, who on that occasion moved an amendment proposing the affirmative procedure, also now agrees with that. I rise to speak simply because I believe that this is an important precedent for Bills on other subjects in the future. I am sure that the Government and others concerned will take note that guidance will be an important matter as well as subordinate legislation and regulations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly express my support for the group of amendments and ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can advise the House on the following points. Should the guidance need to be altered at any time, will such an alteration have to come before both Houses of Parliament in the same way? What weight will the guidance, once approved by Parliament, have in a court of law or before a tribunal?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank your Lordships for the welcome given to my amendments. My noble friend Lord Renton made, if I may so describe it, a nice point when he asked me whether the use of the word "force" in Amendment No. 15 has some significance and whether that indicated that the guidance has a legal standing, together with the backing of legal sanctions. The use of the word "force" in that context does not imply legal sanctions and the rule of law indicated by my noble friend. If he turns to Clause 3(3) of the Bill—and the whole thing has to be read as one—he will see, as indeed will my noble friend Lord Swinfen, that it says:
"A tribunal or court determining, for any purpose of this Act, whether an impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, shall take into account any guidance issued under this section which appears to it to be relevant".
I believe that those words clearly show that the guidance is not intended to be binding on the courts and tribunals. Therefore, to that extent, it does not have the force of law. Nevertheless, courts and tribunals will have to take the guidance into account. I hope that that answers the point. In future, perhaps draftsman ought to find another word in case my noble friend has touched upon a serious point in that respect. However, I have no doubt that the draftsmen will read what my noble friend said about the use of the word "force" in the legislation.
As regards the question about revision, my noble friend Lord Swinfen will see that subsection (11) of Amendment No. 15 says:
126
"The Secretary of State may—

(a) from time to time revise the whole or part of any guidance and re-issue it; [and]

(b) by order revoke any guidance".

Should the Secretary of State change the guidance, my noble friend asked whether he would have to come back to Parliament and go through the whole procedure again. Indeed, he can be assured that the Secretary of State would have to do so. I hope that those assurances will put my noble friends' minds at rest and that the House will accept my amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert:
("(4) In preparing a draft of any guidance, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(5)Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue any guidance, he shall publish a draft of it, consider any representations that are made to him about the draft and, if he thinks it appropriate, modify his proposals in the light of any of those representations.
(6)If the Secretary of State decides to proceed with any proposed guidance, he shall lay a draft of it before each House of Parliament.
(7)If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed guidance.
(8)If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall issue the guidance in the form of his draft.
(9)The guidance shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order.
(10)Subsection (7) does not prevent a new draft of the proposed guidance from being laid before Parliament.
(11)The Secretary of State may—

(a) from time to time revise the whole or part of any guidance and re-issue it;

(b) by order revoke any guidance.

(12)In this section—
"40-day period", in relation to the draft of any proposed guidance, means—

(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and

(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House,

no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days; and
"guidance" means guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section and includes guidance which has been revised and re-issued.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Discrimination against applicants and employees]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 8 below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns us to the issue that we discussed in Committee; namely, the exclusion of small firms from the operation

127
of the Bill. I should like, therefore, to move Amendment No. 17, which is the paving amendment, and to speak also to the subsequent amendments in the group, especially Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
The Bill makes it illegal for companies which employ over 20 people to discriminate unreasonably against disabled people. However, if a firm employs fewer than 20 people, it may discriminate whether or not it is reasonable for it to do so. The point of the amendments is to seek to bring more companies within the purview of the Act. Hence we warmly support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which would reduce the exemption of companies to those which employ 10 or fewer people; in other words, what most people would regard as small companies.
Why does this group of amendments matter? Small companies employ 35 per cent. of the working people in this country—17 per cent., if you exclude the self-employed. In much of the country, especially in rural areas in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, there are no companies, or very few of them, which employ more than 20 people. If they are to be exempt from the Bill, it means that the legislation will not apply in much of the country. Therefore, huge parts of the country will not fall within the range of the Act. For example, it means that an employer with 18 staff would be able to place discriminatory adverts; he could refuse to interview a disabled person; and he could refuse to consider whether, by adjusting, say, the position of the office furniture, a disabled person might have the opportunity of becoming an effective employee. Do we really want that? Do we really find that acceptable?
However, if the same employer were to expand slightly and take on another two staff, thereby employing 20 people, he would immediately come within the framework of the Act. Why then do we have this cut-off point with the very high figure of 20 so that smaller firms that fall below it are exempt? It comes from the old quota system set up before the war whereby businesses employing more than 20 staff had to employ 3 per cent. disabled people. If one was going to employ 3 per cent., the figure of 20 made some sense; otherwise, one would be dealing with fractions of a person. However, that figure has been imported into legislation 50 years later without, I suggest, any of the justification that underpinned the old quota system.
Subsequent legislation in similar areas, whether it be on health and safety or on sex discrimination, has either had much lower figures or no figures at all for exemption. Certainly most surveys, including those from the Government's Employment Department, often assume that what is meant by "small companies" is 11 people—for example, 10 staff or fewer.
Why are the Government holding on to the figure of 20 as a cut-off point below which firms are exempt from the Act? First, the Government have argued the point on the burden of cost to small firms. I have to say that I do not think that that is true. The Government themselves expect that the average cost of physical adjustments to employ disabled people is around £200. That is not my
128
figure or that of disabled people: it is the Government's figure. They believe that the average cost of adapting premises in a small firm to enable it to employ disabled people will, on average, be just £200.
Secondly, small companies, exactly like large ones, are protected from costs if they are unreasonable. If, for example, it would require a lift which was most expensive to make a firm's premises reasonably accessible for the disabled, that would be an unreasonable cost and no employer, whether large or small, need make it. Therefore, a small company is already protected, as indeed is a large one, from doing anything which is unreasonable given its circumstances. In other words, if the cost of employing a disabled person is unreasonable, the firm is not required to spend the money in order to do so.
Similarly, as we discussed in Committee, it is not true that employing disabled people entails unreasonably high costs in personnel terms; for example, as regards turnover or sickness. Indeed, all the evidence from disability organisations suggests that, on the contrary, disabled people have a better and steadier attendance at work than most able-bodied people. Certainly, their record is second to none.
Therefore, the first argument of cost used by the Government against reducing the threshold of exemption is, I suggest to your Lordships, not true. The physical cost—around £200 on average—and the personnel costs are, if anything, nil. The Government's second argument about why we should keep the figure of 20 is that small companies should not have to worry about the burden of regulation.
However, by definition the same small companies which are employing people are companies which market goods or services. They make and sell things. They manufacture goods or produce a service. Therefore, even if, as an employer, they are exempt from this law by virtue of the fact that they employ 18 people, they still have to conform to the law as a seller or provider of goods, services and products. Exempting small firms from the employment provisions does not mean that we are exempting them from the whole array of provisions, but only from one part. They will still have to take on the burden of responsibility of knowing what the legislation requires when it comes to marketing and making available their goods, services and products. Whether small companies like it or not, they still come within the purview of much of this legislation. Therefore, they will need to know the provisions of the legislation irrespective of whether we reduce the employment threshold. Indeed, it could be argued that employing disabled people could make a small company better able to adjust its goods, services and products to meet the needs of disabled people.
So, the first argument used by the Government was that of cost—I do not think that that is a valid argument—and their second argument was that small companies do not want the burden of this legislation. I have tried to suggest that, whether small companies like it or not, they come within the framework of the Bill as producers, manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services. The Government's third argument is that small companies do not want this legislation. I do not deny

129
that small businesses are probably unenthusiastic about it. Indeed, there are a lot of things about which small businesses are unenthusiastic, including politicians. Small businesses would prefer not to be burdened by VAT. Small businesses would rather not have to seek planning consent if they want to extend their buildings. Very often, small businesses would prefer not to have to observe health and safety regulations. Very often, small businesses would rather not accord part-timers certain rights in terms of pensions and the like. That is understandable, but that does not mean that it is desirable or that we should support it.
Like all of us, any small business has a responsibility to the community. Equally, any small business can seek advice and guidance from a wealth of organisations, from chambers of commerce to local authorities and enterprise agencies. Small businesses may not be enthusiastic about the legislation, but they can certainly cope with it. In any case, the number of employees is no guide as to whether a company can or cannot afford to employ disabled people. Smaller companies such as legal practices or small information technology firms are well able to deal with the legislation and find disabled people attractive employees. Size has no relation to the value of a company, its turnover, profitability or the type of people that it should employ. Therefore, it is irrelevant to import the figure of 20 into this legislation.
What would be different if your Lordships accepted this amendment and those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen? What would change? Well, genuinely small companies—that is, those employing fewer than 10 people, such as corner shops and small start-up businesses—would remain exempt. That would enable the latter to become established. However, we are saying that a company which employs more than 10 people—and certainly one which employs nearer 20—is an established business. There is no reason why it should not conform to the employment provisions of this Bill, just as it must conform to the provisions relating to goods and services. Any costs that are required to enable such a firm to employ disabled people must be reasonable. Under the Bill, no small company can be required to do anything that is unreasonable.
We are asking your Lordships to support an amendment to say that the small companies which it would be reasonable to exempt are those employing fewer than 10 people and that firms which employ more than that number should come within the framework of the Bill. That would allow disabled people across the country to exercise their rights as we would wish them to do. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for so ably moving Amendment No. 17 and for speaking to the group of amendments. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to my amendments, Amendments Nos. 42 and 44, which, as the noble Baroness said, are designed to increase the number of firms covered by the Bill and the number of employees who will have protection against discrimination on the basis of disability.
130
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill as drafted exempts firms with fewer than 20 employees. My two amendments would mean that only firms with fewer than 10 employees would be allowed to discriminate on the ground of disability when employing someone. The noble Baroness mentioned that 35 per cent. of our workforce work for firms with fewer than 20 employees. If the self-employed are excluded, the figure comes down to 17 per cent. If my amendment were accepted, that figure would be reduced further, to 11 per cent. It is, I understand, a fact that women are more likely to work in small firms and that the proportion of small firms is considerably higher in rural areas such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and parts of England. Disabled people in those areas and women who are disabled will thus receive less protection when looking for work if these amendments are not accepted.
The commonsense understanding of what constitutes a small firm is, I feel, closer to 10 than to 20 people. The chief argument put forward by the Government for the exclusion of so-called "small" employers is that they should not have to worry about the additional regulations involved. However, as has already been said, it is curious that the Government propose to exempt such employers only from Part II, not from Part III, of the Bill. If a firm providing a service will not be allowed to discriminate against a disabled person, why—unless it really is a small firm—should it be allowed to discriminate against disabled people when it comes to employment?
In many respects, the amendment is a compromise. A law which permits discrimination by some employers sends the wrong message to all employers. It suggests that disabled people are a burden which should be imposed only on those who can afford it. As the noble Baroness said, disabled people are generally considered extremely reliable by those who employ them. Their employers are often very reluctant to let them go when they move to another employer or retire. In the United States, firms with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, while I understand that in both New Zealand and Australia all employers were included in the legislation from the beginning and there were no exemptions on the grounds of the size of a firm. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, my amendments, Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, are grouped with Amendment No. 17 and it is appropriate to speak to them now. Although they do not deal specifically with the issue of 10 or 20 employees, they are tangential to it. I should add that I am not sure whether the wording of my amendments is correct, but perhaps that point could be considered later.
The Confederation of British Industry has been briefing me on this issue. It accepted from the start that 20 employees should be the cut-off point. Indeed, it is happy that the cut-off point is set at 10 rather than any other figure. The amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review whenever he wishes to amend the cut-off figure of 20 employees—according to the Bill, it seems that the number can be moved downwards only—and not only after four years.

131
We want a review because it is imperative that business is aware of the parameters within which it is operating. It cannot at one minute be 20, the next 15, and then, say, a year later, 10. We want a clear procedure to ensure that all relevant regulations are reviewed when any change which would affect small firms is contemplated. I hope that my noble friend will listen to these requests.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I support specifically Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 to which my name is attached, although I must admit that I do not feel entirely at ease with them as it is my strong view that no firm should be exempt from the legislation just on the basis of size. We all know of wealthy small firms and of larger ones which are struggling to keep going. Taken in isolation, the number of staff employed in a firm provides no satisfactory picture of its capacity to accommodate a disabled employee.
However, we must move forward. So I urge the Minister to look again at this issue. At the moment we are in danger of making detailed regulations, firms establishing their practices and procedures, and legal rulings being made on the basis of a threshold which is likely, as we have heard, to shift within five years. The amendment might help us to minimise the nonsense we are at risk of creating.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendments, especially Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. I see that my name is against Amendment No. 44 but not against 42. That is a mistake. I support both amendments. We are talking about the drawing of an arbitrary line. The noble Baroness was correct when she drew a historical precedent for the number of 20. As almost every speaker involved in this short debate has pointed out, the number of employees a firm has is no guarantee of its state.
The concept of reasonableness would surely be better than any figure, because if it is reasonable for a reasonably prosperous firm to make a small accommodation for a disabled person, that would make more sense than just saying that because a firm has X employees it is excluded or it must make some arrangements for disabled employees. There is a far stronger logic here. Reasonableness is already in the Bill.
I have never liked the idea of having an arbitrary line. In Committee I opposed the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. However, if the arbitrary line is to exist, it should be drawn at the lowest practical figure. If one has 10 employees, that would mean that the business is small. Whether businesses are rich or poor, are doing well and have good prospects, are factors we cannot bring into the Bill. At least we can ensure that the businesses are genuinely small. I hope that all Members of the House will support the amendments as they address the issue of ensuring that only the minimum number of firms are excluded from a concept which is based on reasonableness and fairness.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, working at the coalface, so to speak, of those who are getting people with disabilities employed, I have to tell the House that
132
the Bill is known as the magic wand syndrome. The technique of getting people employed is, first, to convince the disabled person that he is capable of doing the job. We employ educational psychologists who encourage disabled people to apply for advertised jobs and talk to firms to persuade them that they can usefully employ disabled people in their businesses. We then send the disabled person to the interview and ensure that all the equipment is provided to ensure that he or she can do the job.
There are many small firms which employ disabled people, and I fear that by regulating so that they cannot refuse to employ them or say that they think it is a bad idea, and using a foot-in-the-door technique to employ disabled people, will mean that the door will be shut firmly when one appears on the scene.
My great fear about the Bill is that it will produce less employment for disabled people than if the matter is left alone. So I support the Government's view that the line should be drawn at 20 people.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I spoke at earlier stages of the Bill on this subject, and I shall not repeat what I said then. I favour a reduction of the threshold of 20, but I understand also the reasons for that being done by stages because small firms have not been involved in this before. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses vociferously supports their exclusion, but of course that is what one would expect. Nonetheless, its reasons are not just reasons of expense.
The Government made an amendment in Committee last month which, as I understand it, means that there will be a review five years after the coming into force of the Bill when enacted. The whole concept of reasonable adjustments, which is the basis of the Bill, would apply where a small firm had special circumstances or difficulties which would not be encountered by a large firm. Taking that into account, I believe that the reduction should take place in due course.
I favour the inclusion of smaller firms and a gradual reduction of the threshold. However, I should be grateful to have reassurance from the Government about their intentions, and that they do, with the amendment they made last month, intend, when it is practicable and does not cause great damage to individual firms, to lower the threshold by stages.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments. I turn first to Amendment No. 30. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will not think me in any way frivolous or nit-picking if I suggest that the wording of the amendment is a little ambiguous as well as far-reaching. She talks about "the future existence of the employer", which implies that only if the employer is so driven to despair by the provisions of the Bill that he contemplates jumping off the top of a 10-storey building will any exemption be made for him. The phrase "future existence" might well be replaced by the words "economic survival". But even that seems to me to go a little too far.

133
After all, a small firm could be earning £15,000 a year gross before the employer draws any salary. If as a result of the Bill the gross profit before salary were reduced to £12,500, the employer would survive but he or she would still be obliged to endure considerable hardship.
I turn now to the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Rix and Lord Addington. In Committee they moved an amendment which would have obliged the Secretary of State to reduce the minimum of 20 to a minimum of 10 within a period of years, and subsequently to a minimum of five within a further period of years. This amendment goes much further than that. It suggests that the number be reduced to 10 immediately.
It is unusual on Report to introduce an amendment which is more extreme than the amendment introduced in Committee. Normally one tries to reach a compromise on Report which will find favour with the House as a whole. I believe that the Government are right in sticking to their guns and insisting upon starting with a minimum of 20.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find the difficulty with this subject is that generalisation is almost impossible. If we take Amendment No. 42, which I somewhat favour, my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix want the threshold reduced from 20 to 10. In a wide range of industries that means a very small factory, but this provision refers to farming. At MENCAP we have taken the trouble in the past to train mentally handicapped people to look after animals. It has been a successful experiment over the years. They have gone into horticulture as well.
I happen to live near a farm of just over 2,000 acres which 40 years ago employed 10 men. Now it employs only four men. A farm with 20 men, which is what the Government have in mind, is a very big farm indeed these days. I am glad to say that it is the kind of farm, especially in the west country, on which one would find several mentally handicapped people employed looking after animals.
We do not want to reach the situation in which, with regard to such farms, we are putting the clock back. We do not want to reach the situation in which the farmer says, "Look here, I have a very big farm but I employ only 16 men". These days, that is an enormous farm. To say that such a person should not be required even to consider employing a mentally handicapped person seems to me to be most unfortunate.
The coming Recess is an opportunity for further thought. I hope that the Government will use the Recess, before Third Reading takes place in the overspill period, to take wide consultation on this matter, in particular with the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association and so forth. They may well find that the generalisation that they have in mind is a bit dangerous and that more particularisation may be necessary, much opposed as I am to too much detail in statutes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to begin with a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked for confirmation that in due course the Government
134
will reduce the threshold. Obviously, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance but I can say that we are committed to having a review after four or five years, as he knows full well. If the review is to be of any substance I cannot comment on its likely outcome, but obviously we will look at all the available options. If after such a review it is believed to be desirable to reduce the number we would be quite prepared so to do.
I shall deal with the amendments in order, beginning with Amendment No. 17, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It would make Clause 4 subject to the provisions of Clause 8. The amendment is intended to be taken in conjunction with the substantive Amendment No. 41. The effect would be to make sure that the definition takes account of the intended Amendment No. 41.
That amendment at the very least introduces considerable uncertainty; uncertainty for the employer with fewer than 20 employees and uncertainty for disabled people. On the one hand, employers with fewer than 20 employees will have a duty not to discriminate against people with disabilities. On the other hand, they will not have to do anything to remedy any substantial disadvantage a disabled person may experience.
The clause as currently drafted is perfectly clear. It recognises that small firms would face particular difficulties in complying with this complex and innovative legislation and excludes them from the employment part of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish noted during the Committee stage of the Bill, small firms would face two burdens if they were not exempted from this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, based her argument on those two burdens. They were the cost burden and the burden of administering the Act, understanding it and keeping it in mind on the few occasions when they might need to recruit a disabled person. The noble Baroness's amendment fails to address the latter burden.
That said, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents small firms employing disabled people and we will be promoting the employment code of practice to small firms and encouraging them to comply.
I turn to Amendment No. 30, which would introduce a new justification making it possible for employers with fewer than 20 employees to treat a disabled person less favourably if to do otherwise would put their business at risk.
I believe that the noble Baroness is aware that Clause 8 of the Bill exempts employers with fewer than 20 employees from the employment part of the Bill. We have included this exemption for a good reason. Small firms would face particular difficulties in complying with what I have described as complex and innovative legislation. The noble Baroness spoke of that regulatory burden. I have to say that many small firms do not have specialist personnel who can deal with the adjustments that a particular disabled person might need, nor are they likely to have access to the expertise required to make and maintain such adjustments. Furthermore, it could be disproportionately expensive for small firms to comply with these requirements when they might only occasionally affect any given small firm.

135
I accept that small firms are covered by Part III of the Bill, but I believe that they will have disabled customers much more often than disabled employees or disabled applicants for work. I believe that they would be able to remain familiar with Part III much more readily than they would with the complex parts of Part II. A disabled applicant might contact a small employer only on an average of every year or so. It would be very hard—unreasonably, we believe—for firms to remain sufficiently in touch with their duties under Part II in order to have a chance of avoiding a tribunal complaint. Moreover, the degree of reasonable adjustment needed for a disabled customer under Part III is likely to be less than that required for a disabled employee under Part II.
There is a great deal of difference between what a business might have to do to help a disabled customer who might spend no more than a few minutes in a shop and what might be expected by way of help for a disabled employee who might be working for many years for the employer.
I believe that this amendment sends quite the wrong message. The Bill as drafted strikes a proper balance by recognising the legitimate interest of disabled people and the reality of the problems faced by employers. The noble Baroness's amendment implies that the obligations in the Bill could be so onerous as to bring small firms to the brink of jeopardy. Further, it would imply that larger firms can actually be put in jeopardy because it provides no similar justification for them. The amendment is an example of somewhat outmoded thinking. It ignores the realities of the burdens that may be placed on businesses and gives no thought to the implications. The noble Baroness has not adequately addressed the question of whether the Bill sends the specific message to employers that the obligations in it may bring their businesses to the brink of failure.
In practice, of course, any damage to employment prospects would be caused long before this precarious state has been reached, when difficulties of the kind indicated in the amendment would mean the business had to stop expanding and taking on any new recruits, including disabled people.
In any event, the amendments passed earlier by the House to Clauses 5 and 6 allow employers to justify less favourable treatment if the reason is material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial. I can think of no more substantial a reason than the business being put at risk. This would apply to a firm of any size. The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 30 is unnecessary even in the context of small firms being included in the employment provisions.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Rix and Lord Addington. Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 ignore the burdens that the employment provisions of the Bill could place on small employers. The Bill already provides for a power to vary the threshold by regulation. That will enable us to ensure that any changes made, and their timing, take account both of experience gained in operating the new right and other relevant circumstances. Such circumstances could include, for example, economic conditions affecting small firms at the time. We would, of course, look
136
carefully at any evidence that smaller firms were treating disabled people unfairly and would take that into account in the review which we are committed to undertake.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I wish to make a point that is quite relevant. When making the regulations for exemption will it be possible to deal with one particular type of industry differently from another type of industry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether I can answer that point immediately. I would like to consider it, just as I would the general point that he asked us to consider during the summer; that is, whether we could look at other definitions of businesses which might allow for the point that my noble friend was addressing.
In relation to earlier proposed amendments to the clause I have argued about the disproportionate impact on very small companies. We accept that the concept of reasonable adjustment would take costs into account. But that does not take into account the amount of work that a given small employer would have to do to become familiar with the legislation which he or she might never, or very rarely, need to apply within that firm. It contains quite difficult concepts to protect disabled persons against discrimination—concepts which are unnecessary under sex and race legislation and therefore unfamiliar to employers. It would also be burdensome to investigate and decide on the appropriateness of the adjustments. Even in health and safety legislation, thresholds have been used to exclude small firms from provisions which are administratively onerous.
I accept that noble Lords have argued that they are still excluding small firms but are merely changing the starting point from 20 to 10. I believe that my noble friend Lord Swinfen talked about a common sense definition of a small firm having 10 employees rather than 20. There is a degree of subjective judgment about that. There are a number of different definitions of a small firm. My noble friend quoted the example of the Americans with Disabilities Act which now has a threshold of 15, although it was originally 25. The Department of Trade and Industry uses the figure of 200; the European Union uses 150; and the Companies Act, for some accountancy purposes, uses 50. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may remember the Statutory Sick Pay Act of some five or six years ago. The definition that was eventually arrived at in that Act did not include the number of employees at all but was based on the size of the national insurance bill. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to get those matters right.
However, it is our clear view that the figure of 20 which we are used to in disability legislation—the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944—is about right. Firms with more than 20 employees already have experience of that legislation. But the matter can be reviewed in years to come. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press that amendment.
With Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 my noble friend Lady O'Cathain is hoping to ensure that before the Secretary of State seeks to change the threshold in Section 8 by order, she must hold a review, whether the

137
order is to be made within the first four years of the operation of the section or at any later time. At the moment, the Bill ensures that a review would precede such an order before the fourth anniversary. It also ensures that a review is held immediately after the fourth anniversary if one has not been held beforehand. I believe that my noble friend has a point. It seems to me that the Government should always hold a review before deciding to change the threshold, and so if she will withdraw these amendments, I am prepared to consider the issues and return with any necessary amendment at Third Reading.
On Amendment No. 48, however, I am not sure that I can be quite so helpful. In the first part of the amendment, my noble friend is seeking to ensure that any review takes account of the effects of Part II of the Bill and regulations made under it—such as any on the duty of reasonable adjustment—on the employers who would be brought into coverage by Part II should the threshold he lowered. However, the second part of the amendment commits the Secretary of State to amending regulations to reflect the circumstances of such employers. The Government are not prepared to commit themselves to being obliged to change regulations when it is not clear who should judge it necessary to make changes and when we are not convinced that there would be circumstances that changes to regulations, because of the inclusion of smaller firms, would be necessary.
I can give my noble friend these assurances. It is inevitable that any decision on whether to make an order reducing the threshold will have to take due account of the effect this would have on the employers who would be brought into coverage. That must be an important factor in any decision of this kind. Secondly, if an order were to be made, it would also be appropriate to consider the effects of the current regulations and whether adaptations were required or provision for any special circumstances that might be thrown up by the extension of coverage. But it seems much more likely that we would wish to change—and much more helpfully so—the code of practice. This would obviously be reconsidered at the time if, as I say, we were to be convinced that it was appropriate to lower the threshold following a review. In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will withdrawn her amendments.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised principally by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords and I hope that they will feel that on this occasion it is not necessary to press the amendments to a Division.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am trying to follow the Minister's argument. I think that he said that it is all right to impose the burden of non-employment requirements on small employers because they would have many disabled customers. However, it is not all right to impose the employment conditions on them because they might have few disabled employees. He went on to say at the same time that it is reasonable to impose the non-employment burdens because that
138
would not cost much and it was not much bother, but if there are a lot of disabled customers, surely it would cost quite a lot and cause quite a lot of bother. He then went on to say that it is unreasonable to impose the burdens in relation to employment conditions because it would cost a lot and cause a great deal of bother, but he has said already that there would not be many disabled employees. How does he square all that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's tortuous mind has rather confused matters. I was talking not so much about the cost but about the regulatory burden. The noble Lord will understand that a very small firm is unlikely to have available the specialist personnel team to deal with those matters. Therefore, the regulatory burden imposed by an Act of this sort in terms of employment would be very great. That would not be the case under Part III in relation to customers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate. The debate is dealing with how many people will be brought within the purview of the Act and how many disabled people will be debarred from its protection by virtue of the size of the company which they would wish to be employed by. That is the question.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, speaking on behalf of the CBI, reminded us that its position is one of benevolent neutrality towards the amendments. I think that that would be a fair way of describing it. At earlier stages briefing from the CBI made it very clear that it did not feel that there should be any exclusion as such. Nevertheless, it is benevolently neutral towards the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, preferred to rely on persuasion. I believe that that was the gist of his argument. I would prefer that, but we have had 50 years of persuasion and disabled people's rights have not been met adequately in the eyes of the Government. That is precisely why we have this Bill today. As the noble Lord said, good employers respond to persuasion but bad employers do not. That is why we have this legislative framework. The only question is who it should encompass.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was concerned that that legislative framework should not encompass those, for example, in the farming industry, where it might not be appropriate. He is absolutely right. But I happen to have sitting next to me my noble friend Lord Carter who knows far more about agriculture than I can ever hope to. He reminds me that for a farm to employ more than 10 people and therefore to come within the framework of the legislation—if the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, were to be accepted—it would have to have well over 3,000 acres, or more if it was arable. As a result, only a very tiny percentage of farms would be affected by the Act. Therefore, in practice, agriculture will not come within the framework of the Bill.
The Minister revisited two of the arguments which I tried, perhaps inadequately, to address when I moved the amendment. The first was as to cost, although to be fair the Minister did not challenge that Amendment No. 17, in conjunction with the amendment tabled by the

139
noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would represent costs to small firms. He did not challenge me on that. He accepted the government figure that the average cost for physical adaptations and so on is likely to be about £200. Moreover, personnel costs in terms of turnover, staying power within work and reliability, if anything, act in favour of disabled people, who have proved so often to be good employees. The Minister did not challenge that. In other words, he accepted that disabled people do not represent a financial or personnel cost to small firms. The Minister accepted that and did not challenge it.
What he did say was that employing disabled people would represent a regulatory, administrative burden to those who own, run or manage such small companies. I believe the Minister said twice that they did not employ specialist personnel because there were only 15 or 20 staff employed. That is true, but the other side of that is that precisely because the company is small and has 12 or 14 people, the manager or the employer will know what the job requires in detail and will know therefore whether the disabled person coming forward has the appropriate attributes for that job. Precisely because he is a "hands on" employer, he will have the expertise that in larger companies has to be seconded to some specialist outside. Therefore, he is likely to make a much better fit of the job and the disabled person than the larger companies would. I believe that the Minister has helped to make my point for me.
I return to the basic point. All employers, whatever their size, are not required to make any expenditure for disabled people that is unreasonable. No companies of whatever size are required to employ disabled people where their disability makes them less suitable for the job. In other words, any company with fewer than 20 staff—and if the House were minded to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, any company with fewer than 10 staff—has that double protection already. It does not have to incur unreasonable costs and it does not have to employ a disabled person where that is unreasonable. If that is the case at present, they do not need the further protection of size as well. Size is irrelevant. We are merely excluding the corner firm.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Is she not making my point, that if employers are protected so well by Clause 7, it is persuasion which has to make them employ people rather than this Act?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish with all my heart that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, had history on his side. It is because he does not that, after years and years and years of discussion and debate, the Government—not we—have brought forward what is a good Bill which will give disabled people major rights in the fields of employment and of goods and services. However, unless we accept this amendment, large numbers of disabled people and large swathes of the country will be exempt from this Bill, and exempt unnecessarily because they are already protected by the structure of the Bill which states that
140
no employer should incur unreasonable costs and no employer should employ a disabled person whose disability makes him less suitable for the job. Given that, I would suggest that size is not relevant and that we should bring the figure down to 10 so that more disabled people can enjoy the rights that I hope this Bill seeks to offer them. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chandos, V.

Mayhew, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.[Teller.]

Dahrendorf, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rix, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Geraint, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollick, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Hooson, L.

Tope, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

141

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hogg, B.

Ailsa, M.

Holderness, L.

Aldington, L.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hothfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inchyra, L.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Ironside, L.

Bathurst, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knights, L.

Beloff, L.

Knollys, V.

Blaker, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lindsay, E.

Blyth, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Bolton, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Borthwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monson, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleridge, L.

Northesk, E.

Colnbrook, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Pike, B.

Denman, L.

Pym, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Downshire, M.

Reay, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rees, L.

Elibank, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ridley, V.

Foley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Slim, V.

Goold, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Haig, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Barings
4.51 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Board of Banking Supervision's inquiry into the collapse of Barings. I set up the inquiry in my Statement to the House on 27th February, and I have recently received this report from the Bank of England.
"Since receiving the report, I have had to consider very carefully the legal considerations relevant to publication. I am sure that it is right for Parliament to have this report in all its detail, so that its consideration of the Board of Banking Supervision's conclusions, and the lessons to be learned, can be properly informed. I have concluded that the balance of the public interest lies firmly in favour of publishing the full report. The report is being published without any deletions today, and copies are available in the Vote Office.
"I am very grateful to the board and the investigating team for the huge effort they have put into the report. They have done a thorough and speedy job.
"The report's main findings are that: the losses were incurred by unauthorised and concealed trading activities within Barings Futures Singapore; the true position was not noticed earlier because of serious failures of controls and managerial confusion within the Barings Group; and the true position had not been detected prior to the collapse by the external auditors, supervisors or regulators of Barings.
"The board was not able to gain access to all the information it would have liked. In particular, it was unable to determine Nick Leeson's motives, or whether he was acting alone, because of serious difficulties in obtaining information from Singapore. The obstacles were, I understand, legal ones, and there were some problems in providing the Singapore investigators with all the information which they in turn sought from London. However, it was clearly important to ensure as complete an exchange of information as possible, and I myself wrote twice to the Finance Minister in Singapore seeking his help in obtaining the co-operation of the authorities there. It is regrettable that there remained serious legal obstacles which prevented all the relevant documents being provided to the board.
"Leeson himself was invited to co-operate with the inquiry, but declined to do so. Through his solicitors, he has been informed of the conclusions the board have reached about his part in the collapse. His solicitors wrote to the board on 22nd June saying that the report's conclusions were inaccurate in various respects, but they did not provide any further details of his response.

143
"The report describes how the concealment of the true nature of dealings in Singapore and the build-up of losses from unauthorised trading began almost as soon as Nick Leeson joined Barings Futures Singapore as general manager and head trader in 1992. By the end of 1993 the cumulative loss was over £20 million, and by the end of 1994 it was over £200 million. Losses leapt spectacularly in the first few weeks of 1995, and after the collapse on 26th February the cumulative loss was a staggering £827 million. Leeson successfully sought to conceal those huge losses throughout by a complex and systematic process of deception and false reporting.
"Such a massive unauthorised position could not have been established if there had been an effective system of management, financial and operating controls within Barings. The report details a great number of failings. I will give the House some examples.
"The money required to fund the losses came primarily from London. It was advanced to Singapore with no independent check on the validity of the requests or any attempt to reconcile them to any known trading position. If management in London had sought to examine the information from Singapore to support the requests for funds, it should have discovered that the information was meaningless.
"Barings management in London seem generally to have believed that the money being sent to Singapore was being lent to clients to facilitate their trading. However, the credit aspects of these advances were never formally reviewed or considered by the credit committee. Barings' management did not question why it was apparently lending over £300 million to clients to trade when it had collateral of only some £31 million from clients for those trades.
"The management of Barings did not question the extraordinarily high levels of apparent profitability of supposed arbitrage dealings in Singapore, which were regarded as being without risk. In the Board of Banking Supervision's view these profits should have been viewed as abnormal and questionable, and the extraordinary profitability reported in 1994 should have attracted the close and thorough attention of the management long before the collapse.
"Despite Leeson's efforts at concealment, some information on the account he used to hide his losses was available to London, but it was never analysed. No one within Barings accepted responsibility for Leeson's activities for the whole of 1994. Leeson's deception was made easier as he was not only a trader but also in charge of the so-called 'back office' which processed the paperwork associated with trading. In 1994 Barings' internal auditors recommended that as a trader he should not have this responsibility for the back office. Barings failed to implement this recommendation.
144
"There were also serious and consistent failures and errors in its exposure reports to the Bank, and other reports to the Securities and Futures Authority, which made it less likely that they would be alerted to evidence of a problem.
"Coopers & Lybrand Singapore were the auditors for Barings Futures Singapore for 1994. In preparing those accounts, they expressed the view that the controls of BFS were satisfactory. This conclusion is not easy to reconcile with the lack of segregation of duties within the Singapore subsidiary which I have just described. For both 1993 and 1994, the auditors of the London operations were Coopers & Lybrand London. The report also raises doubts over the effectiveness of their testing of Barings' internal controls. The board considers that more thorough tests would have been likely to reveal the inadequate support for the funding requests from Singapore. However, the 1994 audit had not been fully completed, and it will never be known whether Coopers would have raised with management the important issues which had not apparently been identified or addressed by the time of the collapse.
"The independent members of the Board of Banking Supervision were separately asked by me to review the role of the UK regulators, particularly the Bank of England, in the events leading to the collapse. They were assisted in this inquiry by a team of accountants, lawyers and derivatives experts all drawn from outside the Bank of England. The board does not consider that the events leading up to the collapse point to the need for any fundamental change to the framework of regulation in the UK. But there is, it concludes, a need for improvements in the implementation of the existing arrangements.
"The board considers that the Bank of England reasonably placed reliance on local regulators of the overseas operations, and was also entitled to place reliance on the explanations of the management for the profitability of those operations and on the other information provided by Barings. Though the regulatory reports from Barings to regulators did contain information that was relevant to the collapse, they did not contain material information which could have alerted the regulators to the existence of the unauthorised positions that had been taken.
"The board identified a number of shortcomings in implementation by the Bank of England. It considers that an error of judgment was made in 1993 in giving Barings Brothers & Co an 'informal concession' in relation to the normal obligation of a bank to notify in advance exposures representing over 25 per cent. of its capital base. The time taken by the Bank of England to address the policy issues involved resulted in what the board judged to be an unacceptable delay of almost two years in reimposing the 25 per cent. limit. The Board of Banking Supervision was unable to determine whether or not this delay on the part of the Bank in imposing this limit was a contributing factor in Barings' collapse.
"The board also considers that the Bank of England displayed a lack of rigour in the analysis leading to the decision to permit Barings Securities Limited and

145
Barings Brothers to be supervised on a joint, or so-called 'solo consolidation' basis, and in failing to review the decision. Solo consolidation of the two companies need not have resulted in a reduction in control over the advance of funds to the Singapore subsidiary, but in the case of Barings that was the practical effect.
"The report draws lessons for the management of banks like Barings, and for regulators and auditors. The Bank of England has accepted all of the recommendations relevant to it and I am placing copies of the Bank's detailed response in the Library of the House. The only other regulator for whom the Board of Banking Supervision draws lessons is the Securities and Futures Authority, which will respond once it has studied the report.
"The collapse of the Barings Group was clearly a very serious matter and caused damage to the reputation of the City of London. It has led to loss for a number of investors in Barings. However, the takeover by ING has stabilised the group and averted the prospect of far greater loss. Nothing has happened since my earlier Statement and there is nothing in the report to make me doubt my view that it would have been wrong to have used public funds to rescue Barings.
"Finally, I should like to remind the House of an important point. No regulatory system can provide a 100 per cent. guarantee against a bank failure, especially where there is a deliberate intention on the part of individual traders to conceal or deceive, combined with inadequate management controls. In cases such as this it is important that lessons are learnt quickly and promulgated widely so that all parties, including the management of other financial institutions, can learn from the unfortunate example. The speed and openness of the process is the best way to give confidence to the public and to the City. The Bank of England has already responded positively to the report. It is essential that management of all financial firms do the same".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for repeating that extraordinary Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place.
The collapse of the Barings Bank is the third major financial collapse in the past 10 years following Johnson Matthey and BCCI. As one financial collapse follows another, a persistent and fundamental question has been raised about the supervision of the British financial system and in particular about the role of the Bank of England as the body with overall financial responsibility for the financial stability of the system.
This question is raised by the Chancellor's Statement: Is the regulatory system of the UK adequate to meet the demands of an increasingly integrated, increasingly global, financial system in which the distinctions between banking and securities, and securities and insurance, have increasingly broken down? That was the
146
question which the Barings' failure posed. That was the question which this report has again exposed and has again failed to answer.
The main issue raised by the report is the role of the Bank of England as principal regulator of Barings Bank. The questions are simple. What did the Bank of England know? When did it know it? And what did it do about it? What did the Bank know about the operations of Barings Bank? Is the Minister aware that the Singapore papers were publishing on a regular basis—monthly, prior to the collapse—tables indicating the market exposure of Barings on the Singapore Exchange? Will the Minister confirm that paragraph 13.36 of the report states, in relation to Barings' financial position:
"Queries were raised at a high level from reputable sources, and even included a query on 27 January 1995 from the Bank for International Settlements".
Why, then, did the collapse at the end of February come as a surprise to the Bank of England?
Is it not the case that over the past few years the structure of the financial system, both in Britain and throughout the world, has altered beyond recognition? Merchant banks in the City of London have been busy transforming themselves into the equivalents of American securities houses. Indeed, it was the solo consolidation of Barings, discussed by the Chancellor in his Statement—the combining of the capital base of the banking operation and the capital base of the securities house—which led to the collapse.
The report tells us that the Bank of England displayed a lack of rigour with respect to solo consolidation. Does the Minister consider that solo consolidation should be permitted at all even under the increased supervision proposed in the report? Does he not agree that the capitalisation of banking and securities operations should be kept separate?
An important aspect of the rapid changes in financial markets to which I have referred has been that regulatory procedures have become outdated. The principal regulator, the Bank of England, has traditionally had regulatory responsibility for banking and, as lender of last resort, for the integrity of the banking system. However, securities trading demands an entirely different approach. There is no longer a lender of last resort function. No such function is exercised, for example, by the United States SEC, and in principle there is no systemic risk.
In the case of Barings, the securities and futures authority had specific responsibility for the supervision of Barings securities operation in the UK alone—not overseas, not in Singapore—while the Bank of England, which has far less detailed expertise on securities matters, was responsible for the overall operations of Barings including the overseas securities operation.
That responsibility the bank clearly failed to exercise. Indeed, it is clear that the bank has been complacent and has been not a little gullible. Does the Minister recall that Mr. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated in the Observer on 24th July 1994:
"We now have an expert team monitoring derivatives who are getting even better every time they go in to see a firm. What they are reporting back from the most active players in the market is very reassuring. These people know what they are doing, whether it is at director level or the chaps on the desk"?

147
Does the Minister further recall that Mr. Brian Quinn wrote in the Bank of England quarterly bulletin in August 1994:
"I believe both the market participants and the regulatory authorities have come a considerable way in identifying the capital needed for derivatives and all other instruments carrying market risk"?
No wonder the Bank did not know what was happening. It thought it knew already. But what has the report to say about the bank's complacency? In paragraph 13.58 we are told:
"The Bank regarded the controls in Barings as informal but effective".
The Chancellor's Statement says:
"The Bank … reasonably placed reliance on local regulators"—
regulators who, according to the Chancellor's Statement, are now refusing to co-operate with the British authorities. The report continues that the Bank,
"was … entitled to place reliance on the explanations given by management as to the profitability of these operations and on the other information provided by Barings to the Bank".
Paragraph 13.61 states:
"Had the Bank had a greater understanding of Barings' Far Eastern operations and a greater awareness of the degree of control of these operations as exercised by Barings in London it would have been better placed to supervise the consolidated group. There does not appear to have been any guideline or system in place within the Bank for determining whether the situation with regard to a member of the banking group for which the Bank was responsible for consolidated supervision was material such that it could affect the well-being of the bank".
Complacent and gullible, no guideline or system in place.
We might have expected that in those circumstances the internal inquiry by the Board of Banking Supervision would have recommended a fundamental and thorough review of the regulatory apparatus. However, in the section on lessons to be learned and recommendations the report states, in paragraph 14.35:
"We believe the Bank should explore ways of increasing its understanding of the non-banking businesses (particularly financial services businesses) undertaken by those banking groups for which it is responsible".
It should increase its understanding of the job that it is supposed to be doing. Paragraph 14.37 states:
"The Bank should ensure that it understands the key elements of the management and control structures of those banking groups where it is responsible for consolidated supervision".
In the face of a report which argues that the Bank of England should begin to try to understand the institutions which it is supposed to be regulating, it beggars belief that the Chancellor should accept the proposition, and I quote from his Statement,
"that the events leading up to the collapse [do not] point to the need for any fundamental change to the framework of regulation in the UK".
That is an astonishing statement. Does not the Minister understand that in accepting the advice of an internal committee of the Bank of England into the future of the Bank's own supervisory role the Government are further damaging the already tattered credibility of the British regulatory system? Will the Government now set up a proper independent review to consider what should be the structure of a modern supervisory system, suited to the
148
effective and competitive supervision of a modern deregulated financial system? In the light of the increasing integration of banking and securities operations and the development of global markets, that review should consider whether the Bank should continue with its supervisory role or whether that role should pass to a new banking commission, better attuned to the supervisory demands of the modern world.
Is not such a review necessary after three significant and embarrassing failures? Should not the Government ensure that effective supervision and greater confidence for savers and investors underpin the integrity of the British financial system?
Turning briefly to another aspect of the report, does the Minister agree that one of the most distasteful aspects of the whole affair is that, while a large number of bondholders—many of them elderly—have lost virtually all their savings, the management of Barings who, as the report makes clear, share responsibility for those losses, have also shared in bonuses of nearly £100 million? Given that the report also specifies the major failings of the regulatory authorities in this matter, will the Government now undertake to indemnify those who lost money because of the Bank of England's lack of understanding of the markets it was supposed to be supervising?
I conclude by raising an important matter concerning the conduct of business in your Lordships' House. I received a copy of this 400-page report a little over an hour-and-a-half ago. I know that other noble Lords, with the exception of the Minister I suppose, have not seen it at all. There are in your Lordships' House unique understanding, expertise and skills in the complex financial matters covered in the Report, many of which I have not been able to consider at all in this brief reply. In the light of that fact, the Opposition has been pressing since last week to debate the report on this coming Friday, where there is ample time on the Order Paper, rather than wait until October. The Government have refused to countenance such a debate. Will the Minister reconsider the action in blocking the opportunity for your Lordships to comment on the report before it gathers dust? Will the Government give the opportunity for the House to debate the report on Friday?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to express appreciation to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out that there have in recent times been three significant banking crises. I consider that the Barings crisis is the worst of the three because it was at the heart of the City of London. It was the longest established merchant banking organisation in Britain. Of the other two, Johnson Matthey represented a bank which was a subsidiary of a firm which dealt mainly in trading precious metals. BCCI was a firm of enormous proportions but it largely traded abroad. This crisis hits at the heart of the City of London. It is fitting, therefore, that we should have this long and detailed report on it.
From what I have been able to read in the short time I have had the report in my hands, the analysis is extremely detailed and, I regret, highly critical of all

149
involved. With the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I find that the recommendations and the lessons learnt do not seem to me to go nearly far enough.
Let us consider what is said about management. What should be done about management in other banking concerns? The first heading on page 252 is that:
"Management teams have the duty to understand fully the businesses they manage".
Did we really need a report of this size to comment in that way, over 200 years after the City of London established itself as the main financial centre in the world?
Let us look at the second main recommendation as regards management:
"Responsibility for each business activity has to be clearly established and communicated".
In other words, the management has to know what various business activities are being performed. The third recommendation is that there should be:
"Clear segregation of duties [in] … any effective control system".
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has already referred to the limited nature of the proposals that are made about the supervisory role of the Bank of England. So I very much fear that, although this is an excellent report in analysis, what it comes out with at the end gives little reassurance to those—they represent everyone in this House, and indeed in the country—who fear that this might occur again.
I wish to ask the Minister whether, even in the light of the limited recommendations, there is to be a further report by the Board of Banking Supervision to find out whether the various banking institutions are taking the necessary actions. Furthermore, in regard to the Bank of England's supervisory role, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is perfectly right to draw attention to the alternative possibilities. We should have a major debate on whether the supervisory role should remain with the Bank or should be transferred. I have an open mind on the subject, but if it is to remain with the Bank, the whole thing needs to be sharpened up a good deal more than is suggested in the report.
The third area of importance is co-operation with overseas supervisory bodies. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, the fact that the Singapore authorities were not prepared to co-operate in the inquiry does not bode well for the arrangements for co-ordination by the various authorities. Because of the global nature of financial operations in the world in which we live, unless there is much more effective co-operation with the various supervisory bodies, I do not suppose that we shall be able to avoid such crises occurring again.
I conclude by asking the Minister whether the report, which is good on analysis, is only the start of the story. Do we not need to take it a good deal further? Do we not need to be assured that when these and further measures are effectively taken, we avoid this kind of occurrence in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for thanking me for repeating this Statement. I shall try to address some of the points that they raised, although I cannot promise to
150
answer them all; this report is very detailed. Noble Lords who are interested can, I suspect, spend a few hours reading it, when they will perhaps receive a slightly broader view than that portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
To reply first to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as to what was happening in regard to the recommendations, so far as the Bank is concerned there are 17 recommendations for action by the Bank which have all been accepted. They include improving its understanding of the risks in the non-banking business in the groups for which it is responsible; various improvements to its internal guidelines; efforts to improve co-operation with other regulators; and other measures to improve its effectiveness. The board asked for—and the Bank indicated that it will provide—a report on the recommendations and what has been done about them by the end of the year. As I said in my Statement, I am absolutely certain that all the banks in the City and all the other financial institutions will read carefully what this report discovered about this incident in order to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt by them over the way that they control their operations.
Perhaps the major point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is the argument that he advanced, as did some others, in favour of separating the functions of banking supervision away from the Bank of England. There is nothing in this report that supports the need for that major change to the regulatory framework. What it points to is a failure of practice, not a failure of policy. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will of course remember that Lord Justice Bingham concluded in his report on BCCI that there was nothing in the history of BCCI that argued against the Bank's dual role. The noble Lord will also be aware, and I remind him of it, that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of another place, in its 1993 report into the role of the Bank, concluded that there was no overwhelming case for separating out banking supervision to a separate body; rather the balance of argument was in favour of maintaining the status quo.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee is currently looking into derivatives and at the implications of the Barings collapse. I do not know whether it will revisit this issue, but that is what it said; and that is what Lord Justice Bingham said in previous investigations on this issue. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was quoting from the broad base of views on this matter, but from a rather narrower base, when he invited me to remember quotations from articles previously.
The Board of Banking Supervision was set up under the Banking Act 1987 to advise the Bank of England on the discharge of its supervisory responsibility. Apart from the Governor and one other Bank official, the other six members are all independent outsiders with considerable experience. They were appointed precisely to deal with and pursue thoroughly, under their powers in the Banking Act, the sorts of issue that arose in this incident.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about Singapore and why there were problems in getting information from Singapore. One of the problems was that Barings

151
Futures Singapore is in the hands of judicial managers in Singapore who have a similar role to UK administrators. An inquiry team sought a local court ruling to direct the managers to release information, but the court refused, principally because insufficient commercial benefit would, as they saw it, accrue to BFS. My right honourable friend the Chancellor wrote twice to the Singapore Minister of Finance seeking co-operation on information. Therefore the investigation team did not get all the information that it would have liked because of the legal difficulties, but the Singapore Government, after my right honourable friend had written, agreed with us on the need to co-operate so far as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked me about the bondholders and about the bonuses of those who left Barings as a result of this incident. So far as I understand, almost all of those who are criticised in this report have left Barings. Equally, my understanding is that they did not receive any of the bonuses about which the noble Lord asks.
On the general question of whether the Government or the Bank of England should stand behind shareholders and bondholders in these matters, there is no suggestion in the report that the Bank should do so. Of course, we very much regret the fact that people lost money in Barings. But the capital of any company is exposed to higher risks than ordinary creditors and will receive a return only after other creditors are paid. If the Bank or the Government were to stand behind all failed banks, this would lead to moral hazard. People could chase the highest returns, regardless of risk, knowing that someone else would pay the Bill if things went wrong. That would not be right.
I was asked why the Bank did not pick up the market rumours when others did. The Bank of International Settlements, one of the others quoted, has a substantial balance sheet which requires it to deal on a regular basis in all the world's major markets and with all the world's major banks. Therefore, it is not really surprising that its dealers picked up a rumour in talking to Tokyo business counterparts. Bank dealers have very many fewer regular links with the Far East, and they did not pick up that particular rumour.
On the question of solo consolidation, which is a tricky issue on its own, I was asked by the noble Lord if I thought that it should be ended. I believe that it is sometimes right for the Bank to regard very closely linked institutions as one. The report makes clear that solo consolidation was a problem only because it was combined with such inadequate internal controls and general misreporting. The point is not that we should rule out a potentially useful technique, but that we should ensure that it is employed only where appropriate. The Bank is reviewing its rules on that subject.
Another point concerned holding a debate on Friday. As noble Lords well know, that is not a matter for me but for the usual channels. It should be left to the usual channels to make these decisions.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that it is very important that this matter should be debated by this House before we rise for the Recess. This House contains an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge on these subjects. The matter is obviously one of considerable urgency. The only extent to which I would perhaps differ from the noble Lord opposite is in so far as it might be better to defer our rising for the Recess and take the debate early next week. That would give rather more opportunity and time for those of us who are concerned about this matter—and there are many—to read and digest this report. There is no necessity, so far as I know, to rise on Friday. It is purely a matter of convenience. This House has always been prepared to subject questions of convenience to questions of real public duty. It seems to me that this House can do a great deal by debating this subject. I hope that my noble friend will not just pass us off with the usual formula about "the usual channels". Some of us have no undue confidence in the usual channels. We should have far more confidence in my noble friend the Minister were he to say that he would himself take steps to see that we have an opportunity to debate this subject.
The only other matter that I would raise with him is this. I did not understand from his Statement, although I endeavoured to follow it closely, whether he, the Government and the Treasury are satisfied that the steps so far taken are sufficient to prevent a similar early repetition of a ghastly episode of this sort.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as to my noble friend's last point, at the very end of my Statement I pointed out that in the real world no regulatory system can provide a 100 per cent. guarantee against a bank failure. Anybody who believes anything else lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
The lessons for the Bank, for the financial institutions and for other people involved in this issue are there in this report for them to read. The Bank certainly accepts the recommendations and has undertaken to give report accepting their adoption by the end of the year.
As to having a debate on Friday of next week or whenever, my noble friend has asked me that question quite often. He has seemed quite keen to shorten the Recess on a number of occasions. Yesterday it was about the Consolidated Fund and probably tomorrow it will be the Consolidated Fund again. I can only repeat, much as I should love to yield to the temptation and be his hero for the day, that these matters are better dealt with by the usual channels and I shall report the matter to my noble friend after this Statement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that we on these Benches would also very much like to see an early debate. It is not good enough to leave it until early October. Nor do we accept that the Government are in a position to decide that that should be done and so on this occasion to instruct the usual channels.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said. I believe that the usual channels are the appropriate way. It is a fairly hefty report to read and your Lordships may be the better for a few days in which to digest it before we even begin to think about debating it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Eatwell, in a devastating commentary this afternoon, covered most of the points. I do not want to repeat them.
However, as I am sure your Lordships generally will accept, we have heard an incredible Statement this afternoon. We have been told that there is no need for any fundamental change to the framework of regulation in the United Kingdom. That is hard to believe after just hearing the Statement, let alone reading the whole report. How can the Minister say that? He should not have repeated what the Chancellor said. He should be ashamed to repeat words of that description.
In his reply, the Minister said that there was nothing in the report which suggested that we should separate out the supervisory role from the Bank of England. Of course not—the report is from the Bank of England. Why should we expect the board to recommend that it should be separated out. He mentioned the 17 recommendations that have been accepted. I have not read the report. Does one of the recommendations cover the point made by my noble friend Lord Eatwell; namely, that the Bank would do better to understand its job? Is that one of the recommendations?
I should like answers to two basic questions. First, we have been told in the Statement this afternoon that what happened was a failure by Barings and above all by the Bank of England's lack of rigour. Despite that, it is proposed to leave the Bank of England in charge. Would the Minister kindly justify to us how he can propose to leave the Bank of England in charge when he has repeated all the criticisms made this afternoon?
Secondly, everything that the Minister said this afternoon implies alleged charges against a certain Mr. Nick Leeson. The charges imply an offence against Barings in London. Barings has lost the money—over £800 million. Barings in London lost that amount of money, we are told, through the efforts or lack of effort of Nick Leeson. Why do the Government refuse to bring him back and charge him in this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not need to remind the noble Lord that the independent members of the board were the ones who looked in particular at the role of the Bank. As I explained in my original answer, that is the role placed on it by the Banking Act. It was not the Bank of England but the independent members of the board who concluded that:
"The events leading to the collapse of Barings do not, in our view, of themselves point to the need for any fundamental change to the framework of regulation in the UK. There is, however, a need for improvements in the existing arrangements".
That is a serious point which has to be taken on board.
There is a distinction between the fundamental arrangements and the way in which they are operated in a practical way. The one needs to be improved and not the other. As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord
154
Eatwell, Lord Justice Bingham came to the same conclusion, as did the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in another place.
The noble Lord asked me about Mr. Leeson and the fact that the board in this report certainly indicates his major role in the affair. When noble Lords have had a chance to read the report, they will see that that was indeed the trigger point. Not only according to the board did he do the trading but he went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that it was not found out by his superiors.
As for the question about him being brought to face criminal offences in Britain, that is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. It has stated that there is presently no evidence available to it which could form the basis for an application for extradition from Germany. Mr. Leeson's activities—it seems a statement of the obvious—were carried out in Singapore and it is in Singapore that these matters will have to be addressed.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that my right honourable friend the Chancellor, as soon as he could possibly do so, asked the Board of Banking Supervision to make a report? The report has come out with remarkable rapidity when one considers other reports which are requested and take months and sometimes years to appear. My noble friend will no doubt agree that the report shows a chaotic state of management in Barings, and not only in Barings; there is also criticism of the auditors, Coopers & Lybrand.
Those are serious accusations against two institutions, as far as the City of London is concerned. So far as concerns the Bank of England, from my cursory scan of the report, it seems to me that the cardinal error there lay in giving a concession that meant that if 25 per cent. of its capital base were exposed, it need not report it. That is a derogation of monitoring by the Bank of England. I understand that that informal concession was not given by a top executive in the Bank. I should have thought that such a concession should only have been made by the Governor, or certainly the Deputy Governor. I am sure that my noble friend will agree.
We must be careful that we do not jeopardise the confidence of the City of London. The City of London is a major plank in our economy so far as concerns invisibles. It does not do us any good to talk down the regulatory authorities and so on. I am absolutely convinced that the 17 recommendations will be implemented and, as my noble friend said, that all the other regulatory bodies will read the report with great interest and make absolutely certain that their monitoring is good.
We keep on having reviews. I feel that we want action. I urge my noble friend to take action on this report, particularly with regard to the 17 recommendations for the Bank of England.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making those points. Perhaps I may start at the end of them. As I indicated, the 17 recommendations have been accepted by the Bank of England and it has issued a press statement today on that.

155
In the report, the board says that it has asked the Bank to report back to it by the end of this year, saying what it has done about those recommendations. I hope that that helps my noble friend from that point of view.
My noble friend is right. One of the problems in the Bank was the matter of the advance of more than 25 per cent. of its capital to a single party. Clearly, that is a problem. It has been highlighted in the report. It is one of the issues that the Bank will have to address to ensure that there are no further breaches of the large exposures directive.
With regard to the auditors, it is fair to say that the report does not blame them for the collapse. However, it raises some significant questions about the effectiveness of their inquiries. I hope that professional bodies will pay close attention to the findings of the board in regard to auditors. It must be said that the board was not able to deal properly with issues relating to Coopers & Lybrand in Singapore because, as I said earlier, the company claimed client confidentiality and the Singapore court upheld that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on publishing this report in reasonable time. This is an extremely complex business. It covered international operations, which are difficult to follow. It required co-operation and information from a large number of sources and, unlike previous investigations on affairs in the City, this report was published in reasonable time. In other cases, such as those where the Serious Fraud Office were involved in City affairs, the inquiry sometimes took four or five years. The Government therefore should be congratulated on the expedition with which they have produced the report.
That is all I say in commendation of the report. I want to raise the question of the depositors and the people who lost money in this sad affair. After all, it is not a question of standing behind every bank that runs into difficulty. I would not expect the Government to assume that responsibility. But in this case, as is contained in the report, the Bank of England is responsible for a high degree of negligence and for that I assume the Government should bear some responsibility, it being their institution.
The other matter referred to is the case of the auditors. In the report the auditors are also deemed negligent. Is not there a case for a professional body to deal with auditors who are negligent—reputable firms as they are, as the bank too is a reputable firm? Also, as often happens in American courts, is not there a case for the people who lost money to sue the negligent individuals in order to recover some of that money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for his introductory points. He is absolutely right in saying that it is a complex report; it was produced speedily and my right honourable friend the Chancellor published it not only speedily, but in full. I am glad for the noble Lord's endorsement in that regard.
156
The noble Lord returned to the question of the people who lost money. If in this case, somebody—let us say the Government—were to pay back that money in some way, I fear that that may be taken by everybody else as meaning that when a similar eventuality happened in the future, the Government could be pushed into being morally obliged to pay out that money. That would have the result that I mentioned in my original answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell; that is, that people would go into high risk strategies without any regard for the consequences, safe in the knowledge that the Government could be relied upon or bullied into bailing them out if it went wrong. That is the first point I want to make.
When the noble Lord reads the whole report he will not be able to come to the conclusion that the Bank was principally responsible. He will see that the responsibilities for this whole affair were largely in Barings and its management, and the way that they dealt with the situation. Also, when he reads the board's view on the part Mr. Leeson played, he will see that that was the key. I do not want to quote at too great a length, but in paragraph 5.3 the report points out,
"It appears, therefore, that Leeson intended to use Account '88888'"—
which was the account into which he put the losses—
"for unauthorised activity from the outset"—
that is, from the time that he went to Singapore—
"and that the action noted above"—
that is, what he did in order to make sure that no information went from that account back to London—
"was designed to exclude the account from the books and records of Barings".
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is being a little unkind therefore—I understand that because he has not had the chance to read the whole report—when he tries to finger the blame entirely on the Bank of England.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others drew our attention to the disgraceful state of affairs whereby the new owners of Barings paid many tens of millions of pounds by way of bonuses to already well-paid employees at Barings at the expense of loan note holders, many of whom are not well off. While I accept that the Government are not in a position to bale out the loan note holders, does not the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, agree that the action of the new owners will make it more difficult and more expensive for solid, respectable, well-run British companies to raise fixed interest capital in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I said earlier that my understanding is that those who left Barings did not receive bonuses. The bonuses' point is covered by ING Barings and relates to those people who continue to work for that company. To whom the bonuses should be paid is a matter for the new owners. Around 4,000 people worked in parts of Barings that had nothing to do with this matter in Singapore and nothing to do with these events. They were running a successful UK bank, and it is not right that we should confuse their position with that of the events in Singapore and the inability of the senior management of Barings to monitor those events properly.

Nolan Report: Government Response
5.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement to the House on the Government's response to the first Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which is being presented to the House today as Cm 2931.
"My right honourable friend and distinguished predecessor, the Member for Wirral West, told the House on 18th May that the Government accepted the broad thrust of these recommendations. The response covers all the recommendations addressed to government: 45 of 55 recommendations in all.
"The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is determined to uphold the highest standards in public life. The response details the Government's plans for implementation and action in respect of all the 45 recommendations addressed to government. It also sets out further proposals for a new Civil Service code, and for a new introduction to Questions of Procedure for Ministers.
"We accept the Nolan Committee's recommendation that Ministers should be brought within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The response emphasises the very great importance of continuing interchange between business and commercial life and ministerial office. We should do nothing to deter talented people with private sector experience from entering public life, and nothing which prevents those who have completed their ministerial career from applying that experience to the benefit of British industry and commerce.
"The Nolan Committee strongly supported that principle, and to translate it into action we shall draw up rules setting out specific criteria, to be administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to establish the circumstances in which Ministers should be advised to delay a particular appointment, or make its acceptance subject to conditions. We intend to publish a text for consultation before introducing the rules from the start of the next Session of Parliament. We intend to have a debate on this and the White Paper as a whole in the spillover Session. We shall also consult to the same timetable on an extension of business appointments rules to Ministers' special advisers.
"On the registration of hospitality accepted by Ministers, our response builds on the arrangements for registration of Members' interests in this House and on the guidance already contained in Questions of Procedure that Ministers should not accept hospitality which would or might appear to place them under an obligation. In the words of the Select Committee on Members' Interests,
158
'it is neither possible nor desirable to make a clear distinction between a Minister's conduct as a Minister and his conduct as a Member of Parliament'.
"We shall act quickly and positively on the Nolan Committee's recommendations concerning appointments and propriety in public bodies and the National Health Service, building on many of the continuing initiatives which the committee endorsed. In particular we shall appoint a new commissioner for public appointments to offer guidance, monitor and audit departmental appointment procedures. This post will be advertised in a matter of days.
"We shall extend the use of advisory panels, including an independent element, to advise on appointments to executive public bodies and the National Health Service. This has been successfully piloted in a number of areas. All departments will introduce their own arrangements as soon as practical to allow the new commissioner to influence the procedures introduced. We believe that at the outside this will require no more than 12 months.
"My honourable friend the Member for Orpington announced last month a review of the legal framework governing propriety and accountability in public bodies, and their arrangements for external audit. We intend to reach preliminary conclusions by the end of the year, well ahead of the timetable envisaged in the committee's report.
"We have accepted the recommendations of Lord Nolan's Committee that there should be opportunities under the Civil Service code for a civil servant to raise concerns about actions in which he or she is not personally involved, and for nominated officials to investigate concerns raised confidentially.
"Our consultation period on the Civil Service code will now be extended to mid-September to allow further opportunities for comment. We accept the Nolan Committee's recommendation that implementation need not then await a legislative opportunity, and our intention is to have the code in action before the end of the calendar year.
"I am confident that the action we have set out will show the House, and the country as a whole, our determination to take practical steps which will uphold and sustain the highest standards of propriety, while ensuring that men and women of talent and experience continue to contribute to our public life."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement just made in another place. The first thing that has to be said is that, in numerical terms, when one looks at the White Paper which accompanies the Statement, it is true that a very high proportion of the recommendations made by the Nolan Committee have been accepted by the Government. It is important to put that on the record first. However, we have to read a little further to understand the implications of the Government's approach to the issues raised by Nolan. I

159
am afraid that when we read a little further the situation is by no means as satisfactory as it appears from the simple enumeration of recommendations and responses.
Perhaps I may take, first, the issue of Ministers and private sector jobs after Ministers leave office. The problem is well-known. It is well-known that it is a problem peculiar to this Government. I am not conscious that any significant number of remunerative posts have been offered to former Labour Cabinet Ministers on leaving office. It is a problem which is peculiar in that it has applied particularly to those Ministers who have taken an active part in the privatisation of public sector companies and have then proceeded, almost directly in many cases, onto the boards of those privatised companies after they have left office. We hope that that may be a finite problem which will not arise in the future. Both of them may be finite problems which will not arise in the future. But they are particular problems and their political implications should not be forgotten.
When we look at the Government's response to the problem of taking up business appointments after leaving office we find that, although the Government claim to accept the recommendation, they do not in fact accept the recommendation that there should be a minimum three-month gap. They are perfectly willing to accept that there should be a maximum two-year gap but there is no acceptance of the minimum three-month gap. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why that should be the case?
We know that the Nolan Committee talked about advice to Ministers rather than prohibition on Ministers. However, the phrasing used in the Statement,
"circumstances in which Ministers should be advised to delay a particular appointment",
is a little weak in the circumstances. I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on the implication of that statement.
We welcome the suggestion made by Nolan and accepted by the Government that these timetables and rules should apply to special advisers and that special advisers should to that extent be brought within the scope of the Civil Service. I do not think there is anything very much we would want to say about the registration of hospitality. Nolan found that that on the whole is acceptable. Nolan's detailed proposals about registration, although they have not been accepted by the Government, do not cause us particular concern.
Where we start to have greatest concern is about quangos—non-departmental government bodies. Here we are told not that there is a response now to the recommendations of Nolan, but that Mr. John Horam has set up a review of the legal framework governing propriety and accountability. While acknowledging the appointment of a commissioner for public appointments, why is it that the Nolan recommendation that the appointment should be outside the Cabinet has not been accepted? Indeed, the staff of the commissioner are to work within the Cabinet Office. That is a worrying consideration.
160
When we come to appointments, all of the formal procedures proposed can very well be defended. But the formal procedures which we have had in the past have in effect been defended by Ministers over a number of years. We all know the reality. For a very large number of these appointments, departments and Ministers go round to the Whips' Office to get a suitable party candidate. What assurance do we have that the formal procedures that have been defended in the past and have clearly not worked will work in the future? What changes have taken place which give us that assurance?
We come to the propriety of the actions of the members of quangos. However many codes of conduct there may be, unless propriety is ensured by something much more comparable to the rules which apply to elected members of local authorities rather than to these appointed bodies, we shall not have very much confidence in them. Members of local authorities have been required by Parliament, following the Widdecombe Report, to obey very detailed rules on particular interests as opposed to general interests. I see no evidence in the Government's response—I do not see enough evidence in Nolan's analysis—of the need for non-elected members of quangos to be subject to at least the same rigour of rules as elected members of local authorities, including the threat of suspension and financial penalties, which do not seem to exist at the present time.
There is a good deal of reference in the Nolan Report to openness. There is some reflection of that in the Government's response. What does openness mean? It should mean that the activities of these bodies—the health authorities and so on—are as open as the activities of local government. In other words, except when there are particular issues of commercial confidence which need to be determined in private, non-departmental public bodies should conduct their activities in public in just the same way as local authorities. So far as I can see, there is no reference to that in the Government's response.
It is all very well, when talking about quangos, to speak about removing abuse of the system; but we must recognise that the system itself is an abuse. It is a fact that, even on the low estimates of Nolan, there are 9,000 appointments and £40 billion of public expenditure involved. Unless we are determined to bring those activities under democratic control, all of the codes of conduct and codes of standards will be of little value.
6 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we on these Benches also greatly welcome the Statement. It is a most important Statement but inevitably a short one. Just as the Statement in another place produced the promise of a debate in the final part of the current Session, we also feel very strongly about the matter and would like to have a debate on it. There is so much detail in fine print which we cannot possibly pursue today because there is important business before the House; and, indeed, another Statement has already been discussed. However, I hope that we shall have such a debate during the spill-over period. That would give us an opportunity to pursue a number of matters that we cannot discuss today.

161
Naturally—and I make no complaint about it—such a Statement is selective. It is selective because of time and space but also because inevitably the Government want to put the best complexion on the decisions that they have made. I believe that it is for this House to scrutinise very carefully the White Paper itself against the Nolan Report. The Statement refers to a statement made in another place on 18th May that the Government accepted the broad thrust of the Nolan Report. It would help us this afternoon, and perhaps help to avoid further detailed questions, if the Minister could say, having accepted the broad thrust, where principally in the decisions set out in the White Paper the Government have actually departed from the Nolan Report.
There are one or two points to which I should like to refer. I do not pretend in any way that the Statement misleads the House, but I believe that inevitably the White Paper has rather more to say in its fine print than such a Statement. For example, Recommendation 14 is an acceptance of the need for the proper investigation of cases of "alleged impropriety affecting Ministers". In the White Paper there are also statements of the Government's position that they accept that recommendation. But, having discussed the problem and said that there is a range of alternative courses of action to be decided upon in each case, the White Paper does not spell out what those alternative courses might be. If not today, I hope in the debate that we may have in the spill-over period, the Minister will clarify the position more fully.
Again, there is reference in Recommendation 16 of the White Paper to the arrangements parallel to those of the Civil Service to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. The White Paper says:
"The Government accepts this recommendation, but believes there will be many circumstances in which the Advisory Committee will reasonably be able to recommend that the three month waiting period need not apply".
There are a good deal of parentheses in the document of acceptance of the recommendations of Nolan followed by a "but" or a "however". As I said, although we cannot pursue all such matters today, I believe that we need a recognition of that on the part of the Minister, together with a statement of where principally the White Paper departs from the report.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer; namely, Annex A which deals with the conduct and procedure of Ministers. In itself, it is a significant document; indeed, I would make the case for a separate debate upon it. It is perfectly true that years ago no such statements were published. In fact, there was a time when Ministers had no such guidance. However, I must have been one of many Ministers who was guided by such a document. I am bothered by the fact that there are now some significant changes in Annex A to the document. For example, the first of the principles is:
"Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility".
Whether that is right or wrong, it is quite a different question to the conduct and procedure of Ministers. It is not something which might apply to all governments: it is a political process which we take for granted and which Prime Ministers often, rather unsuccessfully, try
162
to enforce. However, I am not quarrelling with the thought—although I would be happy to discuss it—I am quarrelling only with why it is in the document.
Further, and more importantly, there is the introduction of the word "knowingly" into the paragraph in QPM which previously said:
"Ministers must not mislead Parliament".
Now the document is to say:
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament".
Perhaps the Minister will be able to say why I was able to live with the words,
"Ministers must not mislead Parliament",
but apparently she is unable to live, given the Prime Minister's decision on the matter, with the words "knowingly mislead Parliament".
Yet again, referring to Ministers, the annex says:
"Ministers should avoid accepting any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement".
In my time the wording simply said, "or might appear". However, "reasonably appear" has now been introduced into the document.
I also note that another paragraph which said,
"Ministers must keep their party and ministerial roles separate",
has now been changed to read,
"Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes. They must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service".
I am not saying that there is no case for change, but it seems to me that those changes soften the rules for the conduct and procedure of Ministers. It would be most helpful if the Minister in this House could spell out very briefly today why she believes that the Prime Minister is obliged to make those changes.
As the Statement says, and as the White Paper very fairly makes plain, the latter deals only with those recommendations of the Nolan Committee which concern Ministers and the Executive; it does not deal with the recommendation of Nolan affecting Members of Parliament. I have no complaint at all about that because, as the White Paper says, it is for the Government to respond on those matters which affect the Executive; but it is for Parliament—and by that I mean both Houses of Parliament—to respond on the other issues of Nolan.
When the moment comes, as in our consideration of the Government's Statement today, I hope that we do not allow ourselves to be distracted unknowingly in our debate on the White Paper into the thought that the public are mainly concerned about the matters dealt with by the White Paper. Of course the public are concerned—and rightly so—but people are more concerned with the conduct of Members of Parliament; and, indeed, although it is a matter for the House at a future date, with the matters being considered by the sub-committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths.
Therefore, virtuous though many of the recommendations are, and good though there may be in most of the Government's acceptance of them, let us not forget that the people outside look to us in the conduct of our affairs to ensure most of all that our standards of public life in this country are as high as they ought to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which both noble Lords have responded to the Statement. It was very constructive. I shall certainly pass on to my noble friends the request for a debate, possibly to match that in another place, to take place during the spill-over period. However, I say that without prejudice to the outcome.
I should like, first, to tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I believe he was a little disingenuous in what he said. Secondly, perhaps I may preface all my responses to what both he and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said. Before I respond, I should like to repeat something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, said in the introduction to his report. He said:
"It was equally clear from a considerable body of this evidence that much of the public anxiety about standards of conduct in public life is based on perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts. Taking the evidence as a whole, we believe that the great majority of men and women in British public life are honest and hard-working and observe high ethical standards".
The noble and learned Lord reached that conclusion after hearing evidence. It is important that we keep that in mind when referring to other points that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was fairly scathing in his criticisms that although we had responded to 45 of the 55 recommendations, we had not done so wholeheartedly enough. He asked what assurances we can give about whether the procedures will be open and capable of clearing people's perceptions of those of us who operate in public life. The work of the commissioner and of the advisory committee on public appointments and the fact that departments will have to set up advisory bodies with an independent element will go a long way to clearing up some of the doubts in people's minds about how we operate publicly. The vast majority of people who take up public appointments in this country not only give generously of their time, energy and enthusiasm but mostly do so with great distinction and great integrity. We must remember that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was concerned about the term "knowingly mislead". We shall, of course, debate the matter in much more detail when the time comes, but the use of the word "knowingly" here refers to wilfully or wantonly knowingly misleading the House. We in this House have a proud record. Those of us who sit on the Front Benches in this House may have gone through the pain of unwittingly misleading the House, but we have a tradition in this House of Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box to make amends for any statement in which they may have misled the House unwittingly. That is a very different matter from knowingly misleading either House. If we knowingly mislead the House, the culpability is ours personally. There is a real distinction to be made. We recognise that distinction in our suggestion that we alter the Questions of Procedure for Ministers in both Houses.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why the Government have undertaken only to review the legal framework for propriety for quangos. He asked why there is to be no immediate action. The answer is that in Recommendation 45 the noble and learned Lord,
164
Lord Nolan, stated that a review of those issues should be undertaken. That is what we have undertaken to do. As the noble Lord knows, this is a complex area and it is right that action on the legal framework should be viewed and reviewed carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, queried Recommendation 14 and said that there had not been a full response from the Government. I repeat that the Government accept Recommendation 14. The way allegations are dealt with will depend very much on the nature of the case. An investigation is not necessary in every case where impropriety is alleged. Examples are given. I refer to where allegations are malicious, trivial or can be dealt with promptly in a personal statement by the Minister concerned. In such cases, investigation is not needed. However, where the gravity or complexity of an alleged impropriety is such as to merit further internal or even external advice or investigation to establish the facts, the Government agree that there is a range of alternative courses of action to be decided in each case by the Prime Minister in the light of the circumstances. The Government agree also that it is important to uphold the principle that advice from civil servants to Ministers should not normally be made public.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also said that we have not accepted for all Ministers the three-month gap which applies before a Cabinet Minister can take up a post. Many appointments will not raise any issue of impropriety. Some Ministers may return to a family business or a previous profession, for example. Where no issues of improper advantage apply, a three-month gap would serve no purpose whatsoever. The advisory committee on business appointments will decide each case on its merits and advise the Minister accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the amendments in Annex A. He said that they are not all amendments to Questions of Procedure for Ministers. They are amendments to principles suggested by the Nolan Committee, which readily accepted that the detailed drafting was a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government. The present Prime Minister, my right honourable friend, was the first to publish Questions of Procedure for Ministers. In the noble Lord's day, there could be no debate about the text because in those days it was regarded as confidential.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the activities of health authorities and said that they should be as open as those of local government. I believe that he was referring to quangos also. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his committee examined the issue of openness and recommended that executive NDPBs and NHS bodies should develop their own codes on openness and build on the Government's code of openness. We have accepted that. We have endorsed the committee's standard of best practice on openness, including on opening meetings to the public and making the minutes of such meetings available to the public. The noble Lord also referred to public appointments and questioned whether the commissioner would be independent of the Cabinet Office. I assure the House

165
that the new commissioner will be an independent person who will be appointed as a Civil Service commissioner, as the Nolan Committee recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the Government's response on the delaying of appointments. He asked why our response was not stronger. It is important that there is interchange between the public and private sectors. The rules need to reach a balance between that and providing safeguards to ensure that there is no impropriety in appointments. That is the whole point of opening up the procedure. Each case will be considered on its merits by the advisory committee on business appointments, which will advise Ministers directly. If the advisory committee thinks that a delay or behavioural condition is necessary, it will offer that advice. My understanding is that the advice will be made public.
6.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, where a former Minister is advised not to take up a particular post for two years, is it the intention of the Government that his ministerial salary will be continued for that period?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government that the salary will be continued. The recipient of such advice is not bound by it, but the advice will be made public if that person decides to take up the job. If the advisory committee advises that somebody should not take up a certain job for two years and must wait two years before doing so, one has to assume that, on the basis on which it came to that view, it would be improper for that person to take up that post and that it would therefore be proper for that person to take up a post elsewhere. The answer to the noble Lady's question is: no, the Government would not pay the salary in the meantime.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. I refer first to the new commissioner for public appointments. The noble Baroness indicated—I think that I quote her correctly—that he or she will be an "independent person". We welcome that, but will any Minister of the Crown be associated directly or indirectly with that appointment? Will any Minister of the Crown be consulted before that person is appointed? We should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Secondly, the Statement indicates that the consultation period for the new Civil Service code will be extended until the middle of September so that additional comments can be made. We do not have any difficulty with that, but when will a Statement be made by the Government on that new Civil Service code? Does the Minister recognise that many of the gravest concerns arising from the Nolan Report—and, incidentally, some arising apparently as a result of the investigation by Sir Richard Scott—bear directly on this issue? It is an issue of the highest importance. When will we have a Statement from the Government on that point?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord if I do not answer his first question correctly. My understanding is that, as I said in the
166
Statement, the appointment will first be advertised publicly. My understanding is that the commissioner will be appointed in just the same way as the Civil Service commissioner. Therefore, the appointments panel will be involved and I have no doubt that there will be ministerial involvement also. Again, I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
On the second point the noble Lord raises, first, as he has said, there will be an extension of the consultation period. A debate has been promised in another place. I shall take back to my noble friends and the usual channels the request for a debate in this House. The Government will consider their response in the light of that debate. I cannot say when they will respond. I think that the noble Lord will agree that my right honourable friend is anxious that we respond as quickly as possible to all the outstanding points. I have no doubt that he will do the same with this issue.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a couple of points for me? The first relates to Minister's knowingly misleading the House. I am a little worried about that. I have not been a Minister, but as I understand it, a great deal of what Ministers tell both Houses is the result of information they receive from their civil servants. If a Minister on taking up office says to his senior civil servants, "Always advise me what is in line with our policy, and do not tell me when I am misleading the House", effectively the responsibility is shuffled from the Minister onto the civil servants. What mechanism is there to enable the civil servant to say, "Look, it is not my responsibility. It is the Minister's"? If the Minister has not been told by the civil servant that he is misleading the House, he can get away from the problem by saying, "I did not knowingly mislead the House".
My second question relates to the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility. Again, I have not been in the Cabinet, but my understanding is that one could effectively describe it as a party political situation. My understanding is that Ministers are Ministers of the Crown. They are almost independent of people. They are effectively doing the Queen's business in a department of state. To think that they may be restrained from doing that business on behalf of the Queen because of some rule which is of a party political nature worries me a little. Will the Minister explain that side of things as well?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the first point, the noble Lord over-simplifies the role of those who have to serve on the Front Bench. First, we are not totally mouthpieces for the lines given to us by our civil servants. Clearly we have to be advised because a great deal of what we do is technical. We will take advice, be bound by that advice and deliver that advice. There are occasions when we do not agree with that advice. There is now a proper procedure set down here relating to the area in which a Minister may take a policy decision. There is a proper procedure for when a Minister receives advice, considers the advice but comes to a different conclusion.

167
There is now also a procedure for when a civil servant believes that a Minister is behaving improperly in any way, or even illegally, if one take a more extreme example. A procedure will be set down which will clarify the position to allow a civil servant to have a voice.
If in the course of answering questions—I am now answering a question well away from the brief on the Statement with which I started—I unwittingly mislead the House, I hope, as is the tradition of the House, that I would come back to the House and make amends. Sometimes we are cautious enough to preface what we say by saying, "I understand" or "If I mislead you, of course I shall write to you".
It would be a very different and much more serious matter were I knowingly to come to the Dispatch Box and mislead the House. That is why that behaviour is singled out as being a distinctive form of behaviour for a Minister. I believe that that is right.
On the other point, the noble Lord over-simplifies the whole issue of being a member of the Cabinet. Of course there will be spirited debate within Cabinet. I do not believe that there has been a British Government Cabinet in which there has not been lively, spirited debate and agreement and disagreement when subjects are being discussed. When a view is taken by the Cabinet, as a properly responsible member of the Cabinet it is entirely proper that collective responsibility is a condition of belonging to Cabinet. If one cannot accept Cabinet responsibility, the principled thing to do is to resign from Cabinet to make way for someone who will accept Cabinet responsibility.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, within the past 27 hours your Lordships have heard four Statements repeated from another place which have a strangely interlocking agent. In each case the interlocking agent has been the work of the media, specifically the work of the press, in giving rise to discussions and investigations into affairs which have required such investigations.
Yesterday a number of your Lordships expressed a wish to adopt the French system, which makes it much more difficult for the press and television to do their work. Had that been the case here, we would not have heard so much about any of the four Statements. The actions which led to Nolan would probably have not been made public, or not so many of them. It is ironic that all the Statements came together. It is the press which brought that about.
Only a few tributes were paid yesterday to the press for asking the questions that they have asked. There was a great deal of discussion about the invasion of personal privacy. It is that behaviour which everyone wishes to stop, and I have no argument with that. Were not the Government right yesterday to support the press and voluntary self-regulation of its affairs so that we were able to hear the Statement this afternoon and take action upon it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. It is linked with the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who said that we are dealing more with perceptions and beliefs about people in public life than what is the case in fact: that
168
most people in public life are honourable and people of integrity. It is often the press that perpetuates the perception and belief. We must do what we can to counter that. As my noble friend pointed out, we can address these matters, but I think that it is depressing that we have to spend so much time and energy countering what are only perceptions and beliefs and not facts.

Disability Discrimination Bill
6.28 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("and occupational pensions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. The amendments are grouped also with Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. No doubt he will deal with them as he feels appropriate.
In Committee, I moved a series of amendments designed to ensure that disabled people were not discriminated against when it came to membership of occupational pension schemes. I pointed out that disabled pensioners had a lower average income than non-disabled pensioners; that the changes to the state pension scheme had disadvantaged disabled pensioners since they were more likely than the non-disabled to have to rely upon state provision and SERPS; and that since the Government's policy was against discrimination in employment, they should also be against discrimination in one of the major non-wage benefits, which is of course the provision of occupational pensions.
The Government have actively encouraged people to belong to private pension schemes rather than to the state scheme. We may have our doubts about that, in particular as regards the sale of personal pensions where the circumstances of the individual concerned are not appropriate. However, the fact remains that that is Government policy.
Therefore, in a Bill aiming to end discrimination against disabled people, it makes sense that there should be a clear commitment to ending discrimination as regards the membership of occupational pension schemes. In Committee the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seemed quite sympathetic. However, for various reasons he did not like my series of amendments. He said:
"I cannot support his amendment but we shall consider this matter further and I shall come back to the House on the point at Report".—[Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1704.]
Here we are at Report. We have tabled another amendment (No. 19) which provides that regulations may make provision for:
"the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons in relation to terms of employment relating to membership of an occupational pension scheme, with such modification as may be prescribed".
In other words, we have tried to meet some of the objections raised by the Minister at that time. We hope that this time the Government will see the justice of what we are proposing and will come back either accepting what we say or, if they cannot, producing their own alternative at a later stage.
Clearly, at a time when pensions are on everybody's mind and when there is constant talk of the need to provide for the elderly in one way or another, it would be inappropriate that a Bill intending to outlaw discrimination against disabled people should leave your Lordships' House without the vital provision that we suggest in these two amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important matter and I hope that she will find my response helpful.
Perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 18. The purpose of this amendment is to include occupational pensions within the defined meaning of "benefits" in Clause 4. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood made clear during the Committee stage, Clause 4 is drafted in the same terms as Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It has never been suggested that that Act has failed to cover entitlement to occupational pension benefits. It is easy to see why that is so. Clause 4 applies both to "terms of employment" and to "benefits", which is already widely defined. A person's entitlement to a pension from his employment will normally be a term of his contract, and even where it is not a term it is so plainly a benefit that I cannot believe that courts or tribunals would have the slightest difficulty on the point. I cannot agree to the amendment as it would throw doubt on the existing wording of the Race Relations Act, but I hope that this assurance will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 19. It provides the power to make regulations to deal with the detailed issues which may arise regarding the application of Part II of the Bill to occupational pensions. Amendment No. 32 seeks to disapply Clause 6(5) in the case of discrimination relating to benefits in employment. It also disapplies the subsection in relation to occupational payments.
Your Lordships will be aware that Clause 6(5) enables regulations to be made to specify additional circumstances in which less favourable treatment is taken to be justified. It may be that the noble Baroness intends that the question of justification of less favourable treatment in pensions should be dealt with separately by regulations made under the new regulation-making power that she is proposing in Amendment No. 19. However, we must take great care to understand the possible effect of this Bill upon occupational pensions. We must accept that there will he cases in which less favourable treatment will occur for wholly justifiable reasons.
There might be two types of cases in which occupational benefits for a disabled person might justifiably be less than those for a non-disabled person working next to him. The first is that pensions are almost always linked to pay. If there is a justifiable
170
difference in the pay received by the two workers—perhaps, for example, because the disability means that the disabled person has to work fewer hours—it must be right that the pension can also reflect that difference. I cannot believe that your Lordships will wish to require the employer to have to arrange for a full pension in such circumstances.
The second reason is that the disability might create actuarial risks which the employer or the pension fund should not have to take. For example, depending on the circumstances, we believe that an employer who takes on an employee who is terminally ill can be justified in refusing such a person cover under any scheme he operates for death-in-service benefits. The removal of any justification in the case of these benefits and payments would place quite unwarranted burdens on employers. For that reason, the Government cannot accept these two amendments. I hope that with that explanation of what we envisage, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, although I do not entirely accept it. He may have a point as regards the first amendment. However, I would point out that under the Government's own legislation it is no longer possible to make the membership of a pension scheme a contractual obligation; it is wholly voluntary. We are talking about the right of access to pension schemes.
As regards the second amendment, I note what the Minister says about actuarial considerations and he may have a point. However, I do not believe that he has much of a point in regard to the disabled person who does not work the same number of hours or who receives a different amount of pay. We are not talking about people receiving exactly the same pension. Usually people who belong to pension schemes have a pension that is related to their pay. If they are receiving less pay because they do not work so many hours that is normally reflected in the pension. I see no difficulty with that.
That is why, as regards the actuarial point, we specified in our amendment that there should be regulation-making provision. If regulations were made it would be possible to deal with some of the points that were raised by the Minister in opposition to the amendments.
I am by no means satisfied that there should not be provision written into the Bill to cover access to occupational pension schemes. I believe that it is important that it should be clearly evident that disabled people may have access to occupational schemes. We suggested that regulations should be made in order to make provision for that. However, I do not intend to press the issue to a Division at this time. I shall think most carefully about what the Minister said. There may be an opportunity to raise the matter again on Third Reading when we resume after the Recess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a point that the Minister made. He said that it would be obvious that one would not give a pension to anyone who was terminally ill. What does he mean by "terminally ill"? If he means anyone who has a

171
progressive illness that will ultimately lead to death he is including someone who may be ill for a very long time. Unless it is a short terminal illness I do not believe that we should have on the record of Hansard that it is taken absolutely for granted that because someone is terminally ill he will not be considered for a pension. HIV is a case in point. One could say that a person suffering from HIV is likely to die—of course, we are all more than likely to die—but such a person could be ill for a long time. Given that widows' pensions are connected to occupational pensions it is important that we should not write people off because they can be loosely described as "terminally ill".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the Report stage and I am not sure whether I am entitled to come back. However, I can understand the point which the noble Baroness makes. The simple fact is that if an employer is faced with someone who has a terminal illness and he is prepared to employ him there may be a difficulty in admitting him to a pension scheme which has death-in-service benefits. The reasons are obvious. The actuarial calculations would be extremely adverse in those cases. Here we are talking about cases in which there may be justification for what, on the face of it, looks like discrimination. I do not wish to become involved in arguments as regards death in five, 10 or 15 years. As the noble Baroness says, there is in any event an inevitability about it. If, when a person is taken on, he has a clear terminal illness which means that he will die before he reaches retirement age and will therefore trigger off death in-service benefits and the occupational pension scheme decides that that person cannot be accepted, that should be a reasonable defence against discrimination. That is the point that I was trying to make.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I still think that it would be helpful if the record in Hansard could leave at least some doubt about the matter because death may take 15 or 20 years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as I said, I shall not press the amendment to a Division, although the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has raised an extremely important matter. We have said that there should be regulations and I believe that account could be taken of actuarial considerations in those regulations. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(4A) It is unlawful for an employer to advertise employment in such a way that the advertisement indicates, or might reasonably be understood to indicate, that an application would, or might be determined to any extent by reference to—

(a) the successful applicant not having any disability within the meaning of the Act; or

(b) the employer's reluctance to take any action of a kind mentioned in section 7.

172
(4B) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) above and the restriction of difficulties arising out of those provisions the National Disability Council shall be empowered under the terms of section 34(3) below to establish Local Conciliation Committees as and when required.
(4C) It shall be the duty of every such committee—

(a) to receive and consider any complaints of advertisements in contravention of subsection (4A) above;

(b) to make such inquiries as they think necessary with respect to the facts alleged in any such complaint; and

(c) where appropriate, to use their best endeavours by communication with the parties concerned or otherwise to secure the settlement of any difference between them, including, where appropriate, the withdrawal or reformulation of any advertisements which the committee considers is in breach of subsection (4A) above.

(4D) Proceedings in respect of any contraventions of this section shall be limited to those set out in this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment aims to attack in a more effective way than is done on the face of the Bill the practice of discriminatory advertising. There is no doubt that that practice is as much a problem in the area of disability as it is in the area of race or sex. Discriminatory advertising—for example, statements such as, "only the fit need apply", or "candidates must not have a record of physical or mental instability", or "above average health is an advantage"—are all too common. That is accepted on the face of the Bill because Clause 12 introduces a remedy of a kind in order to try to deal with the practice of discriminatory advertising. We are saying that the method adopted to deal with that matter is weak and almost non-existent.
It is weak and it is difficult to improve it beyond a certain degree in the absence of an effective commission. We are not debating that this evening, but we shall debate it on Thursday. However, in a sense the amendment assumes that we shall be unsuccessful; it is a pessimistic amendment. If there is no commission to parallel the way in which discriminatory advertising is swept up in relation to race or sex, we ask whether anything more can be done in the Bill as it stands. The amendment suggests that something can be done. It draws on the example of other kinds of non-discriminatory legislation; for example, the race relations legislation of 1965 and 1968. In a sense, this amendment is a model of what was done to deal with discriminatory advertising at that time.
Therefore, the Bill admits that there is a discrimination problem. Clause 12 provides that where a complainant is seeking to show before a tribunal that he has been discriminated against, he can advert to an advertisement. He can say, "I have an advertisement here", and he can use that in presenting his case. It would be fair to say that that means that if a person can show an advertisement which is germane to the non-appointment of a disabled person, then that becomes a particularly coercive piece of evidence which changes the onus of proof. From that point, it is up to the employer to demonstrate that there is no discrimination, given the fact that there is that discriminatory advertisement.
That is very limited. A case would have to be established which connected the person to that advertisement before it would have any effect at all in

173
any kind of tribunal activity. This amendment seeks to try to find a way to make that situation more effective. For example, the Sex Discrimination Act lists specific examples of the words which cannot be used in advertisements—salesgirl, postman, stewardess. The 1976 race relations legislation provides that you cannot say in an advertisement that you wish to appoint persons of a given race, colour, ethnic or national origin. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill.
I suppose that there is nothing of that kind because there is no commission. If phrases of that kind are used and there is a body like the EOC or the CRE which may take a wide variety of action—formal investigation, non-discrimination notices—then one can do something about discriminatory advertising.
Nevertheless, we believe that something could be done—that is the point of the amendment—if the approach adopted in race relations legislation of 1965 and 1966 is followed. At that time local conciliation committees were established which could investigate both specific and general complaints. They could bring together the parties and attempt to reach agreement or procure the withdrawal of an offending advertisement. Success or failure would be reported to the appropriate commission. It is thought generally that that procedure, although it lacked coercive force—it certainly lacked the coercive force of more recent legislation—went a long way towards cleaning up the problem of discriminatory advertising. It was rarely necessary to invoke the limited powers available in that period.
Therefore, this amendment builds on that model. It begins with a definition of what is a discriminatory advertisement, and we take that from Clause 12 of the Bill. Secondly, it gives the consultative council established under the Bill the power to set up conciliation committees to deal with allegations of discrimination. It makes it clear that although there can be conciliation, as there was in relation to the old race relations board, there is no coercive power as there was not in the 1965 Act. Therefore, we are asking for a provision which goes some way beyond the present Clause 12 in the absence of a commission. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I believe this is a sensible and reasonable amendment in that it seeks to bring together parties in order to discuss the problems. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon that approach to the problem.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if this amendment were accepted, would it apply to the armed services in the future? Would they not be able to advertise in future for fit, young recruits?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has explained how his amendment empowers the National Disability Council to set up local conciliation committees. He described them as similar to those set up under the 1965 race relations legislation to investigate and deal with job advertisements which are unlawful under the first part of the amendment.
Such advertisements would indicate either that the application could be determined by reference to the successful applicant not having a disability or that the employer was reluctant to make a reasonable judgment.
174
During Committee stage we had a fairly extensive debate on the role of the National Disability Council. My noble friend explained at the time that it will be an advisory body charged with providing high level policy advice. It is not part of its role to investigate or police this legislation, nor would it be appropriate or necessary for it to be empowered to create the network of local committees that the noble Lord suggests.
Nor do the Government believe that the creation of yet another tier of bureaucracy is either necessary or desirable. The right organisations for dealing with complaints under Part II are ACAS and the industrial tribunals. But, perhaps more fundamentally, I do not believe this amendment would have the desired effect. Why should employers always risk a complaint to one of these local bodies even if they were perfectly justified in saying that people with particular disabilities need not apply? The requirement could be perfectly reasonable. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is perfectly valid. Obviously it is open to people like the Armed Forces to make it quite clear that in looking for recruits they need fit and healthy young recruits. Under this amendment, it might be that an employer saying that fitness was necessary for a physical fitness instructor could find himself under investigation by a particular local committee, should that committee so wish.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is this correct? The whole thrust of the Bill in terms of the armed services and the rest of it is that where a disability is relevant to the performance of that job the employer may not be required either to interview that person or to offer him a job or whatever. It is like the absurd case of someone entering a restaurant wearing sunglasses and being offered a menu in Braille. Is he therefore being discriminated against? That applies only if the condition is relevant, that person is unfavourably treated and it would have been reasonable for the employer to have acted differently. The Minister may be giving the House a false impression of what the law will do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has taken rather an odd example. I was drawing the attention of the House to the possibility that the local committee of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, might want to set up, in fits of gross over-enthusiasm, might wish to investigate cases that I do not think were appropriate. I do not think it would be right so to do.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I used to sit on one of these committees under the old Race Relations Act. They were run entirely by voluntary people and there was nothing bureaucratic about them. They might have been regarded as rather amateur but certainly they brought people together to discuss the issues. They played a small part in the conciliation process. It was not a matter of arbitration but rather of conciliation on the part of local people acting on a voluntary basis. I believe that even the secretary was unpaid. Those committees worked rather well. They were not revolutionary and they did not achieve great results, but they offered useful advice.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I daresay they need not be necessarily bureaucratic; I was saying they are unnecessary. I also have to say that in the case of an individual of the sort who put in the most grossly discriminatory sort of advertisement of the sort that we all thought was particularly awful, I have severe doubts as to whether he would actually take much notice of a committee of this sort. It seems very odd to create an offence, which is what this amendment does, without any sanction against that offence other than, as the noble Baroness puts it, a collection of rather worthy souls, unpaid and voluntary, going round saying, "Can we have a chat"? The sort of person who will put in the sort of advertisement that the noble Baroness and others are talking about is the sort of person who, as it were, would put up two fingers to such an approach.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not think I was worthy or the sort of person who wanted to go round having a chat. I remember that my particular conciliation body was chaired by an extremely well known industrialist on whom the noble Lord himself would, and I daresay has, relied on many occasions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I daresay that might be the case. What I am saying is that for an amendment of this sort to create an offence without an appropriate sanction seems an odd way to go about things. I think the sort of people who would be likely to be grossly in breach of the sort of offence that the noble Lord is creating are not the sort of people who would respond particularly well to such an approach.
Let me turn to our own approach and explain that. Obviously I share with the noble Lord and both noble Baronesses a desire to end discriminatory and unfair advertising. I am pleased to note that the amendment leaves in place our approach under Clause 12, and I hope that the noble Lord does at least recognise its value. I believe that perhaps his amendment is supposed to be "belt and braces", but I believe that on this occasion our braces are perfectly adequate.
We are opposed to advertisements which blatantly suggest that disabled persons will be discriminated against. We are not aware, however, that such advertisements exist in the sort of numbers that the noble Lord implied. We would also be opposed to advertising which might tend to put off disabled applicants, whether intentionally or not, who might be able to do the advertised job. The Government's approach is the best way to ensure that employers take more care to ensure that advertisements give a fair description of what is genuinely required for the job. If a disabled person who meets the advertised requirements is refused the job, the employer will be at risk of tribunal proceedings, carrying the real sanction of an award of compensation.
We have heard that the amendment seeks to bring the Disability Discrimination Bill into line with other anti-discrimination legislation. But this fails to take into account the very real differences between disability on the one hand and race and sex on the other. In all but the very rarest of cases a person's race or sex does not affect his or her ability to do a job. I believe that cannot
176
be said of disability and I hope that the noble Lord recognises that. There might well be legitimate reasons why an employer will want to mention certain health requirements in a job advertisement. I mentioned the physical fitness instructor. There are obviously other less obvious ones. There is obviously the case of the Army, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. An amendment of this sort is an unnecessary and unreasonable restriction on employers and I think will demotivate disabled people who may think they have a chance of getting a job for which they are not suitable.
The noble Lord also said that the only way in which the Government's clause could be of any use to disabled people is if they actually apply to a tribunal. This is not the end of the matter, however. It will be made clear to employers in the code of practice that one consequence of not taking care to ensure that their advertisements reflect justifiable job requirements is that a tribunal claim against them could well be successful if a disabled person is turned down who could do the job despite what the advertisement says about health requirements. In considering advertisements, employers will be well advised to consider the duty of reasonable adjustment in identifying health requirements which might be overcome by such an adjustment. No employer wants to trigger a tribunal complaint unnecessarily. The Government's approach will effectively put a stop to any blatant discrimination—if it exists—and will also be effective in making job advertisements fair to all employers and disabled people. As I have explained, I believe our approach in Clause 12 is the right one—
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish to refer to a question which arose at the previous stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, stated:
"A firm of below 20 employees is not subject to Part 11 of the Bill and hence will not be covered by Clause 11".—[Official Report, 27/6/95; col. 678.]
I believe that Clause 11 is now Clause 12. I understand that the smaller firms are not covered by this clause which the Government have put forward. It seems to me strange that this cannot be so. We can perhaps agree that firms with 20 employees or fewer will not be subject to the full rigours of this Bill as regards employment, but surely an anti-discriminatory clause could be included somewhere in the Bill, or in regulations, which states that an employer with 20 or fewer employees could not produce an advertisement which was discriminatory and indeed derogatory towards disabled people. It seems that that is possible.
I must apologise to your Lordships' House for only having found anecdotal evidence on this matter so far, but I know that such advertisements have appeared in the past, even in the theatrical world. We want to make sure that they do not appear in the future. Can the Government extend Clause 12 in some way to cover the smaller employers as well as the larger ones? Otherwise discriminatory advertisements could appear.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord has evidence of that kind I should be more than happy to look at it and consider it in due course. However, I do not think that there is a case for extending Clause 12 to

177
firms of fewer than 20 employees, for the very reasons that we gave for exempting such firms from Part II generally. As I said, if the noble Lord wishes to put evidence to me I am always prepared to consider these matters. However, I have not seen any great evidence of abuse in this field and a vast number of discriminatory advertisements of that kind.
I believe that our approach is about the right one. I believe that it provides the right balance between the need to prevent employers from discouraging disabled people in a discriminatory manner and the need to ensure that employers are able to advise potential applicants of the genuine physical and mental requirements of a specific job. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment on this occasion.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he has no evidence of this being a problem. With the best will in the world, and without wishing to be personal, I remind the noble Lord that he has come to this Bill rather late and somewhat recently. If the noble Lord had read almost any of the considered evidence submitted by the various interested bodies which have made representations to us on this side of the House, and I am sure to noble Lords on that side of the House, he would know that their correspondence is full of examples of discriminatory advertising. It is standard form, just as it was standard form in relation to sex and race before the legislation in those areas. To come here today and say that there is no evidence of it and no concern about it frankly will not do.
I turn first to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. As I understand it, under Clause 56(7) the armed services are specifically excluded from the Bill. As I recall, in Committee we on this side of the House sought to have them included. Therefore, the noble Lord's arguments do not have a great deal of force. Anyway, even if they were included, as we said at the time, there are always the provisions in Clause 6 of the Bill which set out the circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified. Clause 6(4) sets out the kind of circumstances in which an employer requires people who are not disabled, such as the armed services. Those exceptions mean that there would have been no difficulties from the point of view of the armed services if we had been successful in Committee in having the armed services included in the Bill. Therefore, I do not believe that we need to bother with those arguments.
I turn to what the Minister said. As the Minister said, most of what he said has been said before. That is quite true. This is a consultative committee. It has no power. That is what we are trying to change. He said that the Government do not like quangos. We know that, but they have set one up. All we are trying to do is to add a little to the functions of that quango.
The Minister said that he did not like my definition of what should be contained in an advertisement for it to be unfair and discriminatory. I lifted the definition from Clause 12(1) (e) (i) and (ii) of the Bill, because I thought that if I had a different definition of
178
discriminatory advertising I might be in trouble. Therefore, I have used the Government's own definition.
Therefore, the only argument which the Government have, which was answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, from her past experience, is that if this were done nobody would go to the conciliation committees. The Government say that British employers who discriminate through their advertisements would not go. Most employers discriminate because they do not know that they cannot discriminate, and when it is pointed out to them they say, "I am terribly sorry, I did not realise we could not say that". The Government say that they would not listen to the wise words of the conciliation committee. I have to tell the noble Lord again that that is exactly what was said in 1965. It was said, "They won't go". But they did go. Very rarely did employers not go to the conciliation committees of the Race Relations Board and refuse to consider what was suggested. I would not go so far as to say that the whole problem of discriminatory advertising was settled. That was one of the reasons why we had to have another race relations Bill. However, it made a considerable impact.
Some people would not go to the conciliation committees, but some would. Some people would listen. They would listen more than this Government will listen. We may think about the matter again and bring it back at Third Reading but, in view of the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("cannot"), in line 21 and insert ("to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) he").
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("under section 6").
Page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this Part, an employer also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) he fails to comply with a section 7 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and

(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified.

(3) Subject to subsection (5), for the purposes of subsection (1) treatment is justified if, but only if, the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), failure to comply with a section 7 duty is justified if, but only if, the reason for the failure is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(5) If, in a case falling within subsection (1), the employer is under a section 7 duty in relation to the disabled person but fails to comply with that duty, his treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (3) unless it would have been justified even if he had complied with the section 7 duty.
(6) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which—

(a) treatment is to be taken to be justified;

(b) failure to comply with a section 7 duty is to be taken to be justified;

(c) treatment is to be taken not to be justified;

(d) failure to comply with a section 7 duty is to be taken not to be justified.

(7) In this section "section 7 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 7.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 32 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) In preparing a draft of any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representing the interests of employers and of disabled persons and such other persons as he considers appropriate.
( ) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue regulations, he shall publish a draft of them, consider any representations that are made to him about the draft and, if he thinks it appropriate, modify his proposals in the light of any of those representations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 40, 68, 72 and 79. All the amendments follow the same pattern. They all seek to achieve consultation on a consistent basis.
The Government now recognise specific consultation on three areas in the Bill, namely, in Clause 52 regarding fees for public service vehicles, in Clause 3 on guidance, and in Clause 38 concerning the issue of codes of practice. However, there are five areas where there is no such commitment. That results in inconsistency.
There is no commitment to consultation in Part II relating to employment. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 33, which relates to circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified. The amendment, proposed by the CBI, seeks a specific requirement for consultation when the Secretary of State drafts and issues regulations which amplify or change the circumstances in which less favourable treatment may be justified.
Similarly, Amendment No. 40 also relates to Part H concerning employment. The pattern is the same. The amendment seeks a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult organisations representative of employers and of disabled persons when making regulations.
Amendment No. 68 relates to the regulation-making powers under existing Clause 15(4) which outlines the circumstances in which less favourable treatment may be justified. Amendment No. 72 is concerned with consultation, particularly in view of the fact that the main impact of the legislation will be through secondary legislation and additional burdens will fall on employers and business.
Finally, Amendment No. 79 relates to the regulation-making power in Clause 20(3) and amplifies the circumstances in which less favourable treatment may be justified in discrimination in other areas. That relates to Part III of the Bill. It relates specifically to discrimination in relation to premises.
Any attempt to diminish this demand for consistency of approach to consultation could he reinforced by the failure to afford proper consultation in the new government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we are pleased to support the amendments. The noble Baroness put them down either very late last night or early this morning. By the time I got round to them it was too late to amend them. That is why I want to say what I shall say in a moment, because although. we support the amendments we would want to add to them. How will the noble Baroness feel if her amendment is successful? How do the Government feel about the amendment? Amendment No. 33 states:
"In preparing a draft of any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representing the interests of employers and of disabled persons and such other persons as he considers appropriate".
Why should not the amendment include "employers and employees"? I request an answer to the question. The point was made in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. That seems to me reasonable, useful and balanced. Amendment No. 16 inserts such a provision on the face of the Bill. However, if noble Lords can remember that far back this afternoon, that amendment was swept away by the success of the Government's previous amendment. We did not move Amendment No. 16, so we are bringing that discussion in now.
If one is to specify on the face of the Bill who should be entitled to consultation so that they know—that right would be on the face of the Bill—surely it is reasonable that we should not only include employers but representatives, and organisations of employees—trade unions, professional associations or other such bodies. After all, this Bill is half an employment Bill. Those people know what workers are likely to feel about the legislation and whether they are likely to resist some of the provisions. Those persons should be able to help and should be in favour of the intentions and aims of the Bill. That is why we should like such a provision in the Bill. We wish to know what noble Lords think about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on a point of procedure, in moving Amendment No. 33 and speaking to the other amendments my noble friend has had the opportunity to put forward ideas and principles which she considers should be in the Bill. However, I assume that she will accept the proposal by the Government to leave out Clause 6. We discussed that in previous amendments. Therefore, the provisions of Amendment No. 33 would not remain. Is my noble friend proposing that something along the lines that she has put forward should be inserted in the replacements that the Government will put forward? Will such a provision be moved again at Third Reading? Alternatively, is she happy with what the Government propose to insert instead of Clause 6?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too should like to support the group of amendments. They are extremely sensible. It is quite obvious that there will be considerable variety in the kind of disability that people have who seek employment with regard to the equipment which has to be used, premises, the working practices, and so on. Therefore, very considerable consultation needs to take place. I am very glad that my noble friend has brought the provisions forward.

181
I should have thought that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was not necessary, and that employees would be covered by the words,
"and such other persons as he considers appropriate".
However, I was rather concerned by the noble Lord's comment towards the end of his remarks. He intimated that some workers might be liable to resist the employment of disabled people. Yes, there will be some workers who would wish to resist the employment of disabled people, possibly through fear or prejudice. However, I should not have thought that in a Bill of this kind he would wish to put in any provision that would endanger disabled people and might possibly lead to discrimination against them. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean that he was advocating any form of discrimination. However, I was rather worried by the words he used.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to explain. We know from the race, sex and disability aspect—the noble Lord knows better than I do—that there is resistance. I am saying that trade unions help to overcome that resistance. That is why they should be referred to on the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I had noted the deletion of Clause 6 regarding the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. The basic principle of co-operation and exchange of information is one of the most important factors regarding removing discrimination. Such a provision will help.
I suggest that employer and employee organisations have an equally strong part to play. The simple fact is that they often bring forward individual concerns. I shall not waste time discussing the correct form of words. It is simply that those groups or bodies must find some input into the process.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about the noble Baroness's amendment. The general thrust of her amendment is essential. If such a provision is not in the Bill we shall court more trouble and very soon find ourselves with another Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly deal with the Clause 6 point. Until we reach Amendment No. 35, Clause 6 will still be in the Bill. Therefore, it is quite right and proper for my noble friend to move her amendment. Of course, I am hoping that the House will agree to Amendment No. 34 as it has already been discussed with Amendment No. 10, which has been accepted by the House. As to my noble friend's attitude after Clause 6 is removed, that is a matter for her, as is the matter as to whether the wording of a specific amendment ought to be changed to include the word "employees" as well as "employers".
I wish to speak briefly as to why we do not think these amendments are necessary, and to reassure the House that we have a genuine commitment to consult as widely as possible. I can assure her that we shall do so. It does not mean that it is right to place an obligation to consult on the face of the Bill. The same people and organisations do not always have similar interests in all of the powers. Indeed, one use of a power might be of
182
particular interest to some organisations and another use of the same power of interest to entirely different organisations.
This might be the case, for example, where reasonable adjustments are concerned as some may be quite narrowly focused and be of concern to particular types of employer or particular sectors of industry or owners of particular types of buildings. We cannot cover everyone in this way. The use of the words,
"organisations representing the interests of employers and of disabled persons"
seek to identify the key interests. However, this may not involve the right interests when the powers—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble really cannot get away with saying that those words obviously identify the main interests. Employees are a very real interest. If we wish the provision to work we have to get the employees on our side. It is quite untrue to think that there are not prejudiced people among employees. Employees have exactly the same proportion of saints and sinners as every other group in the community. They include people who are extremely prejudiced. If people are involved in introducing disabled people, they will accept them. If disabled people are imposed on them, they will not—and I speak from experience.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness slightly over-reacts. I have given the assurance that all appropriate people would be consulted. What I sought to say was that I do not believe that it is necessary to identify such a list on the face of the Bill. I believe that it identifies the key interests; one could add employees as well. However, I seek to argue that it is not necessary to have the provision on the face of the Bill. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps saying that it should not be on the face of the Bill. He never gives any reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, has the noble Lord not been listening to me? I was going to explain why it was not appropriate to list all those who should be consulted when on certain occasions there might be one group of interest which is relevant to consult, on other occasions it might be the whole gamut set out on the face of the Bill, and on other occasions it might be a much smaller group. It would not be right to impose a duty under the Bill to consult every body, every group or every interest on every occasion.
I have given a commitment and I have been trying to make it clear that it is entirely right and sensible to make that commitment to a practical, wide-ranging, timely consultation exercise before we use the powers. But the regulations—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can the noble Lord not see the difference? It is a difference between rights and privileges. If the name of a group is on the Bill, it is consulted, it knows it is consulted and it prepares itself for that consultation. No one says that because there are names in the Bill the Government cannot consult other people whose names are not in it. But if we wish to put

183
the names of groups in the Bill, at least those people will know that they will be consulted. Otherwise it is entirely at the discretion of Ministers.
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. Again the noble Lord has not listened to me. I shall go on to explain it. I have said that there will also be occasions when it is not necessary to consult individual people. The regulations will exist far into the future and I do not believe that they should hind us to consult on occasions when it is not necessary to do so. For example, let us say that we are consolidating the regulations. That is a purely technical act which the noble Lord will understand. Does he suggest, as the amendments do, that we must go out and consult all the relevant interests merely for an act of consolidation? That is what the amendments say.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well that a consolidation Act is entirely different. If he wishes to bring forward amendments saying, "but not a consolidation Act", he can, if he wants to be silly.
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, if we are consolidating regulations, under the amendments we would have to do that. There would also be occasions when we only need to make or amend regulations covering a narrow area, say of reasonable adjustment. I believe that it would then be right to consult purely those who are appropriate. They may not necessarily be organisations representing employers as a whole, they may be organisations representing one group: the financial sector, the heritage sector or whatever it is. It would be wrong to impose a burden on the Government or those whom we consult of an unnecessary exercise. Remember, there is a burden on those whom we consult.
I am clear that we will consult and I can give that assurance to my noble friend. We shall consult in the most appropriate way for whatever regulations are under consideration. In the light of that commitment, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment despite the various obscurities suggested by the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reaction to my amendments. I am puzzled and slightly worried about the way the debate has gone. The Opposition obviously wish to consult employees, and that is a valid point. However, the point I make in moving the amendment is the lack of consistency. For the sake of neatness, we should be consistent on the face of the Bill because in some areas the wording is "consult" and the wording is specific about who is consulted, whereas in others it is not specific.
I absolutely accept that the Minister will consult. With everything that has been said on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, every time consultation has been brought up and again this evening there is the commitment to consult. I cannot understand why, if the Government have made that commitment—and I believe them—they still think it is better to have a Bill which is inconsistent on its face. Whereas in three specific areas there is consultation with named organisations or their representatives, in other areas, they are not prepared to do that.
184
It is a difficult problem. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division tonight. I shall reconsider it and will almost certainly come back to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 34:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 34 with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Duty of employer to make adjustments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert ("occupied by the employer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 35, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 38.
Amendment No. 35 is necessary in order to make it clear that the duty of employers to make reasonable adjustments where any physical feature of premises causes substantial disadvantage to a disabled person in comparison with those who are not disabled refers only to an employer's own premises. It clarifies that employers are not under a duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of, for example, features of the disabled person's private house. It would also not apply to some other employer's premises in the case, say, of a travelling salesman or to the disabled person's private home in the case of a homeworker.
It may help at this point, to mention the issue of employers who are in rented property and the implications for the duty of reasonable adjustment. The status of terms and covenants in leases is an important matter. There must be a question as to whether or not covenants in leases are relevant to reasonable adjustment. We believe they are and we believe that there should be a limit on the extent to which covenants can prevent reasonable adjustments being made. Otherwise employers in leased buildings would be absolved from the need to make any adjustments—however reasonable—that were in any way in breach of the covenant. We will be giving this matter our careful consideration and making our position clear on this at Third Reading, when we shall table any necessary amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 38, as noble Lords are no doubt aware, it is the Government's view that the duty on an employer to make an adjustment should provide a fair balance between what we can legitimately ask of employers and the needs of disabled people.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in another place and by employers and consider that it would be helpful to list the key criteria for "reasonableness" on the face of the Bill. We believe that the principal factors which should be taken into account in determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to take a step are as follows, in no particular order of priority: the first is the extent to which the step would prevent the effect in question. For example, if the only adjustments possible could make no more than a small

185
improvement to the output of someone who was significantly under-productive, then they might not be reasonable if they were costly or disruptive.
The second is the extent to which it is practicable for the employer to take the step. For example, it might not be reasonable for an employer needing an employee urgently to have to wait for an adjustment to be made to allow a disabled person to be employed. That is more likely to be the case with smaller employers but could apply to larger ones. Also, an adjustment would not be reasonable if it is impossible because the employer would be in breach of health and safety or fire laws were it to be made.
Thirdly, there is the cost to the employer of taking the step. Cost includes use of staff and other resources and disruption, as well as direct money costs. We have always said that many adjustments will involve little or no cost to the employer. But some clearly do and it is obviously right that that should be taken into account.
Fourthly, there is the extent of the employer's resources. Although the size of a business is not necessarily an indication of the resources available, it is more reasonable for an employer with considerable resources to make an adjustment with a significant cost than for an employer with few resources. Also, it would not normally be reasonable for an employer to spend fewer resources on retaining a disabled person than on recruiting a replacement.
Finally, there is the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step. A step is not unreasonable if the availability of help from an outside organisation or from the disabled person would compensate for the factors that would have made it unreasonable. For example, it might be unreasonable on grounds of costs for a particular employer to provide a laptop computer with a Braille keyboard. However, if a suitable one could be loaned or borrowed when needed, for example under the access to work scheme, or if the individual has a suitable one he could provide, then the employer could not successfully claim that provision of the laptop was unreasonable because of the cost.
The code of practice would, of course, give further examples and guidance on the question of reasonableness. I hope that the House will be reassured by the criteria which this amendment proposes to set out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is interesting to see the way in which the Government have presented the amendment, because it relates to one which I moved in Committee about reasonableness on the part of public authorities. I was interested in the point which the Minister made about the covenants in property agreements by which the landlord, presumably, would not unreasonably be able to prevent an employer who was a tenant asking for improvements to the building to enable access.
The reason I raise the point is that I have a case in mind in which I am involved at the moment. It is of a company which employs disabled people and it has taken on an office in which a condition of the lease was that the landlord should provide a ramp for wheelchairs.
186
The landlord wishes to do so, but in order to do so the ramp has to be on the pavement, on the public highway. The highway authority has resisted that at the moment for various technical reasons with which I shall not bore the House.
I moved a probing amendment on the basis that a public authority should not be unreasonable in its attitude towards the provision of disabled access. The answer that I believe the Minister gave was that in the example that I gave the Town and Country Planning Act would take precedence over this Act and it could be pleaded in aid if it had been said that it would not be right to provide the access, namely a ramp for wheelchairs, even if it seemed to be reasonable to do so. I believe that the Minister said that the Government are considering this matter in the terms of the regulations that they may draft. They may have to think extremely carefully about the relationship between the employer tenant, the landlord and the public authority if the disabled access has to be provided on land that is owned by the public authority.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord makes. His first point on covenants was in a sense something that I was flagging up. It is a problem that we perceive. It is wider than one thinks when one considers the number of employers who are in leased accommodation. I wanted merely to flag it up and say that we shall return to it at Third Reading.
Perhaps I may also examine the question of the three-way relationship between the landlord, the tenant and the local planning authority which might be in a position, either as the landowner or purely as the planning authority, whereby it might also have an interest. I accept that there could be complicated relationships. It might be better to pursue that by means of correspondence if it is felt that something is needed either by way of regulations or further amendment, along with amendments relating to covenants, at Third Reading. I am prepared to consider that, and I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Lord has given me of flagging that up as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the voices are collected, I should like to ask a question of which I gave notice to the Leader of the House and the

187
Chief Whip; namely, why was so important and controversial an issue as that which forced a decision this evening put down for a discussion and decision during the dinner hour?
The matter is important and controversial because it concerns the sentence of murder. It concerns the number of years that a convicted person shall serve in prison. It concerns the openness of the judicial proceedings, the judicial process which has some effect on the term that the convicted man shall spend in prison: shall that be open or shall it, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, be secretive?
This House passed by a substantial majority an amendment that will fall for discussion very shortly. Only yesterday the Government's supporters in another place were whipped to reverse the decision of this House. So there is an additional issue that is controversial and important; namely, the standing of this House in the legislative process. I shall not deal with the merit of the amendment to which I referred. That will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner shortly. That amendment was carried against government opposition. The Contents for the amendment were 142 and the Not-Contents were 126. Those 126 included what is called the payroll vote. So it was an amazingly substantial majority for this House. That can come about only if a substantial number of Conservative supporters vote for the amendment against the Government, as they did in this case, and an even more substantial number abstain, as they did in this case, and if the Cross-Benchers vote overwhelmingly for the amendment, as they did. Why was an issue so important intrinsically in relation to your Lordships' role in the constitution put down in this extraordinary way in the dinner hour?
What has happened does not stand alone. Noble Lords will remember that during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill an amendment was carried that was proposed by a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Can of Hadley, resisted by the Government, carried by a fair majority, but immediately reversed by the same office that was so assiduous last night. My general question is: why was so controversial and important an issue put down for discussion in this way in the dinner hour?
However, I also have two specific questions to ask. The first relates to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. It was his amendment, after all, that was carried. Why was he not told of the Government's intention to reverse the decision last night? Why was he not asked for his views as to the taking of this business in the dinner hour? Why indeed was he not consulted at all? Why was he not thereby given an opportunity to summon those who had been alerted—those who had voted for the amendment at Report stage? One would have thought that that was elementary fairness in the parliamentary process.
My second specific question relates to what are called the usual channels. I assumed that they must have been consulted about the business being taken now. Why were they not told about the Government's intention last night? On Friday evening they were in complete
188
ignorance of what was proposed, as I found when I made inquiries. Why were they not told? When Winston Churchill appointed Patrick Buchan-Hepburn (who came to this House as Lord Hailes) as his Chief Whip in 1951, the Prime Minister said to him: "Your first loyalty is to me, but your second loyalty is to William Whiteley", who was the Opposition Chief Whip. How far is that spirit still honoured?
The last matter to which I wanted to refer is an article that appeared in the newspaper a couple of years ago or thereabouts. It stated that senior Tories were urging the Government to change the business management in your Lordships' House in view of a series of humiliating amendments carried against the Government. There were two very curious things about that article. The first was the word "Tories". Is it not odd that senior Tories should feel that a single chamber government, a single chamber legislation where that single chamber is subject to government whipping vigorously, is sufficient for the legislative process? Is it not curious that senior Tories, as they were described, should reject your Lordships' place in the legislation?
Subsequently, I asked the present Leader of the House about that matter. I asked him whether he regarded it as humiliating that amendments were carried against government Bills in your Lordships' House or whether he regarded that as a perfectly normal legislative process and part of your Lordships' legislative function. First, he replied that that question was rather like being asked, "When did you stop beating your wife?", but of course it was not like that at all. He finally came round to accepting that it is indeed part of your Lordships' function, prerogative and responsibility to carry amendments to government Bills when they seem to your Lordships to be justified. That is very much in question this evening.
Except in passing, I have not touched on the substance of the amendment, important though it is, because of far more importance is your Lordships' role in the legislative process: whether your Lordships will accept constant marginalisation in the constitution and accept being subordinated at every turn to the apparent need to carry government legislation through at all costs.
I have asked one general question and two specific ones. I am sorry that neither the Leader of the House nor the Chief Whip is present but we are well content to have those questions answered by the noble Baroness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in honour I ought to respond before the Minister closes this short debate. I feel that I should say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the proposal was put to me that the consideration of Commons reasons should be taken today in the dinner hour and I agreed to it. To that extent I acted on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham as the "usual channels". If that involved lack of consultation with anybody else—whether it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, or indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who, as it turns out, is the leading player in the substantive debate—I apologise to them in so far as I was concerned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am very much obliged to him. When he was asked to agree to the

189
discussion of this matter in the dinner hour today, was he told that it was the Government's intention to reverse last night the decision to which your Lordships had come?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, but I was informed of that by letter from the Home Secretary—a copy of the letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—subsequent to my agreement. I do not know whether that is a substantive consideration, hut, in so far as I had a role in this matter, I apologise to those who had not been consulted.
However, I defend the judgment that I made. It is not for any lack of support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, or for the amendment which was carried in the House, which, as he knows, we supported wholeheartedly with a very substantial body of troops. Nor was it because I feel that the issue is not important. Even though it applies to a relatively small number of people, it is an important addition to the Bill and ought not to have been overturned in the other place.
I made that judgment and accepted the proposal put to me by the Government Whips' Office because I do feel that the second consideration of an issue by the other place ought to be final. I am very much opposed to continued resistance by this House after that.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry again to interrupt the noble Lord. Surely that was not a second consideration. It was the first consideration. The matter had not been before the other place before last night.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that the noble and learned Lord is literally correct. But, in the end, the other place is the elected Chamber. It had an opportunity to consider the issue. It was debated last night and it was rejected. That may be called by emotional words such as "subordination" but I believe that the elected Chamber is primary and that there would have to be exceptional circumstances for us to overturn the judgment of an elected Chamber.
I speak for myself. Some of my noble friends may disagree with me on occasion—good luck to them. On this occasion, I apologise for any discourtesy in which I have been involved, but I do not regret the judgment that I made in accepting the suggestion that was put to me.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he accepted the dinner hour faute de mieux and, in particular, was he offered prime time at all for this debate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, this was the time that was offered. I was conscious, without it being said, that we are in the last week before the House rises for the Recess.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I thought for one moment that we were having two separate debates: one about the timing of this debate and the other about the substance of the matter. As I understand it, we have a single debate. The timing may be relevant
190
to it but we are dealing with the substance of the matter. Forgive me if I am wrong. In that case, I ask for guidance on the precise Motion that we are debating at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went beyond the question of timing into an expression of view about the role of this House. If that is appropriate to the question of timing, I should like to pursue the matter. But it would be very helpful to have guidance if we are to conduct our proceedings in an orderly way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I was referred to, perhaps I may explain my position. My reference to the role of this House was in relation to the complaint which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, made about the timing. I was not, other than in a passing reference, referring to the substance of the issue which will be before the House when the Motion which is now before the House—namely, that Commons reasons be now considered—is resolved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to try to be helpful, as the only "usual channel" in his place, which is an accident of the moment.
Today is a very good time to raise the difficulties of business managers in trying to accommodate the will of the House. Today is also a very important day for those involved in the Disability Discrimination Bill. Against the background that the House wants to cease its business at about 10 o'clock, noble Lords proceeded to table many amendments which, if given justice, will take it beyond that time. In addition, the House and the Opposition decided to take two Statements, which took out two hours of the day. That, of course, was unknown before the event came along.
All I can say is that at this time of the year, timing is extremely difficult. For instance, in a debate this afternoon a demand was made that further time be found to discuss that issue before the House rises on Friday. That proposal will no doubt be supported by many people. So the difficulties of a business manager in this situation are well understood.
I am privy to being advised by my Front Bench colleague on what he believes to be reasonable in all the circumstances. But the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon and Lord Ackner, have a point. They played a crucial part in the business now coming back to us from the Commons. When timetabling is considered, perhaps in the future an occasion may be found to advise them of the timetable intention, above and beyond the published Whip. Last Thursday it was known that the debate would be held today and held in the dinner hour. Some consideration should be given to these matters by the House, perhaps in the Procedure Committee.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is reasonable. However, I am glad that he accepts that there is a problem before the House. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is most unfortunate that we are discussing this important constitutional matter at this time of the evening. I should have thought that there would have been some flexibility in the parliamentary timetable;

191
first, when it became clear that the Government intended to reject the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; and, secondly, when it became plain that we would be taking two important Statements today.
The other point I make, whether or not it is acceptable to the Government, is that this is not the end of the parliamentary Session. There will be a spillover Session. If the Government felt that it was reasonable to give this House a more full opportunity at a better time to discuss this matter, it could have been done in October, before the end of this parliamentary Session.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope all noble Lords agree that this is an important Bill and that there is anxiety on all Benches to see it on the statute book. Perhaps I may say also that in another place, as the elected Chamber—that is important—they are entirely within their rights to consider amendments passed in this place and to come to a view about them. In fact, this they have done. Not only have they done that, but also they accepted all other amendments passed in this House except this one. This is the one that they rejected.
That meant that there was only one issue to be debated, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on 14th July saying,
"The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I will be seeking to reverse that amendment at Commons Consideration of Lords amendments on Monday 17th July".
Perhaps I may say too that this business appeared on the Order Paper on Thursday of last week, so that we all understood that the Commons were considering our amendments. We cannot and must not, and will rue the day that we ever do, take for granted what will happen in another place. They are free spirits. They can take a view about amendments. We are a revising Chamber. That is our role. We asked the Members in another place to take a view. They have done so and we are now considering their consideration of our amendments.
I understand also that the Government's business managers spoke to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and a representative for the Liberal Democrats before the business appeared on the Order Paper and there was agreement to this matter being discussed in the dinner hour. I believe therefore that warning was given. We should never take the House of Commons for granted; it is an elected Chamber. And my right honourable friend took the precaution of writing to the noble and learned Lord informing him of his intention to invite the Commons to disagree with this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
  MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 81 as first printed by the Lords]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
  Recommendation in case of life sentence for murder
  (". After section 11 of the 1968 Act insert—
  "Appeal against recommendation in case of life sentence for murder.
  11A.—(1) Where under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the release on licence of a person convicted of murder, the person may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an appeal under this section lies only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.
  (3) If the court which made the recommendation grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal under this section, an appeal under this section lies without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
  (4) On an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal, if they consider that a different recommendation should be made, may—

  (a) quash the recommendation; and

  (b) in place of it declare the period which they recommend to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the appellant's release on licence."")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  1A Because the Commons consider that a right of appeal against recommendations as to the minimum period which should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release on licence of persons convicted of murder is unnecessary and could result in anomalies.
  Lord Ackner 1B Lord Ackner to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to my Motion numbered 46B.
  I should tell the House immediately that I fully appreciate that to ask those in another place to think for a second time is a bold step to take; that we should be careful before embarking upon it. But not too careful. I have thought long about whether it is justified in this situation and concluded that it is, reminding myself, first, that tomorrow we consider the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill at Second Reading.
  I moved an amendment to the Commons amendment nine months ago and failed. The Commons amendment was to delete our amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which required there to be brought into effect Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, designed to put on a statutory basis the criminal compensation scheme which had existed for some 30 years. It was that amendment which I lost. I lost it so that the Home Secretary could carry out that which he had done in a manner which had been condemned by this House as unconstitutional and an abuse of Parliament. But much more important; it was condemned as being grossly unfair.
  Our failure to ask the House to think a second time would have resulted in that grossly unfair action taken by the Home Secretary being now in force, with the result that large numbers of people seriously and grievously injured would have received around one-tenth of the compensation to which they were

  193
  entitled before the Home Secretary decided, without consultation with either Chamber, to bring in a tariff scheme designed essentially to save money.
  But for the courage and the initiative of a number of trade unions who took judicial review proceedings, that would have been the result of our failing to ask the other place to think again. It was only because the Court of Appeal and subsequently the House of Lords found that the Minister had acted unlawfully in what he did in regard to that tariff scheme, that we now have the advantage of there being put before the House the new Bill which clearly concedes the gross injustice which the Home Secretary was intent on perpetrating. In the new Bill those who are seriously injured will no longer take the burden of saving money for the Exchequer. Questions involving loss of earnings, medical treatment and in regard to necessary alterations to their homes to enable them to live with comfort will be taken into account.
  That was one reason why I decided that this was a proper case in which to ask that Members in another place think again. In reminding myself of what took place in the debate on 25th October I noticed these words of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He said:
  "It has been said a number of times in your Lordships' House today that we are a revising Chamber. That is true. However, that does not mean merely a Chamber making suggestions which the Government are able to brush aside, and that we shall then run away with our tail between our legs. We are a revising Chamber and not a suggesting Chamber".—[Official Report, 25/10/94; col. 505.]
  I also reminded myself of what was stated very recently on the Third Reading of this Bill, again by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. He said:
  "It would be extraordinarily foolish if the Government encouraged the other place, using their Whip, to challenge your Lordships' view carried so strongly in numbers".
  He further said:
  "I can conceive of no reason why your Lordships should change their view after such cogent argument and after such consideration".—[Official Report, 3/7/95; col. 954.]
  Those views were supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he said:
  "It is extreme folly on the part of the Government to disregard professional opinion to this extent".—[col. 954.]
  He went on to say:
  "I believe that the Government should approach the judiciary with a greater degree of respect than they have shown in this case. I do not think I have ever known such unanimity to be expressed from the noble and learned Benches as has been expressed in these two debates".—[col. 955.]
  Your Lordships may remember that the stimulus for this amendment was the case of Queen v. Leaney. In that case Leaney was convicted of murder. The trial judge made a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years in order to satisfy the demands of retribution and deterrence. Leaney appealed on the basis that that was an excessive recommendation. He satisfied the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that it was excessive but the court concluded that it had no power to intervene in any way because the recommendation by the trial judge was not a sentence or order within the meaning of the relevant Act. However, the Lord Chief
  194
  Justice who presided said that he thought this was a matter which should receive Parliament's urgent attention.
  Your Lordships will recall that when the matter was first raised by me by way of an amendment at the Committee stage of the Bill I informed the House that Leaney had put in an application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House and that as that application was still pending it was not possible for any sitting Law Lord to take part in the debate because he might be involved in hearing the application and, if the application was successful, hearing the subsequent appeal. I said that for that reason I did not divide the Committee on that occasion but would do so when the matter returned on Report, by which time I hoped that the position in regard to Leaney would be determined one way or another. It was determined in the interval. His application was rejected.
  The result was that nine retired Law Lords voted for the amendment and eight sitting Law Lords, if one includes the Lord Chief Justice under that title, also voted in favour of the amendment. That is 17 Law Lords. I include in that number the former Master of the Rolls. There were no judges, past or present, who voted against the amendment, except, of course, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Not only did those judges vote in favour but the Lord Chief Justice, in addressing the House, said:
  "The amendment certainly has the support of every judge with whom I have discussed it".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 538]
  The Lord Chief Justice, in a memorable address to the House at the Report stage, said:
  "The amendment assumes that the mandatory life sentence for murder remains. Its aim is to administer the operation of that mandatory life sentence more fairly, more effectively and more openly".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 537.]
  I propose to address your Lordships under those three headings. With regard to "more fairly", it would involve the same procedure being gone through by the same judges in relation to life sentences imposed in non-murder cases—the discretionary life sentence. It would involve the trial judge hearing mitigation before he made a recommendation. It would involve the trial judge giving his reasons for his decision with regard to the recommended period to be served as a minimum. It would enable, with leave, the prisoner to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It would enable the Court of Appeal to hear his representations, to know the reasons given by the trial judge; and itself then to give a decision with regard to the merits of the appeal. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) would be presided over by the Lord Chief Justice.
  As to "more effectively", the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said this with regard to the part he plays at present:
  "And may I make it clear that when I give my views under the present convention I have very little information. I have not been at the trial, I do not have the benefit of hearing representations and I have only a brief report from the trial judge".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 538.]
  So his function would be much more effective. The paucity of the part he plays was confirmed by his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane, and by the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern

  195
  Ireland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry. Thus "more effectively" is clearly made out. I should add, under "more effectively", that by this procedure—this point was made by the Lord Chief Justice—guidelines in regard to these recommendations would be laid down by the Court of Appeal so that judges would know openly what are the criteria that they should apply, and consistency would thus be better achieved.
  "More openly" was the noble and learned Lord's third point. Although it is disclosed ultimately to the prisoner, what goes on now takes place behind the scenes with confidential letters being written to the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, conceded that there was a case for wider or broader transparency. On Report, my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry said:
  "I suggest that openness in the administration of justice is one of the main foundations of public confidence".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 546.]
  The odd situation is that the Minister in the other place yesterday, when commenting upon openness which would result from the new procedure, said:
  "The issue of openness was dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I do not believe that the amendment has anything to do with that".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/95; col. 1361.]
  In the letter which the Minister was kind enough to write to me informing me that he was taking such action, he said:
  "I would just add that I regard the present arrangements as both sensible and effective".
  As I have quoted the views of lawyers, perhaps I may invite your Lordships to consider the observations which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is a former Minister of State at the Home Office and former Leader of this House. He said on Report:
  "How is that fixed term set? It is set by recommendation of the trial judge, subject to review, as we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, by the Lord Chief Justice who has little more new information available to him. Indeed, all he can rely on is the fact that he sees a number of such cases. Therefore, he can introduce an element of consistency if he feels that the recommendation is out of line. There is very little else that he can do. Then his minimum term to be served is decided in private by a Minister who has not seen the defendant, who is not aware of the particularities of the case, and who may have other, possibly political, considerations in mind".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 542.]
  Why has there been such resistance throughout to what has been properly characterised as a modest improvement in the just determination of such issues? I have indicated all along that it is Executive convenience—the Executive convenience of saving potential embarrassment. If the Court of Appeal lays down guidelines which are publicised, and the Court of Appeal says in a given case after hearing argument and considering the views of the trial judge what should be the appropriate tariff, as it is called, part of the sentence, then, because all would be in public, the Home Secretary would have great difficulty in justifying any major departure from the decision as to what is the right punishment.
  That view was corroborated by the reaction of the Government to a suggestion of a further amendment which I made purely as a result of the noble Lord, Lord
  196
  Monson, inquiring what could be done if the trial judge's recommendation was an under-recommendation. I looked into the matter and discovered that the Attorney-General (whose function it is to interfere where sentences are excessively lenient) would have no power in a recommendation because it was not a sentence or an order. Consequently, I drafted the necessary amendment.
  As your Lordships will recall, the amendment was moved on Third Reading and was strenuously resisted by the Government. The strenuousness of the resistance was made clear by a letter which was sent to me by the noble Baroness and from which I quoted on Report (in Hansard at col. 949). The letter said:
  "Extending the power of reference in the way you propose would also have potentially serious implications for the workload of the Attorney-General. We could not extend the power without very careful consideration with him and a careful weighing of the merits of such an addition to his role".
  Since 1991, four years ago, the Attorney-General has had the power in law to intervene in every recommendation made in life sentences in non-murder cases. That is because they are orders and, therefore, he has the authority to intervene: same type of sentence, sentence for life, and same judges imposing the sentence. All it needed—and, as I told the House, this I carried out—was a simple telephone call to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Master McKenzie, with the query, "How many times has the Attorney-General intervened in the past four years?" Back came the answer, none.
  Why that anxiety to ensure that the Attorney-General did not come on to the scene? The amendment drafted by the Government to improve my amendment provided that the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on an appeal should have the power to put up a recommendation, it being pointed out that it would be wrong for a recommendation to go out publicly which was an invalid one. Why that anxiety? It was for the self-same reason of potential embarrassment. If the Attorney-General is involved, that might of course pre-empt what the Minister for good political reasons may wish to do. The Attorney-General goes before the Court of Criminal Appeal and says to the court that he considers that a proper recommendation is "X" and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division accepts it. Of course, that makes it very difficult for the Home Secretary to intervene in any markedly different way. That is the reason.
  Again, one should refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said on Report:
  "For many years it was highly unusual for the Home Secretary not to accept, or to vary, the judicial tariff. But that practice began to change some years ago and now we know, through Answers to parliamentary Questions and judicial reviews in the courts, that the Home Secretary may, and quite frequently does, alter the tariff if he feels that circumstances justify it".—[Official Report, 26/6/95; col. 542.]
  As I pointed out, one has the demands of justice versus the demands of Executive convenience. It is for that reason and where there is that sort of clash that one has the quite unusual situation where, in my respectful submission to the House, we are wholly justified in exercising the power which this House undoubtedly has of asking Members of another place to think again. I invite your Lordships to stand firm. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Ackner.)
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there is no need to go over the merits of the matter. They have been cogently argued by my noble and learned friend. I desire to make only two points. First, if your Lordships had stood firm on this issue, there is no doubt in my mind that the Government would have given way, because, if they had not done so, they would have lost the Bill for the Session.
  Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, took up a perfectly consistent attitude constitutionally, consistent with what he has said before and what he believes. It may not be altogether consistent with the constitutional ideas that are being peddled by some of his colleagues, but I think that he recognises that. However, what I found pathetic was that the noble Baroness, a Tory Minister of State, should appear to be adopting the theory of single Chamber government—and that of a Chamber tightly under the control of the Government, any government, exercising its powers through the Whips and through the constituency associations.
  Having said that, there is the question of whether my noble and learned friend should carry his Motion to a Division. That is a matter for him, but I have been conscious that outside the Chamber are quite a number of fresh-faced strangers, windswept and seemingly straight from the brushwood. It would be idle, I think—although it would be attractive—to compare those who have listened to the debate with those who appear in the Division Lobby. My noble and learned friend may well feel that it would be a stultifying exercise, particularly in view of the fact that there are a number of amendments to an important Bill which are still awaiting consideration by your Lordships.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, two issues are before us. The first is the merit of the original amendment which was moved and carried by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the second is the question: what shall we do about it? On the first issue, I am unequivocally in support of the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, I encouraged my noble friends to support him in the Division Lobby and we were pleased when he was successful—though not, I must say with due personal respect to both noble and learned Lords, because it was supported by all of the learned judges. I think that the House must make decisions on legislative matters on their merits as we see them, even those of us who are not lawyers—indeed, perhaps especially those of us who are not lawyers. If I find myself in total opposition to 17 present and retired noble and learned Lords, that will not cause me to lose a moment's sleep. It is not the argument from authority which is important.
  The noble and learned Lord's argument with which I agreed was one of political judgment. It seemed to us that in this Bill, of which we thoroughly approve and which we want to see on the statute book—indeed, we want to see it on the statute book before the end of this week—is a defect which, because of the peculiarity of the passage of the Bill which abolished capital
  198
  punishment in 1965, put the mandatory life sentence for murder on a different footing from other sentences. It seemed to us wrong that those who are convicted of murder and given a mandatory life sentence should be denied the right to appeal which is available to all other convicted prisoners. It was on that basis and on that basis alone that we supported the noble and learned Lord both in argument and in the Division Lobby. There is nothing between us on the issue.
  Now we come to the question of what we should do about it. I acknowledge the force of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said to me half an hour ago. He said that we were not faced with a situation where the House of Commons had made a judgment with which we disagreed and on which the other House reaffirmed its judgment. The noble and learned Lord was right to say that because the amendment was introduced for the first time in this House. Therefore, the House of Commons considered it only once. I acknowledge that there could be circumstances under which the fact that the amendment was considered on only one occasion could justify us saying to the Commons, "Please think again". That is not the normal circumstance and I would not normally agree with such a view because, as I said earlier, I believe in the supremacy of the elected Chamber. I am not terribly impressed by arguments about the subordination of this House. I take a minimalist view of the responsibilities, if not of the honour, of this House. So, I acknowledge that this case is different from that which commonly arises.
  However, having said that and having said that under certain circumstances this might be an occasion when I would wish to go against the expressed view of the House of Commons, I do not think that this is such an occasion. I believe that the merits of this Bill so greatly outweigh what is an important but second-order defect that it would be in the interests of best political judgment of any party and any part of Parliament that the Bill should go through. In those circumstances, I agree with the advice which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, gave to his noble and learned friend. Much as we support the latter on the merits of the issue and much as we admire his tenacity in bringing it forward again, I think that it would be a pity if he sought the opinion of the House on it.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Minister said that the House of Commons was entirely within its rights to reject a Lords amendment. One cannot disagree with that. However, it is entirely within the rights of this House to continue to pursue the matter in the way that has been considered.
  I do not agree with the use of language of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he referred to the "supremacy" of the other place. That is not my understanding of the constitution of this country. We have parallel and different responsibilities. Although the elected House is in a special position, there is no reason why this House should not use its powers when they exist.
  I shall say nothing about the substance of the matter, which was referred to on Second Reading, discussed in Committee, carried on Report and discussed again

  199
  tonight. I do not think that there is any doubt about the will of the House on that matter. For that reason, I am sorry that the Government chose to reverse in the other place the position that was adopted here.
  I should like to make two further points about the occasion and the appropriateness of the proceedings. First, this is not a narrow party issue. I rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he said that 17 Law Lords would not always persuade him of the rightness of a cause. However, it was not only 17 Law Lords, but over 100 other Members of this House on all sides—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I said that I was persuaded of the rightness of the cause.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I did not deny that the noble Lord was persuaded of the rightness of the cause. I understood him to say that 17 Law Lords would not necessarily persuade him because of their weight and stature. That is what I was agreeing with. However, the vote went very much wider than that and I think that that is the first reason why we should consider carefully whether the matter should be pressed further.
  The second is this: I see the Government Chief Whip on the Front Bench. From time to time he loses votes by bad management, if I may say so, and occasionally by bad luck. There are occasionally ambushes in this place. We all play games from time to time. But this was not an ambush; this was not bad luck; it was not, with respect to the Chief Whip, bad management; it was a proper expression of the view of the House. That is why a great deal more force should be attached to it than if it were in that other category.
  There are times when the House should stretch its convictions to the extent of its powers. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, chooses to do so, we on these Benches will be with him.
  8.30 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment relates to a clause which was inserted into the Bill at Report stage. As the House will recall, the clause was added by a majority of 16 against the Government's advice. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I have considered very carefully indeed the arguments which were advanced in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and other noble Lords who spoke in favour of the clause. I have to say that we continue to believe that the new clause is unnecessary and indeed, as has been said at other stages of the Bill, could give rise to anomalies of its own.
  Where I do agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is that it is of course possible for the House to send back this amendment to another place to ask it to think again, but, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I hope that the House will not choose to do that.
  200
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained why the Government reached that conclusion in the other place last night. I should like to explain briefly why the Government do not feel able to accept the proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
  The clause in question relates to the mandatory life sentence for murder. As the House knows, it is open to the trial judge, when passing sentence, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the minimum period of imprisonment to be served. The judge is not obliged to do so and in practice formal recommendations are made only in a minority of cases. The new clause would provide a right of appeal against a recommendation made in open court.
  At Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, argued that a right of appeal was necessary to rectify an anomaly as between discretionary and mandatory life sentences. In the case of discretionary life sentences, the judge is required to specify the "relevant part", which is the minimum period of imprisonment the prisoner must serve. There is a right of appeal against the judge's order as to the relevant part, but there is no right of appeal against a formal recommendation in mandatory life sentence cases.
  The reason for that apparent anomaly is straightforward. In the case of discretionary life sentence cases, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no part to play in setting the tariff. He has no power to modify the trial judge's order as to the relevant part. It is therefore necessary that there should be a right of appeal, otherwise the judge's order would go without challenge.
  On the other hand, a formal recommendation in mandatory life sentence cases is just that—a recommendation. The role of the judiciary in relation to the tariff in mandatory life sentence cases is advisory only: the decision on tariff is taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
  Since the trial judge's recommendation is only advisory, and in no way binding on my right honourable friend, I can see no reason why there should be a right of appeal against it. It is only one part of the tariff setting process, and it does not constitute the final decision. That is wholly different from the effect of the relevant part in discretionary life sentence cases. The perceived anomaly does not therefore exist.
  Much of the discussion about the right of appeal proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has focused on the question of openness. It is claimed that if recommendations were made in open court, with a right of appeal against them, that would provide greater transparency than the present procedures.
  I should like to clarify one issue. As I said at Report stage, it is entirely a matter for the judiciary whether or not to make recommendations in open court. Judges already have discretion to do so, and the Government would have no objection if recommendations were made in open court as a matter of course in mandatory life sentence cases. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, thinks it appropriate to issue guidance on that point, that is entirely a matter for him. In short, if judges

  201
  consider that greater openness would be achieved by making recommendations in open court, they are free to do so. No change in the law is required.
  As regards the procedures for setting the "tariff' in mandatory life sentence cases, I should point out that these procedures were thoroughly overhauled in 1993 to reflect the judgment of this House in its judicial capacity in the case of Doody. I believe that the present arrangements are anything but secretive, and I should like to take a moment to explain them.
  In every case where an offender is convicted of murder, the trial judge completes a detailed report on the background to the case. Whether or not he had made a formal recommendation in open court, the judge sets out his advice on the minimum period which should be served for retribution and deterrence. This report goes first to the Lord Chief Justice, who adds his own comments.
  The whole of that report, apart from opinions about future risk, is disclosed to the prisoner together with any other relevant papers, such as details of previous convictions, which will be put to Ministers in due course. That means that in practice the prisoner sees everything that is relevant to the setting of the tariff.
  The prisoner is given the opportunity to make any representations he or she wishes on the judicial recommendations and the other contents of the report. It is, however, made clear to the prisoner that the judicial views are advisory and the tariff will be set by the Secretary of State. The prisoner's representations, along with the judicial report, are then submitted to my right honourable friend, who makes the decision on tariff. That is communicated to the prisoner.
  If, after considering the judicial advice and the prisoner's representations, my right honourable friend decides that a higher tariff is required for deterrence and retribution than was recommended by the trial judge, the prisoner is given detailed reasons for that decision. And those reasons are, of course, open to scrutiny by the courts by way of judicial review.
  To summarise, the prisoner is aware of the judicial view and has the opportunity to make representations. He or she is then told of the tariff set. If there is any departure from the judicial advice, he or she is given detailed reasons. Once the prisoner has been informed of the tariff, we are prepared to disclose both the tariff and the judicial recommendation in individual cases to anyone who asks. The process cannot be described as secretive; it could hardly be more open.
  Perhaps I may give the statistics, because they are revealing. Of the 130 tariffs set from 1994 through to February 1995, 89 were set in line with the trial judge's recommendation; 32 were set in line with the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation where his recommendation was different from that of the trial judge; six were set between the two judicial recommendations (the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice) and only three were set higher than either judicial recommendation. Of the 140 tariffs set between 1994 and approximately April of this year, in 86 cases the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation was broadly in line with that of the trial judge; in 34 cases the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation was higher than that of the trial
  202
  Judge—that is, approximately 25 per cent. of the cases where the Lord Chief Justice took a different view—and in 20 cases the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation was lower than that of the trial judge (approximately 14 per cent. of the cases).
  It seems to me that the present procedures are fair, open and sensible. They ensure that proper weight is accorded to the advice of the trial judge, who has heard all the evidence, and that of the Lord Chief Justice, who can bring his wider experience to bear either to confirm the trial judge's advice or, as has been the case, to offer a different view. The prisoner has every opportunity to make informed representations before a decision is taken on tariff. And the final decision rests with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has been entrusted with that responsibility by Parliament as the guardian of the public interest.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the Government's proposals which were found to be unlawful. There is nothing unlawful, unfair or unreasonable about the arrangements for setting the tariff in life sentence cases. Indeed, the present arrangements were drawn up following the judgment of the House in the Doody case, and are fully in line with that judgment. They have also been scrutinised by the European Court of Human Rights and not found to be in any way in breach of our international obligations.
  As I said, we regard the present procedures as fair, sensible and effective. We do not consider that they would be improved by the right of appeal proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, against what is only a piece of advice at the start of the process. The arrangements for setting the tariff in mandatory life sentence cases were substantially overhauled. They are working well. They ensure that proper weight is attached to judicial recommendations on tariff but recognise that the final decision rests with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Perhaps most importantly, they appear to command public confidence in this highly sensitive and controversial area of criminal law.
  I believe that it would be wrong to disturb these arrangements by introducing a new appellate procedure into one aspect, and not the most significant part, of the tariff-setting process. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the case for the right of appeal proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has not been made out.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, during the course of the debate on Report the noble Baroness stated that the Home Secretary takes very seriously the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, supported by his predecessor and by the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, has said that he cannot currently contribute anything of great significance when it comes to expressing his view because he does not have the material.
  If the Home Secretary takes very seriously the views of the Lord Chief Justice, why on earth does not he want those views to be wiser and better informed so that when

  203
  he receives them he has better material on which to make his decision? That would the result of an appellate provision. As I have indicated, the Lord Chief Justice will have heard the reasons of the trial judge; he will have heard mitigation advanced before the Court of Appeal; and he will have had the advantage of discussing the matter with his two brothers on the Court of Appeal.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice confirms that that will be a far more efficient process. Why is it being rejected? There seems to be no sensible reason. The Minister says that it is all working very well but the stimulus for coming to your Lordships was a case that did not work well. It was the case of Leaney where there was an over-recommendation which the court could do nothing about. In future, it will be apparent that there will be no question of being able to get an over-estimate or an under-estimate dealt with because there is no right of appeal and therefore no leave will be given.
  The anxiety about the Court of Appeal is worrying because the noble Baroness says, "Of course, the trial judge can do it. We don't mind if he does it regularly. We have no objection to that". But, if it is to be done regularly, why the resistance to improving the nature of his decision by adding to its quality by process of a potential review on appeal? No answer has been given to that question.
  Perhaps I may comment on the remark made in answer to my reference to the strong judicial support which was particularly emphasised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I am not concerned with the weight and the status of the Law Lords. I am concerned with the subject matter of the debate. The subject matter of the debate was justice. When that number of judges from your Lordships' House comes here and says what is the just and proper procedure they are addressing your Lordships as experts. That is the significance; the unanimity of experts and an unusual turnout of experts.
  I have noticed among my brother Law Lords no great enthusiasm to take part in the activities in this Chamber. It involves a great deal of extra work out of, so to speak, office hours. In fact, I intervened some years back only because my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman chided me because there were constant debates on sentencing and no judge ever turned up to give the view of the judiciary, to answer some of the criticism and to provide the explanations. Therefore, it is not a question of weight and status.
  As regards the tactics of bringing this matter back, I have clearly been out-manoeuvered. I did not understand the coded message in the forthcoming business for Tuesday—that is, today. It reads:
  "Criminal Appeal Bill: Consideration of any message which may be brought from the Commons".
  That is why I telephoned the Whips' Office to discover what was going on. I was told that there would be an application or an amendment would be moved in the Commons. I asked what it was and I was told that the Whips' Office then did not know. I asked whether it
  204
  was a secret and I was told that they did not think so. I said, "Well, perhaps I could be informed". Thus I learnt what might be involved.
  On Friday came the letter. It gave me no opportunity to inform Cross-Benchers at our Cross-Benchers meeting on Thursday of this subject in which they were interested. I understand that it gave the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party no opportunity to put out a whip to discuss the matter. Which day is chosen? Tuesday, which is scheduled for a train strike. That is a happy situation in which to expect people to be here at 8.30 p.m. And when? It is during the dinner hour. Right from the outset I appreciated that the possibility of getting sufficient steam behind the Motion was doubtful, but at least I thought it right for the House to hear criticisms of what has been done and the meritlessness of what has occurred in another place.
  I do not propose to drag people away from the terraces, where they are enjoying themselves, or from the dining rooms, where they are happy enough to be eating, in order to establish that the score of your Lordships who are present in the Chamber will be swamped by those who come in anxiously inquiring what it is all about and which way they should go. In those circumstances, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  46 Schedule 2, page 24, line 25, at end insert:
  ("( ) In section 18 (initiating procedure), in subsection (2), at the end insert "or, in the case of a recommendation, from the date of the declaration of the recommendation".
  ( ) In section 22 (right of appellant to be present), in subsection (3), after "on a person" insert ", or declare a period which they recommend as the minimum period which should elapse before the Secretary of State orders a person's release on licence,".")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  46A Because it is an amendment consequential on the Lords amendment proposed after Clause 2, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 46A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 46A.—(Baroness Blotch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination Bill
8.50 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 7.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) providing dedicated parking facilities;
( ) providing assistance for him to move from his parked vehicle to his place of work.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee and it received much welcome support from all sides of the House. We are now discussing together Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I should be happy if the Government would accept either of these amendments or bring forward a government amendment at the next stage if they could accept the spirit of what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Many people throughout the country cannot use public transport but can drive cars and do valuable work. I have known three university lecturers, a spinal injuries welfare officer and someone who directed Birmingham's airport who all used wheelchairs. Those injuries came mainly from motoring and sporting accidents, but there are many other reasons for severe disability. Many of those people are young.
These amendments would remind employers that there may be a need to provide a parking space and some assistance. Surely it is better to have as many taxpayers as possible. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that it might not be possible for someone working in Oxford Street to park a car. Unless there was a car park, the disabled person might well have to travel by taxi. One must be practical about such matters. But I think that the noble Baroness gave a good example of how disabled people can be limited in their choice of employment because they face so many problems.
RADAR (the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation), which supports the amendments, has sent me an example of an inner London local authority which has no parking facilities for disabled people, members of the public or employees at any of its public service points. Miss P. used a wheelchair. She waited 12 months to be allocated a parking space, which she says was awarded out of the good will of her manager as the local authority had no corporate policy on parking for disabled people. The officers responsible for accommodation strategy had no guidance regarding the provision of such facilities. Therefore, the car parking needs of disabled employees are not taken into account when office accommodation is sought or existing office facilities are refurbished.
Miss P. was pleased to secure accessible parking facilities. However, many of her colleagues have not been so fortunate and continue to fight for their rights to have full access to their workplace. Miss P. stated that most disabled employees have to compete with their non-disabled colleagues for a parking space and often have to park a considerable distance from their office. For them just getting to work from their car may be
206
exhausting and may result in their being late for work. Such disruption could be avoided if the local authority adopted a policy of providing parking spaces for disabled people.
If you live in London or a town which has taxis which accommodate disabled people, it may be possible to get to work without a car. But that is not possible if you live, for example, in North Yorkshire and have to drive many miles to a town for a job. It may be that you have to drive to York or Northallerton from the Yorkshire Dales. People living in rural Norfolk, Cumbria or Caithness will have the same difficulties.
As president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I meet hundreds of people who have broken their backs and necks. Many of them have years of useful work to give. This proposed measure may just help some of them. It will not cost the Government anything, but it might help to alert employers to some of the needs of severely disabled people. It might give encouragement to people who are looking for a job if they think that that one need has not been forgotten.
The amendments add parking facilities and assistance to a long list. I hope that your Lordships will accept one of the amendments; it does not really matter which one. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and also Amendment No. 37 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. In some ways, I prefer the words of Amendment No. 37 except for the words, "within existing car parks". There may be steps between an existing car park and the place of work or there may be no existing car park. We need to encourage employers to consider whether it may be possible to create a suitable parking space near a building.
As my noble friend said, parking and assistance in reaching the place of work are often the only help required by people with spinal injuries. We are only seeking to add to a list of matters to put in the minds of employers so they do not feel that, having been asked to consider quite a long list, they are then asked to do even more.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke of an ever-increasing list of examples. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, says the more examples one includes, the more people will think, "Oh my goodness", and will ask themselves whether it is worth being an employer. That is more likely to happen if employers are asked to provide parking and help when those facilities are not on the original list of matters for consideration.
If this amendment is accepted, it may be logical for the paragraphs to become paragraphs (b) and (c) because paragraph (a) deals with adjustment to premises, (b) and (c) would deal with arrival at and getting into the premises, and then we should deal with possible adjustments within the workplace. I hope that the Minister will accept this entirely acceptable and practical amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the principle behind these two amendments. Amendment No. 37 has the most to commend it because it assumes that at the

207
place of work there is already a car park. In many places of work there would be no car park in any event. But where there is a car park, I suggest that we should consider requiring an employer to provide parking spaces for his disabled employees among the other parking spaces.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the principle behind the amendments but I do not think that either of them is satisfactory. Amendment No. 37 is better than Amendment No. 36, but if you are talking about "existing car parks" and you happen to work in Victoria Street, under this amendment the employer may have to purchase space in a car park elsewhere. I should prefer those who are moving the amendment to take it away and to table a similar amendment on Third Reading—after all, it is only an example; it is not compulsory—which makes it quite clear that the car parking space should be within the premises of the employer.
The first amendment does not specify at all where the car parking space should be—in the clouds perhaps. The second amendment refers to "existing car parks". As I say, if someone is working in an office block in London which does not have its own car parking space, an employer may have to pay to a large car parking firm a considerable amount of money every year because car parking in London and other large cities is expensive. As I said, if it is within the premises of the employer, these would be admirable amendments.
9 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to move Amendment No. 37. As I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was moving Amendment No. 36 and speaking to Amendment No. 37, I shall move Amendment No. 37 and speak to Amendment No. 36.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot move another amendment while one is already being discussed. He can speak to it but not move it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thought that was what I said. I thought these amendments were grouped, and I intend to continue. The fact is quite simple. These two amendments are there because of the attitude of the Government. The second one is certainly there because of the attitude of the Government. I do not think that anyone—certainly not myself or my noble friend—would say that our Amendment No. 37 is better than Amendment No. 36. However, there is a slight possibility that it might find favour with the Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has, as it were, an Amendment No. 38 up his sleeve which we could bring back at Third Reading and that found support from the Government I am quite sure that we could agree on it. However, the fact is that the Government did not accept Amendment No. 36 when, in precisely these terms, it was moved in Committee. The Government replied in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who, unfortunately for us, has now departed to the National Lottery and the RSC. Therefore, we cannot ask him about this matter; we have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has come to
208
us, I suppose, to deal with the lottery, the RSC and this amendment! The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, at col. 1732 of the Official Report,
"Let me say right at the beginning that I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind this amendment"—
that is to say, Amendment No. 36—
"as indeed I think everyone who has spoken on this amendment in the Chamber this evening has".
We know that the Government tend to say such things and then they say something that is not quite so welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, continued:
"However, the amendment, as drafted—"
this is the basis of my amendment—
"can be interpreted as being wide-ranging. For example, where an employer has existing car parking facilities for his employees it might well be reasonable—"
this is what we are trying to do in Amendment No. 37—
"depending on the circumstances, that he should, under the duty in Clause 6, have to allocate a dedicated car parking place to a disabled employee who finds it very difficult or impossible to use public transport".
In that respect, if that was all the amendment sought to do, the Government might accept it. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, added:
"Although I can see that there would be circumstances when it might be a reasonable adjustment to help a disabled person from a parked vehicle, I am much less clear about the scope of the second example"—
that is, the second limb of the amendment. The noble Lord continued:
"What sort of steps is it intended the employer may have to take in providing assistance for a disabled employee to move from his parked vehicle to his place of work? Does this mean that an employer has to make arrangements to meet a disabled employee who parks his car two miles away and then provide assistance for him? More fundamentally, I suspect that a person who needs this kind of assistance may have very serious mobility problems which could also require other forms of assistance, making this a minor aspect and therefore not a good example to single out".—[Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1732.]
In trying to take account of the objections of the Government we decided that we would attempt to meet them. In my amendment I tried to meet the criticisms of the Government, first, in the case where there is no car park. In that case, there is no responsibility in this regard. Secondly, the Government asked how much assistance the measure implies has to be given. We have said that a reasonable degree of assistance should be given, as in Amendment No. 37. If the Government would like to say that, having thought about the matter, they are prepared to back Amendment No. 36, that is all right. If they wish to back Amendment No. 37, that is also all right; but for goodness sake I hope the Government will say something a little more constructive on this extremely important issue than they did on the previous occasion we discussed this matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to say I am positively distraught that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, does not like dealing with me. I have to say that after my sabbatical away in the Ministry of Defence it is a positively extraordinary joy for me to be back facing the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others. I look forward to many, many more years of it.

209
Turning to the amendments, let me say that I perfectly well understand and have considerable sympathy with the intention behind both these amendments. I even have sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 37A, or whatever it was that my noble friend Lord Swinfen wanted to move. However, the types of steps suggested by these amendments are already certainly covered by the duty of reasonable adjustment. For example, where an employer has existing car parking facilities for his employees it might well be reasonable, depending on the circumstances, that he should, under the duty in Clause 7, have to allocate a dedicated car parking place to a disabled employee who finds it very difficult or impossible to use public transport. It may well be reasonable for a disabled employee who needs help to get from his car to his office, or her office, to receive that help. There would also be the situation, however, where the provision of a parking space or help in getting from a car to a place of work, was not reasonable. I think we are all agreed on that.
Where I differ is that I am not persuaded that these amendments should be accepted. Subsection (3) of Clause 7 after all, as I think my noble friend Lord Swinfen carefully pointed out, only sets out examples of steps and at a level of generality which will be most of benefit to people seeking to interpret and understand the duty. As was made clear in Committee, we feel that we must resist the temptation to add an ever-increasing list of examples. We must not include examples that are too precise and detailed. I am sure that there are many disabled people who would want to include steps on the face of the Bill which are even more likely to meet their own individual needs. But I do not believe that is a practical step.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood stated in Committee that these are matters which are far better addressed in the code of practice. Indeed, expanding upon the provisions of the Bill is the precise purpose of the code. We place great importance on the guidance that will be contained in the employment code of practice and will he consulting employers' organisations and organisations of and for disabled people in the preparation of the code. More often than not it will be to the code of practice that employers and others turn to get information and guidance on their responsibilities, and not the Act itself. Dealing with this sort of issue in the code will help to flesh out the examples in these amendments and make them meaningful and helpful to employers.
I hope that my comments reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords, even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I hope that they accept that we have very much taken note of their concerns. I can give the assurance that it is our intention that the code will cover this issue. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment or, for that matter, that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will press his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can be sure that I have got it right. Is he saying in terms that Amendment No. 36, or perhaps Amendment No. 37, will be in the code of practice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am saying that these issues will be addressed in the code. I am not saying that we will use those precise words.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I feel that we really need more than sympathy. Sympathy does not mean much. The Minister mentioned putting details into the code. There is already a great deal of detail in the Bill, set out in paragraphs (a) to (i) of Clause 7(3). To take just one, paragraph (f) provides for,
"allowing him to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment".
The most important thing of all is to get a disabled person into the building so that he can work. Therefore, this is an important issue.
I feel that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that we should get together and draw up the perfect amendment is probably what we shall have to do. I am sorry that the Minister could not recognise these points. I want him to think what would happen if he broke his neck driving up to Northumberland or Cumbria, where he lives. He would want to come down to your Lordships' House and continue his work as a Minister. I hope he would. But he might need some assistance getting into your Lordships' House, as I do. I am very grateful for it. The policemen give me some assistance. Once I am in your Lordships' House I can carry on my usual activities, but I need help to get my car out because I have very stiff shoulders.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, intends to do, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("(3A) In determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take a particular step in order to comply with subsection (I), regard shall be had, in particular, to—

(a) the extent to which taking the step would prevent the effect in question;

(b) the extent to which it is practicable for the employer to take the step;

(c) the financial and other costs which would be incurred by the employer in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of his activities;

(d) the extent of the employer's financial and other resources;

(e) the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step.

This subsection is subject to any provision of regulations made under subsection (7).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 38 with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether an employer has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 is in my noble friend's name. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Exemption for small businesses]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 3, at beginning insert ("After 1st November 1999,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I had better preface my remarks by explaining that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has unexpectedly had to go to the United States. Therefore, although he supports the amendment as strongly as I do, and perhaps more so, unfortunately he cannot be present to argue the case for it, which I am sure he could do better than I can.
This is an extremely modest amendment. It would not be necessary if one could be certain that the present administration would be in power in four or five years' time, because if that were the case one could be certain that no precipitate action would be taken. That is obviously the Government's wish. However, we all know that a week is a long time in politics. Who knows who may be Secretary of State at the end of this year, let alone at the end of 1996 and still less at the end of 1997?
The Bill will probably receive Royal Assent in early November this year. As it is drafted, the then Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, could immediately order a review, which could not last for more than nine months, following which the word "20" could in theory be reduced to "10", to "5" or even to "2" by August or September 1996. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, says "Splendid!", so we know what the Labour Party's intentions are.
This modest amendment, which is supported by the Institute of Directors, would ensure that a fair and reasonable period of at least four years must elapse, not least for the purpose of calmly assessing how well the Act is working, before the minimum number of employees could be reduced below 20. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, from a seated position allowed the Chamber to hear the Labour Party's intentions. Regarding the Liberal Democrats' intentions, if the Government were to oppose the amendment in the Division Lobbies, I would support them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take pleasure in joining with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in regretting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill already fails to embrace the concerns of something like a third of the working population—17 per cent. of those who are self-employed. Were a future government—the next Labour Government—minded to reduce that to embrace more disabled people to offer them the rights that they are entitled to have, should that be restrained by an amendment which calls on them not to do so for four years? By that time I have no doubt that the noble Lord
212
might be hoping for a different change of government. I believe that that situation would be extremely regrettable.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I too am opposed to the amendment. In Hansard of Thursday 15th June at col. 1922 I stated to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:
"If … over the next five years from the date of the enactment of the Bill, this whole provision in relation to employers with fewer than 20 employees could disappear from the Act, that offers us definite hope for the future".
The noble Lord replied:
"That is exactly what my amendment would allow. I am delighted to give the noble Lord that hope".
That is the hope with which we are now left as a result of the failure of our earlier amendment.
I can only say that, regrettably from the Cross Benches also, I am totally opposed to the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, lest it be thought that any Back-Bencher on this side were in favour of the amendment, perhaps I may say that I, too, am opposed to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned, we had some hope earlier this afternoon from the Government that there would be flexibility in what has been called the threshold. I believe that the amendment destroys the possibility of flexibility for four years. Within, shall we say, even a few months it might be found that the threshold could and should be reduced from 20. It would be quite wrong if we were to overlook that factor and to say, "No, we have to wait four years".
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will join with the rest of us in expressing a very clear opinion about the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, from the remarks that I made when Amendment No. 17 was discussed, the House will realise that I, too, strongly oppose the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, without imputing the same motives as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in proposing the amendment, after what he has heard my noble friend might think it wise to implement it!
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have heard a number of differing and opposing views on the question of the threshold for small employers. Being a government of great reasonableness, as always, the Government find themselves somewhere in the middle on these matters. Obviously opposing views reflect the need to ensure that we take account of very different interests. We must carry with us all sectors of society in taking this legislation forward, otherwise we risk it failing in its purpose.
We listened to all arguments for and against this clause throughout the passage of the Bill. We have responded positively, amending the clause in another place so that the power in the Bill to change the threshold by order cannot be used to raise it above the initial number of 20. There is now an obligation to review the effect of the clause within a few years, matched by an obligation not to change the threshold during that time without carrying out such a review. The

213
amendments will enable the Government to ensure that any changes made, and their timing, take account both of experience gained in operating the new right and other relevant circumstances.
I believe that the further government amendment during Committee stage in this House requiring the Secretary of State to review the effect of the clause within five years of it coming into force also goes a considerable way to accommodating the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In tabling Amendment No. 43, he is obviously concerned about the threshold number being reduced before we have had a chance to gain some experience of the legislation.
I trust that he will bear in mind the requirement in the Bill that before the compulsory five-year review, any changes in the threshold must be preceded by a review, even if it were not the compulsory five-year review. I hope that the noble Lord also noted my earlier comments to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain to consider whether later changes to the threshold must also be preceded by that review. I also hope that he will accept my assurance that we shall not rush into any review and that we are committed to reviewing the situation within four or five years. We believe that four or five years is probably the right time in which to do so. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, some interesting signals have been coming from various parts of the House. All the safeguards which have allegedly been written into the Bill by the Government and with which they sold the Bill to industry and commerce now seem to be virtually illusory. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, talked about making up one's mind on the basis of experience gained. However, if the Opposition have their way—which they may well do soon—there will be no question of waiting until experience has been gained, the legislation will be forced through within nine months.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, even the Opposition would accept that, in the unlikely event of them coming to power, they will be bound by the requirement to have a review.
Lord Monson: My Lords, indeed they would, but nine months is not much time in which to see how the provisions have been working. It is a very short time for changing figures in that way.
The difficulty is that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, operates on the assumption that the Government will win the next election and that their policy of waiting four or five years before any change is made will apply. However, in practice that is unlikely to happen.
Lord Henley: My Lords, look at the track record.
Lord Monson: My Lords, all right, I might place a bet with the noble Lord at some point, but not right now. However, if the Government will not accept the help proffered to them by the amendment, who am Ito try to force it upon them? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 4, after ("20") insert ("or less than 5").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to some extent we have already covered the ground earlier today when speaking to Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. As I pointed out earlier, in Committee the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, moved an amendment, later withdrawn. One of its effects would have been to set the lower limit at five in perpetuity. Of course, it could have been changed by primary legislation, but only by primary legislation.
Amendment No. 45 is also backed by the Institute of Directors and it would re-set that modest lower limit. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 1 per cent. of the working population is so severely disabled that their productivity is markedly lower than that of their fellow workers. A firm with 1,000 employees would, on average, find itself employing 10 such individuals. The costs of doing so could be absorbed without too much difficulty. I am not talking about the costs of alterations but of giving leave to people who are ill much more frequently than the norm. The situation is very different for a firm with four or fewer employees because if it is obliged to employ even one such disabled employee with a much lower than average productivity, its burden would be 25 times greater than that imposed on large firms. Bearing in mind, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and his colleagues, that a lower limit of—
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a second. He is aware that under the Bill disabled employees only have to be employed if they are reasonably capable of doing the job. That is the basic premise behind the Bill. The scenario about which the noble Lord is talking simply does not exist under this legislation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to Clause 6(4) (a), (b), (c) and (d). I think his fears will be allayed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, that is all very well in theory. The trouble is that when speaking to employers who employ a number of such people one finds that what happens is that they take on someone thinking that things will work out all right. Then they find the employees have to take off much more time than usual. Being a decent sort of employer, they do not have the heart to sack them but they find them something of a drain on their operations. In a large firm that can be absorbed, but in a very small firm it is difficult.
It should be borne in mind that a number of noble Lords from various parts of the House suggested in Committee that a minimum of five was acceptable to them. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, would not deny that; it is exactly what their amendment in Committee implied. I suggest that this amendment is acceptable, also bearing in mind that in the United States, where the legislation in this area is frequently praised by noble Lords, the minimum is 15. The argument speaks for itself.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have made this point at previous stages in the Bill. Is the noble Lord aware that in California the number has been six for a long time and that in New York it is four?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was not aware of that. But I also draw the noble Lord's attention to an article in the Spectator last week which pointed out that, far from the legislation working beautifully in the United States, as is so often alleged, it is actually causing a great many problems. We could argue about this matter indefinitely. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned me quite often in his introductory remarks. The amendment that I and others moved in Committee was designed to bring the number and size of the firms down gradually. Had we been successful then, or a later stage, I should have endeavoured to lower that number still further to zero. No way do I believe that any form of discrimination should be tolerated.
The noble Lord also said that if an employee was taken on who became so disabled that his productivity went down to an extremely low level, it would be a drain on the firm. It could well be a drain on the firm; but it would then be unreasonable to expect that firm to continue employing that disabled person. That, as I understand it, is already within the provisions of this Bill.
The noble Lord is trying to set an "in perpetuity" lower limit. I believe that, as time goes on, the Government will come down to a lower limit of zero as employers generally learn to live with disabled people, learn to appreciate their skills, and learn to adjust to the way in which those people can operate using the skills that they have. We must not forget that there are considerable advances in technology on almost a daily basis, and that more and more people with very severe disabilities will be able to achieve greater and greater things for themselves and for their employers. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and not attempt to press it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, strongly oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The whole push of the amendment is to assume that disabled people are a burden on society in general and on employers in particular, and that it is not fair because small firms cannot afford that burden. That was the import of his remarks. I wish very strongly to dissociate these Benches from them.
The noble Lord went on to argue that where a disabled person might have markedly low productivity a small company could not afford to carry that person. First, a small company would not have to employ such a person under Clause 6 of the Bill. Secondly, I am assured by my noble friend Lord McCarthy that, on grounds of capacity, it would be grounds for fair dismissal were such a person to show that he or she had markedly lower productivity than was desirable or acceptable. At the end of the day, we totally reject the notion that disabled people are a burden which small businesses cannot afford to carry. On the contrary, we regard them as having abilities and resources which are
216
part of the wealth of our society. They, as individuals, are as much citizens of this society as is anyone in this Chamber, and they have the right to the opportunities of employment as much as anyone in this Chamber. Any attempt to limit that should be strongly opposed.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has chosen to put aside me and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, in regard to having said that we would accept five as a minimum figure for employees in small companies, I must reiterate my firm conviction that the figure should not be on the face of the Bill in the first place. Twenty employees should not be a minimum requirement to allow employers not to be associated with the Bill. Therefore, I should like to support entirely the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I too should like the House to reject the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Monson, some idea of the number of safeguards that are placed in the Bill to ensure that any change in the threshold number will be subject to proper scrutiny if there is a limit below which they cannot go.
As the noble Lord will be aware, there is not a power in the Bill as it stands at the moment for the Secretary of State to use the order-making power to increase the figure above 20. He can only reduce it. He can only use such an order to reduce the figure to two.
The reason for that is that if the Bill is passed with Clause 8 in its present form, Parliament will have signalled that it wants a threshold, whereas an order to reduce the figure below two would, in effect, repeal the provision. That is because the figure "1" would have the result that no employers were excluded. A person with fewer than one employee is not an employer at all.
Firms with no employees or with one employee can therefore never be included in the Bill as it stands. Regulations could be made to change the threshold to any number from two to 20. A limit of fewer than two, while slightly less than that proposed by the noble Lord's amendment of "less than five", nevertheless might satisfy them.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will accept that the Bill as it stands at the moment cannot be used completely to remove the provision. I do not feel that the noble Lord has found much support in the House tonight for his absolute amendment whereby we could not reduce the figure to below five.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, who both made clear that they were entirely opposed to setting any lower limit whatsoever. But that would have been precisely the effect that acceptance of their amendment at Committee stage would have had. I must say that it is unusual to move one amendment in Committee implying that one is happy with certain limits and then seek to stiffen it up at Report stage. That has happened, but it is not usual. In a way, if the

217
amendment had been accepted and left at that it would in a sense have been almost better than having the Bill as it stands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that I was implying that all disabled people are a burden to employers. I did not imply that at all. I simply suggested that of some disabled people and often it does not become apparent until after those people have been accepted and taken on. It is then embarrassing and difficult for employers to get rid of them, even if by law they are entitled to do so. On the whole, people would rather not take them on in the first place.
There is another matter that has been overlooked and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed it out on various occasions today. Very small firms simply do not have the managerial manpower to send people to tribunals to argue their case, to go to solicitors and so on, or indeed to devote most of their time to making special provisions for disabled employees. I had not proposed to press the amendment tonight. I considered it a paving measure in a sense for some compromise that might be worked out between now and Third Reading whereby we might straightaway reduce the present upper limit somewhat to 15 or something like that and introduce a firm lower limit.
But from what I have heard tonight it does not seem as though this would find favour. Things may change during the Recess. People, having reflected upon this matter and what has been said tonight, may start to think differently. But for the time being at any rate and reserving the right to come back again at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to remove and prevent discrimination against disabled persons when employed by. or applying for employment from, employers with fewer than 20 employees; and the Secretary of State to this end may make appropriate financial provision by way of grants and loans to such employers, who can show that they wish to meet the obligations to disabled persons which they would have but for the exemption contained in this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid this amendment takes us back to the debate in relation to small businesses, their exemption and numbers. But it is a different way of looking at the situation and that is why, though there was a suggestion that it should be grouped with other amendments, I wanted it to stand alone.
The amendment begins at the point where we decided in the Bill that we would do nothing for those employees who are employed in bunches of less than 20. Nothing is to be done for them, for all the reasons that we have been through. Amendment No. 49 seeks to say that perhaps something can be done for them other than applying the provisions of the Bill to people in bundles of less than 20.
We accept that at this moment the Government will not include people employed in bunches of less than 20. But the amendment seeks to persuade the Government
218
to take some responsibility for disabled people by doing something for them when they are employed in firms which employ fewer than 20 people. The amendment provides,
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to remove and prevent discrimination against disabled persons when employed by, or applying for employment from, employers with fewer than 20 employees".
We then tried to make appropriate provision by way of grants and loans for those who say that they wish to improve the facilities for people employed in bundles of less than 20, and that is set out specifically in Section 7 of the Bill.
The House will be aware that this amendment was moved briefly at Committee stage as Amendment No. 56A. At that point the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said,
"We intend to … try to encourage small firms—although outside the ambit of this legislation—to try to behave as we all want them to behave".
He went on to say,
"Of course, we want small firms to continue their good record of employing disabled people. We certainly do not want them to discriminate. We shall encourage them to follow a code of practice that we shall be drawing up. In drawing up that code of practice, which, as long as the Bill escapes unharmed from your Lordships' House in this regard [and it has], will apply legally only to firms with more than 20 employees, we shall think about and consult not only with such firms or their representative organisations, but also with firms of fewer than 20 employees".—[Official Report, 15/6/95; col. 1923.]
The Government went quite some way, therefore, in accepting a responsibility, but they would not accept the amendment. We have therefore brought it back to see what the Government say this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that employers with fewer than 20 employees complying with Part II of the Bill receive help with subsidies. I congratulate the noble Lord on an ingenious amendment and probably another attempt to get round the exemption in Clause 8 of the Bill. But the noble Lord has overlooked a couple of points.
The first point, that I made earlier, is that not all the burdens that small employers are likely to experience in Part II will be financial. I described the regulatory burden and the problem of absorbing and implementing the details of the Bill. The second fairly crucial point is that the Government already have a scheme for meeting certain expenses. It is called the "Access to Work" scheme. I imagine that the noble Lord is familiar with it. It is open to all firms, regardless of size, and an additional power is unnecessary. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Access to Work scheme, the introduction of which we announced early last year, is under review. It is impossible for me, therefore, to give any detailed undertaking until that review has been concluded. I can though confirm that the Government very much intend to continue providing help under the Access to Work scheme after the review. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, if the review of the Access to Work scheme reintroduces the

219
Government's original idea, which they dropped, that the employer should contribute to the costs of access to work, would that not be a greater burden on the smaller employer? Therefore, the point behind my noble friend's amendment is even stronger.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember the issues relating to access to work probably as well as I do. Like Calais and other things, they are engraved on my heart. As the noble Lord said, when we originally proposed the scheme we thought in terms of having an employer contribution. We then listened to a great many representations on the subject and made a certain amount of extra money available whereby we could dispense with the employer contribution. At the time I gave a commitment that because we were doing this and because the scheme, if it was going to be successful, had a chance of growing quite dramatically, it would be fair to look at these matters thoroughly again when the review was conducted. I cannot give any commitment one way or the other as to what we will do after the review. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the scheme has been a great success. It has helped a large number of people find work or stay in work. We would not do anything in any way to undermine the success of the scheme. Further than that I think the noble Lord would accept that I can give no commitment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He was at the meeting with David Hunt, the then Secretary of State, when the All-Party Disablement Group put very powerful arguments against employers paying half of the cost. I am sure that the noble Lord was as impressed as David Hunt was, because David Hunt then told the other place that he was so convinced by those arguments that the payment by employers was completely out. Now the noble Lord seems to be indicating that it is under consideration again. If that is the case, how can he now argue in response to my noble friend that the Access to Work scheme is an argument against considering this amendment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, I was at that meeting. I was at a great many other meetings where these views were expressed fairly forcefully. I have not said—and I do not think the noble Lord should start hares running in this manner—that we had any intention of bringing back any idea of there being an employer contribution. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State did not rule it out in perpetuity. He said that we were going to bring it in without an employer contribution and see how things went. However, because of financial constraints and other such matters, it was right to review how the scheme was working. I am not just talking about reintroducing or not reintroducing an employer contribution. I am talking about the whole gamut. Who is it reaching? Is it targeting the right people? Is it really assisting people into work or is it just retaining people in work? The whole gamut has to be reviewed after a year. That is the assurance we gave and that is the review that is taking place. It would be wrong for me to start announcing what we might or might not do before that review took place.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have probably got the Government to go as far as we are going to get them to go. I thank the noble Lord for what he said. We certainly do not accept the arguments which he has put several times this evening, as has his noble friend, that small firms can be excluded because not all the burdens are financial. There are other burdens. We do not accept that these are burdens which disproportionately fall on small firms. As I understand what the noble Lord is saying, they are the burden of coming to terms with the Bill.
A small firm should find it easier to come to terms with the Bill because a small employer with a few employees should have a better knowledge of his employees than is the case in a large firm. Indeed, that employer should be closely involved in questions of recruitment and promotion. He should know that information without having a heavy personnel function in order to bring such matters to his attention. Therefore, I do not believe that such things fall disproportionately on small firms.
The Minister also pointed out that there is the access-to-work scheme. Of course, that is so. If that scheme were generous enough, if the Government were to say to us this evening that they have absolutely no intention of introducing an employers' contribution in the foreseeable future, and if they were to say that they would like to see the access-to-work scheme particularly used for those disabled persons in small firms who are not covered by legal regulation, they would be going far further than they are at present. But of course the Government will not say that. Indeed, what the Minister said about the access-to-work scheme seems to be worrying my noble friends sitting behind me. I can understand why because what he said about the scheme is that the Government cannot be sure what they will do with it in the future. That is why we will have to take the matter away, consider it and decide whether we can come back with another version, or a modified version of it, on Third Reading.
Finally, the central idea behind the amendment is that you should do something to compensate for the fact that you are excluding a group of workers from the protection in the Bill. We want something done, yes, not to replace the fact that the Government will not let the figure go below 20—indeed, that cannot be replaced because it is legal regulation—but in order to demonstrate that the Government are particularly concerned about all disabled people and their employment opportunities. If they are not prepared to regulate, perhaps they will be prepared to give some financial assistance. Nevertheless, as I said, we have gone as far as we can tonight. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Discrimination against contract workers
(".—(1) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work, to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in the terms on which he allows him to do that work;

(b) by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it;

(c) in the way he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

(d) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to benefits of any description if the principal is concerned with the provision (whether or not for payment) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public which includes the contract worker in question, unless that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the principal to contract workers.
(3) The provisions of this Part (other than subsections (1) to (3) of section 4) apply to any principal, in relation to contract work, as if he were, or would be, the employer of the contract worker and as if any contract worker supplied to do work for him were an employee of his.
(4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 39, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
(5) This section applies only in relation to contract work done at an establishment in Great Britain (the provisions of section 60 about the meaning of "employment at an establishment in Great Britain" applying for the purposes of this subsection with the appropriate modifications).
(6) In this section—

"principal" means a person ("A") who makes work available for doing by individuals who are employed by another person who supplies them under a contract made with A;

"contract work" means work so made available; and

"contract worker" means any individual who is supplied to the principal under such a contract.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, an "employment business"—to use the terminology of the Employment Agencies Act 1973—is a business which supplies people in the employment of the person carrying out the business, to act for, and under the control of, other people in any capacity. Disabled people working under employment business arrangements, are protected by the Bill in their role as employees of the employment business. However, there is no protection for disabled people working under employment business arrangements if a hirer either refuses to hire the disabled person or discriminates against the disabled person once he has begun working for the hirer. There is a further issue which relates to the duty to make a reasonable adjustment. There is currently no duty on the hirer to make even the most insignificant adjustment or co-operate with any adjustment made by the employment business.
That would mean that, in its present form, the Bill would not affect the actions of the hirer. A hirer could lawfully turn away a disabled person working under employment business arrangements purely on the grounds of prejudice. He could refuse to allow a braille keyboard to be plugged into his computer system even if the employment business or the individual himself provided it. I am not suggesting that such extreme examples are likely, but they illustrate that this is a potentially wide loophole in the Bill's provisions as they
222
stand. It could narrow the range of jobs to which the employment business could send the worker and may lead to the employment business being unable to continue employing that person. It could also lead to tribunal complaints being brought against employment businesses for matters which were not their fault and which, although they might succeed, could cause difficulties.
To avoid that kind of situation arising, the proposed new clause would place hirers under a duty of non-discrimination similar to the corresponding duty set out in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. It would be unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work—in other words, the person doing the hiring—to discriminate against a disabled person in any of the following ways: the terms on which he allows him to do that work; by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it; in the way that he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or by subjecting him to any other detriment.
Subsection (3) applies the provisions of Part II to any principal in relation to contract work as if he were, or would be, the employer of the contract worker. The effect of that would be to incorporate the same definition of discrimination as applies for employers—including the need to justify less favourable treatment—and to place a duty on the principal for reasonable adjustment. This duty would include the hirer co-operating as far as was reasonable with adjustments made by the employment business. Clearly what would be reasonable in the case of the hirer would depend on the hirer's circumstances and this would necessarily take account of the often much more limited relationship between the hirer and worker. For example, there might be very few types of adjustment a principal could reasonably be required to make for people hired for only a couple of weeks or for people whom the employer needed at very short notice. We recognise, however, that there is potential overlap where the duty of reasonable adjustment is imposed on both the principal and the employment business for the same person. We intend to use the regulations under Clause 7(7) to provide in detail for the allocation of such a duty between the two organisations.
Subsection (4) makes victimisation unlawful in this context, even where the contract worker is a non-disabled person. It would mean that non-disabled people involved in, for example, proceedings acting as witnesses would be covered by the provision. Subsection (5) provides that the new clause applies only in respect of contract work at an establishment in Great Britain and that this is to have the same meaning as it has for the employment provisions. Subsection (6) sets out the meaning of "principal", "contract work" and "contract worker".
I believe that the amendment closes a potential loophole in these provisions of the Bill and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the situation if the principal employs fewer than 20 people and the contractor employs more than 20 people and vice versa—if the

223
contractor employs fewer than 20 people and the principal employs more than 20 people. How is all that caught by the 20-employee limit?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that if it is the principal who is covered and he employed fewer than 20 staff, he would be exempt. As I said, there is a grey area where the question of whether it is the principal or the employment business who is the employer is unclear. We want to deal with that in regulations. However, it would be the size of the one covered at the time that would be the size that was relevant, not the other one—if the noble Lord follows me. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, does that mean that if the contractor employed more than 20, he could not discriminate, but the principal who employed fewer than 20 would be able to discriminate even though the employer of the contract worker was not allowed to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is exceedingly unlikely that the employment business which has any degree of success will employ fewer than 20 people. It is likely to employ more. It depends who he is covered by at that given time. If he is covered by the principal and the principal has fewer than 20 staff, he is not covered; but if he is covered by the employment business with fewer than 20, he is not covered and vice versa.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome the amendment. I believe that between now and Third Reading my noble friend should look again at the point that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. In the part of the country where I live, quite large farms employ only one or two people, but when it comes to harvesting their brassicas, potatoes or whatever, they bring in gangs of labourers under contract from a specialist hiring firm which could well employ more than 20 people. I feel that this point should be cleared up, at Third Reading if necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may give the Minister an example. A local authority may have been required, through contract compliance, to put out its cleaning work to small companies. The local authority will employ more than 20 people, but the company that has won the tender will probably employ fewer than 20 people. Equally, one could perfectly well have a small business employing fewer than 20 people which employs a cleaning firm which employs more than 20 people. That is now a common circumstance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I have made the position clear. It depends very much on who covers the individual at the given time and whether they are covered by the exemption for 20—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what does the Minister mean by that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have pointed out, the principal will be treated as if he was the employer in most cases. If the principal employs more than 20, they are covered. If he employs fewer than 20 people, they are not covered. If they are covered by the employment
224
business and the employment business has fewer than 20 employees, there is no protection. If it has more than 20 employees, there is protection. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is a rather important point, particularly for local authorities which are now required to subject large swathes of local authority business to compulsory competitive tendering. Many of those contracts will be won by small companies. Is he saying that because the local authority is the principal and will almost invariably employ more than 20 people, all of the companies that go in for compulsory competitive tendering must conform, whatever their size, to the requirements of the legislation? Because that will be a form of contract compliance that we would welcome.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that we are on Report. I am intervening for the last time to make the point clear. In that case, the individual is protected while he is working for the local authority because the local authority is the principal. That does not mean that small firms feeding in will suddenly find themselves bound by that. I was not saying that. I was saying that the individual who is offered protection is offered protection depending upon whom he is covered by at the given moment, whether it is the principal or the employment business.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are on Report. We must bring this Committee-style conversation to an end. I am sure that if there are any problems remaining my noble friend will be able to write to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Discrimination by trade organizations
(".—(1) It is unlawful for a trade organisation to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in the terms on which it is prepared to admit him to membership of the organisation; or

(b) by refusing to accept, or deliberately not accepting, his application for membership.

(2) It is unlawful for a trade organisation, in the case of a disabled person who is a member of the organisation, to discriminate against him—

(a) in the way it affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them;

(b) by depriving him of membership, or varying the terms on which he is a member; or

(c) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

(3) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 39, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
(4) In this section "trade organisation" means an organisation of workers, an organisation of employers or any other organisation whose members carry on a particular profession or trade for the purposes of which the organisation exists.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 98, 99 and 179.
Amendment No. 51 means that trade unions, employers' associations and analogous bodies would be covered by this Bill in their relationship with their

225
members or prospective members who are disabled or who have had a disability. Such organisations are already covered in the Bill to the extent that they are employers. However, they are not covered by the access to services right because they are not providing services to members of the general public—just to their members. The inclusion of trade unions, employers' organisations and analogous bodies follows directly from the matter being raised in Committee in the Commons when my honourable friend the Minister of State gave an undertaking that the Government would consider the matter further. I am pleased that that consideration by my honourable friend has resulted in the amendments on which I can now seek the approval of the House.
I can see no reason not to apply the provisions of the Bill to those bodies. And discussions between officials in my department and those from the TUC and CBI indicated a favourable response to the proposals.
Amendment No. 51 would cover trade unions, employers' organisations and analogous bodies in a similar way to the coverage of such organisations in the Race Relations Act. That amendment would make it unlawful for a trade organisation to discriminate against disabled people in relation to the terms on which it admits disabled people to membership or by refusing to accept, or deliberately not accepting, the application of a disabled person for membership. The amendment also makes it unlawful for trade organisations to discriminate against a disabled person who is a member in the way they afford him access to benefits, by depriving him of membership, or varying the terms on which he is a member or by subjecting him to any other detriment. Finally, it also covers non-disabled people should they be victimised as a result of, for example, helping a disabled member enforce his rights under this Bill.
Amendment No. 52 sets out the meaning of discrimination in this context and also provides for grounds for justifying less favourable treatment of disabled people as applicants for membership and as members. Amendment No. 53 places a duty on trade organisations to make reasonable adjustment. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are based on an amendment which we discussed earlier in some detail. It is clear that there needs to be a duty of reasonable adjustment; for example, to ensure that, where it is reasonable, visually impaired members could get union literature in braille and members with hearing impairments could have signers at meetings. And there will be circumstances where less favourable treatment of a disabled person would be justified. For example, in the case of a trade union delegation to inaccessible premises not controlled by the union it might be necessary to leave out a wheelchair user or it may be the case that a disabled person would be excluded from an employer organisation for a particular trade if that person does not work in that trade and is not qualified to do so.
Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 are consequential amendments proposed to Clause 37 (Code of Practice), stemming from the inclusion of contract workers and trade organisations, so that the code of practice on
226
employment can include practical guidance to eliminate discrimination against contract workers and by trade organisations.
Amendment No. 179 is a consequential amendment which clarifies the meaning of trade organisations for the purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps I may make a further point in order to flag it up for Third Reading. We may wish to return on Third Reading to clarify the position of the bodies which issue qualifications. Such bodies are excluded if they are in the education sector, as defined by Clause 13(5), but they may otherwise be covered by Part III of the Bill if they are deemed to provide services to the public. We are considering what the consequences might be and whether we should rely on the Bill's regulation-making powers to detail what is or is not reasonable for such bodies to have to comply with Part III. If we are not satisfied that that is the right approach we may return to the House on Third Reading with further amendments setting out on the face of the Bill how qualifying bodies are affected.
I hope that that description of the amendments is useful. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we welcome this series of amendments. I wish to ask three questions in order to gain some enlightenment. I cannot find a clear definition on the face of the Bill or in the amendments of a trade organisation. I may be wrong and the Minister may point it out to me. Amendment No. 179 indicates that I can find the definition somewhere else, but I cannot find the definition itself. It is a term of art and it is a new term to me. We are not talking only about trade unions. Are professional associations, employers' associations, institutes—for example, the Institute of Personnel Management—trade associations, pressure groups and single interest groups trade organisations covered by the Bill? There may be a simple answer to that question. It may be that the Government tabled the amendment late, that I got up rather late and that I have not found the definition in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
The Minister must be aware of my second point because he said that the Government had had discussions with the TUC. It is a TUC point. The TUC would not oppose the amendment but would like to have clarification from- the Government, which it has not yet received. First, where a non-disabled person would not be eligible for membership of a union, under this clause a similarly disabled person will also not be eligible for membership. Of course, as the noble Lord will know, many unions in their rule books limit eligibility. Nurses cannot join the National Union of Mineworkers, for instance. It is understood that if the amendment is passed that position will not change. But the TUC would like to have the matter clarified.
The second point is more complicated but I understand that the Government have been informed of it. It is feared that the amendment might render unions liable for any failure to make adjustments by an informal group of union members of whose existence the union's officers are unaware. I refer to groups of

227
union members not recognising union rule books and with whom the national union does not communicate and who are given no powers or resources. They may emerge in workplaces where the union is not recognised. Does the amendment mean that the union has some degree of responsibility over such people, including entry into the union?
I have outlined two concerns and a point of information. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked for a definition of a trade organisation. It may be that the noble Lord did get up late because subsection (4) provides an explanation of what is meant by a trade organisation. It means:
"an organisation of workers, an organisation of employers or any other organisation whose members carry on a particular profession or trade for the purposes of which the organisation exists".
Of course, if the noble Lord would prefer to have a more detailed definition I should be happy to write to him about that.
Secondly, he asked whether, under the provisions of this Bill, someone who was not disabled and not qualified to be a member of a union for a particular reason might find a disabled person who was similarly not qualified somehow being able to be a member of the union. That could not be the case. If a legitimate disqualification affected X who was not disabled, it would presumably also affect Y who was disabled.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether trade unions would be liable if groups of members committed the union to expenditure by making a reasonable adjustment when the union was unaware of what was being done. I find it odd that the noble Lord seeks to restrict the duty on trade unions to make reasonable adjustment if local members are expected to offer union services; for example, holding meetings and distributing literature. Unions must ensure that the duty on them is given adequate effect by the members according to the rules of the union. Financial control is obviously an internal matter for the union.
If the noble Lord requires an enlargement of subsection (4) of Amendment No. 51, I should be more than happy to write to him about that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I had noticed that but I regard it as a tautology. Therefore, I should be extremely pleased if the noble Lord would write to me about that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Meaning of "discrimination" in relation to trade organizations
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a trade organisation discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and

(b) it cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a trade organisation also discriminates against a disabled person if—
228

(a) it fails to comply with a section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty imposed on it in relation to the disabled person; and

(b) it cannot show that its failure to comply with that duty is justified.

(3)Subject to subsection (5), for the purposes of subsection (1) treatment is justified if, but only if, the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), failure to comply with a section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty is justified if, but only if, the reason for the failure is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(5) If, in a case falling within subsection (1), the trade organisation is under a section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty in relation to the disabled person concerned but fails to comply with that duty, its treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (3) unless the treatment would have been justified even if the organisation had complied with the section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty.
(6) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which—

(a) treatment is to be taken to be justified;

(b) failure to comply with a section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty is to be taken to be justified;

(c) treatment is to be taken not to be justified;

(d) failure to comply with a section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty is to be taken not to be justified.

(7) In this section "section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty" means any duty imposed by or under section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments).").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments
(".—(1) Where—

(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of a trade organisation, or

(b) any physical feature of premises occupied by the organisation,

place the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the organisation to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for it to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.
(2) Subsection (1) (a) applies only in relation to—

(a) arrangements for determining who should become or remain a member of the organisation;

(b) any term, condition or other arrangements on which membership or any benefit is offered or afforded.

(3) In determining whether it is reasonable for a trade organisation to have to take a particular step in order to comply with subsection (1), regard shall be had, in particular, to—

(a) the extent to which taking the step would prevent the effect in question;

(b) the extent to which it is practicable for the organisation to take the step;

(c) the financial and other costs which would be incurred by the organisation in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of its activities;

(d) the extent of the organisation's financial and other resources;

(e) the availability to the organisation of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step.

This subsection is subject to any provision of regulations made under subsection (7).
(4) In this section "the disabled person concerned" means—

(a) in the case of arrangements for determining to whom membership should be offered, any disabled person who is, or has notified the organisation that he may be, an applicant for membership;

(b) in any other case, a disabled person who is—

229

(i) an applicant for membership; or

(ii) a member of the organisation.

(5) Nothing in this section imposes any duty on an organisation in relation to a disabled person if the organisation does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person concerned—

(a) is, or may be, an applicant for membership; or

(b) has a disability and is likely to be affected in the way mentioned in subsection (1).

(6) Subject to the provisions of this section, nothing in this Part is to be taken to require a trade organisation to treat a disabled person more favourably than it treats or would treat others.
(7) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of subsection (1) as to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 7(7) (the references in those paragraphs to an employer being read for these purposes as references to a trade organisation).
(8) Subsection (8) of section 7 applies in relation to such regulations as it applies in relation to regulations made under section 7(7).
(9) Regulations may make provision adding to the duty imposed on trade organisations by this section, including provision of a kind which may be made under subsection (7).
(10) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether a trade organisation has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Discrimination in Employment: Genetic Predisposition
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, extend the provisions of Part II of this Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person who is not disabled in circumstances where, by reason of a person's family history, or by virtue of the result of a medical test which has indicated that a person has a genetic disorder, it is known that a person will or may have a disability in the future.
(2) An order made under this section may make such consequential amendments to the provisions of this Act as the Secretary of State considers necessary.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 82 and also to Amendment No. 168, which is consequential on the other two amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to facilitate at some later date the introduction of appropriate legislation to protect from discrimination those people who are currently healthy but who are at risk of a disability on account of a genetic problem.
The need for the amendment arises from the rapid growth of interest shown in genetic information by non-medical parties—specifically, insurance companies and employers. The growth of that interest is evident from the literature on the subject in both specialist and non-specialist journals. It is also evident from phone calls to the Genetic Interest Group's office. Those calls also reveal that genetic information is sometimes used to discriminate unfairly against people with a predisposition to a genetic disorder.
The continuing and rapid advance of scientists' understanding of the role of genes in the more common diseases, such as cancers, means that third parties will soon be interested in acquiring genetic information
230
about large numbers of people. It is essential that a framework is established to control access to and use of such information.
It is appropriate to raise these issues on this Bill because the danger of the discriminatory use of genetic information is connected directly with the fact that genetic information may show that a person will or may become disabled at some point in the future.
The advantage of an enabling amendment—and it is only an enabling amendment—is that it will allow more thought to be given to how to tackle genetic issues and disability prior to the introduction of legislation. At the same time it will allow legislation to be introduced rapidly once a consensus has emerged on the way forward. For example, it is clear that issues relating to the appropriate use of genetic information are raised in the report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on human genetics which was published today.
The introduction of this enabling amendment into the Bill would make it possible to turn some of the recommendations in the report into law much faster than would otherwise be possible. I do not anticipate that my noble friend has read that report; it is some 2 inches thick and runs to about four volumes. I trust that this amendment will satisfy the concerns of all the parties with an interest in the issue: affected individuals, employers, providers of goods and services and government. Its acceptance into the Bill would give hope and confidence to those individuals at risk of developing a disability. It would not impose immediate burdens on employers and providers of goods and services. However, it will create a framework within which codes of good practice for employers and providers of goods and services can be developed and turned into legal obligations.
The Association of British Insurers was kind enough to send me a copy of a letter which it had written to a number of Peers inviting them to reject this amendment. The letter states,
"As there is at present no satisfactory definition of what constitutes a genetic predisposition and as, without such a definition, it would certainly be inappropriate for immediate implementation of this amendment".
I am not seeking immediate implementation of the amendment. As I have said, the amendment can be implemented when the knowledge is available here and the Government have had the opportunity of studying it. It will then be up to the Secretary of State at the time to implement the amendment. The letter continues,
"The ABI has an interest in this area because there may come a time when genetic information forms part of an individual's medical record and is accordingly used in assessing applications for insurance".
The House will probably know that there is already a test that is 99 per cent. accurate in showing whether someone has Huntington's Chorea, which is a genetically inherited, extremely serious disease which is both mentally and physically disabling.
I am sure that a number of noble Lords have had to undergo medical examinations. If one's heart is being examined, it is quite common for a medical practitioner to ask one to tell him if there is any history in previous

231
generations of one's family of any form of heart disease. Although I am not medically qualified, I should have thought that the conditions of our hearts have something to do with our genetic inheritance.
I have not had an opportunity of studying in detail the report of the Science and Technology Committee from the other place, Human Genetics: The Science and Its Consequences, but I wish to quote from some of its conclusions and recommendations. The report states, with regard to employment, on page xcvii,
"We wish to stress that, at present we know of no genetic diagnosis sufficiently robust to make a case for insisting that it be revealed to an employer.
We recommend that legislation to protect the privacy of genetic information should be so drafted as to forbid employers from testing for genetic traits other than those which might put the public at direct and substantial risk. There should be a mechanism by which such conditions could be defined. Any genetic testing conducted for employment purposes should be strictly limited to the specific conditions relevant to the particular employment and genetic material supplied for such tests should not be examined for evidence of other conditions.
We recommend that genetic screening for employment purposes should be contemplated only where:

(i) there is strong evidence of a clear connection between the working environment and the development of the condition for which the screening is conducted;

(ii) the condition in question is one which seriously endangers the health of the employee;

(iii) the condition is one for which the dangers cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable measures taken by the employer to modify or respond to the environmental risks".

If the Committee in the other place makes recommendations on genetic screening in employment, that must mean that some genetic screening is taking place somewhere or that there is a fear of it.
With regard to insurance, on the same page of the report the committee writes:
"The evidence given to us by Professor Arrow and Dr Barr suggests that it would be possible to find ways to regulate the use of genetic information in insurance which would both protect the interests of society in enabling as many people as possible to obtain insurance and protect the insurance companies themselves".
The committee recommended that the insurance industry should be allowed one year in which to propose a solution acceptable to Parliament and that, if it fails to do so, a solution should be sought by legislation if necessary.
The report continues:
"We believe that one effect of genetic information may well be to limit the scope of medical insurance in the medium to long term".
I do not know of plans for any other Bill in which this subject could be dealt with. Therefore, I believe that we should include this group of amendments in this Bill at this time. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the aims behind the noble Lord's amendments. We should guard against discrimination on the basis that someone has a disposition to develop a particular disease. However, Amendment No. 54 states:
"An order made under this section may make such consequential amendments to the provisions of this Act as the Secretary of State considers necessary".
232
That is repeated in another amendment in the group. I am not very comfortable with that proposal. We do not know what any Secretary of State at any given point in time may consider necessary or on what criteria or grounds.
Having said that, however, the aim of the amendment to try to prevent the use of information concerning a disorder which may not become apparent for some time as an excuse for denying certain services or employment is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to address both areas of concern.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained the arguments behind the amendments extremely well. He quoted from the report published only today of the Science and Technology Committee of the other place entitled Human Genetics: The Science and its Consequences. The sections of the report which the noble Lord quoted and others bear extremely well on the argument in favour of the amendment. For example, in paragraph 220 the report states:
"we consider that genetic knowledge does differ from other sorts of medical information. The effects of genes are complex, subtle, and depend on interactions with the environment … Even in the minority of cases where possession of a defective gene inevitably leads to the development of a condition, it cannot predict its severity or, in late onset diseases, show when it might appear…Genetic information also differs from other medical information in that it can, in some cases, give a clear indication of the genetic status of other family members".
There is evidence from a witness to the committee which is extremely relevant. Professor Modell says:
"It would be illogical and inequitable to permit discrimination against healthy people with a genetic predisposition to disability, while at the same time excluding discrimination against those already disabled".
As the noble Lord said when he moved the amendment, the report says:
"We believe that genetic discrimination may happen inadvertently, and should be prevented. There must be some mechanism to do this".
On insurance, the suggestions were in three parts:
"Insurance companies should not ask for any information on genetic tests at the time the contract was made. If the insured dies of a genetic disease on a list maintained by an appropriate authority as predictable by a genetic test, then the sum paid by the insurance company need not exceed a ceiling specified at the time of the contract. Insurance companies would re-insure an industry pool against the risk of deaths from genetically identifiable causes on the list".
It is an excellent report. It is a complex area. All that the noble Lord seeks to do is to leave a gateway in the Bill to enable later legislation, regulation, or whatever seems appropriate, to deal with the matter. If we leave the issue alone, it will raise enormous problems for people who have a genetic predisposition but are not disabled. If the Government do not intend to deal with the issue in this Bill, they will have to indicate how they intend to deal with it in other legislation.
To be fair, the Committee states that it is not sure that this Bill is the right way to deal with the issue. It is suggested that a privacy Bill would be a better way. Yesterday we heard the combination of handwringing

233
and chickening-out that the Government are indulging in over a privacy law. It is extremely important that we make some provision in this Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I find this a most interesting subject. I should like to ask the Minister this question: what existing legislation covering privacy of people deals with medical confidentiality? There is concern about fax machines, with information passing from doctors and hospitals being left in fax machines.
Perhaps I may ask another question about haemophiliacs and the workplace, and health and safety issues. There must be some legislation covering those aspects at the moment. It is necessary to ensure that the legislation that we are now discussing does not complicate other legislation.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may briefly but warmly support the amendment. It is an area where things are moving very fast. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place. I heard the subject referred to on the radio this morning. In the same breath an item was mentioned regarding a semi-do-it-yourself kit for testing for the cystic fibrosis gene.
It would be a wise move to have this enabling amendment in position. I hope that the Government will show their wisdom by accepting the amendment, or by bringing a provision of their own back at Third Reading.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to address this important matter because, as your Lordships will be aware, it was debated at some length in another place and briefly touched upon during our own Committee stage.
Scientific advances in our understanding of human genetics have opened up complex moral and practical issues which will need to be looked at very carefully and in the round. I do not think that these issues can be picked off bit by bit. I believe that the implications go a great deal wider than the discussions that we are having this evening. As some noble Lords have already mentioned, the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place has today published a report. The Government will want to look at it very carefully before considering legislation. My noble friend Lord Swinfen was quite right to presume that I had not had the opportunity today to read this voluminous report. I was rather busy reading another one from the Bank of England board. However, since I indicated to him at lunchtime that this report was published, I am rather glad that he has had an opportunity to glance through its pages. If he did so, I am sure that his eye will have alighted on paragraph 223. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when he spoke about Professor Modell.
However, Professor Modell's point comes in the last three lines of a rather longer paragraph in which the Committee states:
"There were suggestions that some genetic discrimination could be dealt with through amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill. While we agree with the ends of those in favour of these changes, we are dissatisfied with the means proposed. It would be difficult to prove that failure to offer employment, say, was caused
234
by knowledge of a genetic predisposition to a late onset disease. Moreover, we were told that people with genetic predispositions, or who were likely to develop late onset diseases, might also be put at a psychological disadvantage if they were simply treated as disabled".
The report then goes on to give the quote from Professor Modell who was a witness.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in case the noble Lord was implying that I was attempting to mislead the House by partial quotations, I was careful to say that the report suggested that the Bill was perhaps not the best place to put such a provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord did absolutely that. However, I just wished to underline what was said in paragraph 223. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would facilitate, he claims, future legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reached my point before I had the opportunity to do so. It is just as well for my noble friend that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not with us at this late hour because my noble friend would have received the same kind of lecture as I have received on a number of occasions about Henry VIII clauses. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that his amendment seems to be the mother and father of Henry VIII clauses. I have made clear to your Lordships on a number of occasions that I am a reluctant taker of Henry VIII powers. The amendment proves no exception to my rule.
We must first think carefully about the effect the inclusion of people with genetic predispositions would have on the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Bill is intended to provide protection for people who have or have had a disability. The amendments make it entirely clear that here we are talking about people who have no disability. People with genetic predispositions do not yet have a disability and indeed may never have one. The predictive power of genetic testing is, with a few exceptions, likely to remain uncertain. No screening test is 100 per cent. certain. Having a predisposition to a condition which may or may not lead to an impairment which may or may not have a substantial effect on that person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities should not be deemed to be a disability as commonly understood. Nor should people in that position be covered by a Bill aimed at protecting disabled people.
Furthermore, as we are able to isolate and test for more and more conditions, it has been estimated that we will all be found to carry a complement of potentially lethal mutations. That is not to say that we all have a disability, but there will be an increasing number of us for whom it will be found, if we have the tests, that we may have a disability in the future, however slight that possibility. Are we really to envisage a situation in the future when the Disability Discrimination Bill covers the entire population?
I have said it on a number of occasions and I say again that we are trying to cater for those people whom the great public—employers and all of us—consider to be disabled. Those are the people whom we wish to help. The effect of including people with genetic predispositions in the Bill would be to increase the uncertainty among employers, service providers and

235
disabled people as to who is and who is not covered by the Bill. This would undermine its effectiveness to protect the people whom it is intended to protect: those whom we all recognise as having or who have had a disability. I have been down the road on that argument before.
Another example of the uncertainty is the amendment to Clause 13 which was accepted at the Committee stage. It extended the provisions of Part III to include people treated as having a disability as defined in the Bill. In our view, that amendment has served to undermine the effectiveness of Part III, just as the amendments before us this evening would undermine the Bill as a whole. As I have done on a number of occasions, I wish to make it clear that I do not want to go down those roads. We shall seek to remove the amendment to Part III on treating people as disabled when the Bill returns to another place.
Let me repeat what my colleague said in another place on the problem of genetic predisposition. The Government will want, as will the whole House, to look very carefully at the Select Committee's findings and its recommendations before deciding whether specific action is called for. That will provide a valuable opportunity to consider the issue in the round, including the points raised in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the confidentiality of medical records. Of course, it is there. So far as fax machines are concerned, I suppose that the confidentiality of medical records is as safe from the fax machine as many confidential government documents appear to be safe. I am afraid that one of the downsides in the modern world of communication is that, just occasionally, the wrong buttons can be pressed and one's confidential piece of paper arrives in the office of the Leader of the Opposition or perhaps, as in the instance mentioned by the noble Baroness, in the office of one's insurance company. In these circumstances there is not much that can be done in the modern world except be careful about sending faxes and other pieces of information.
To sum up, I fully accept that there is a real problem here, but this is not the right point at which to address it. We have to look at this issue as it develops, and as it is reported upon in the Select Committee, and then perhaps consider what action has to be taken on a much wider front, rather than on the narrow front of this discrimination Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am rather disappointed at the Minister's response to the debate. I am particularly concerned that the Government intend to show such disdain for the views of this House about perceived disability. A democratic vote is a democratic vote. I should have thought that, rather than simply announce what the Government intend to do, the Minister and his colleagues in government would take the views of all sides of the other place rather than make such an announcement today, which I am sure will disturb many Members of this House.
236
I should like to get the views of the noble Lord clear and correct on this particular amendment. He states that he agrees with the ends but disagrees with the means. Is it not a fact that that is precisely the argument the Government have used against this Bill, and use against any Bill? They use that argument against any legislation on disability discrimination. They have said, "We agree with the ends, but we disagree with the means". For years they have pursued that argument. But they have acknowledged now, by bringing this Bill forward, that that argument is bogus; it is quite false.
Is it true, as the Minister stated, that the Government believe they should deal with this problem in the round, and not bit by bit? If that is so, was it not incumbent on the Minister to tell us precisely how the Government intend to do that? It is simply not good enough to say that it will be considered in the round, full-stop, end of discussion. This amendment was moved by a Conservative Peer. Both sides of this House are entitled to a statement of Government policy. The Government cannot simply say that they are not going to do anything about the issue, having said that they need to deal with it in the round. The Minister has a clear obligation to make a statement on that. I have many more points to make, but there are a lot of amendments to move before the night is over. I will leave matters there, but I hope that the Minister can give the House some kind of constructive response.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, briefly, on this occasion I agree with the Minister. This is an enormously important subject. We want a great deal more information. We want to study the report. The subject merits a Bill on its own when we are ready to have one, but I do not believe that that time is now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has made my point for me. Indeed, the Select Committee, which reported only today, clearly indicated that it did not consider this Bill to be the proper vehicle. The committee reported only today, and I believe that we all need to have an opportunity to reflect on this issue. Frankly, it is full of serious moral and practical problems. I simply do not accept that anybody who knows even a tiny bit about this whole question can believe that it can be dealt with quickly. We have to look extremely carefully at all the aspects of the committee's report and decide what legislation, if any, is required on the wider field.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, perhaps I may make one quick point. A few weeks ago, the All-Party Disablement Income Group listened to the Genetic Group, a special group set up to study this matter. I found it a hair-raising experience and the fears expressed by that expert group were the cause of very deep concern. Would the Minister consider meeting that group himself before the Government move on this issue, so that he can receive its expert advice?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend, with the publication only today

237
of the report from the other place—he says that he has not had a chance to read it but his officials have gone through it and there is one sentence which he has found extremely useful—in suggesting that we should not do anything on this particular Bill. I have had the opportunity only of glancing at the summary of recommendations and should like to read the report properly. I am sure that those who brief me would like to do the same.
It is possible that I may come back on this subject at Third Reading in order to give my noble friend the opportunity of advising the House that there will be mention of an appropriate Bill in the Queen's Speech. I should like to give him as early an opportunity as possible to do so.
This is an extremely important subject. It is a very worrying subject. We already have the knowledge that there are certain seriously disabling illnesses that are genetic in origin and are being passed down. We should make certain that we deal with the matter as early as possible. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Review of this Part
.—The Secretary of State shall lay a Report before Parliament no later than April 1997 which shall include a review of the operation of this Part of this Act, and an account of the effectiveness of financial, social security and other support in promoting the employment of disabled people".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords opposite are masters of what one of my students called "the reply of Pontius Pilate": "This is a very real problem and we are very much aware of it; unfortunately, this is not the place to address it". I hope that they will not use that argument for this amendment, which does not ask them to decide anything in this place at this time, other than to have a review.
The amendment seeks to insert a new clause stating that the Secretary of State (obviously, it cannot be the Secretary of State of the Department of Employment because there is not one):
"shall lay a Report before Parliament no later than April 1997 which shall include a review of the operation of this Part of this Act"—
that is to say, Part II, the employment part, of the Act—
"and an account of the effectiveness of financial, social security and other support in promoting the employment of disabled people".
There are three good reasons why we can ask the Government to accept this amendment. First, we have had considerable experience with Acts designed to deal with discrimination: to remove discrimination and promote equality, especially equality in the employment field. Every one of them—the race relations and the sex discrimination bodies of legislation and, taking in Northern Ireland, religious discrimination as well—creates different problems. They are all slightly different and all suffer on occasion from having the same framework. In every case—race and sex in particular—we have had to learn from our mistakes. In race legislation, it took three Acts—in 1965, 1968 and 1976—to get it broadly right; and even then it had to be changed from time to time and probably needs changing
238
again. In sex discrimination, there were the Acts of 1970, 1975 and 1986; and there is still much that is wrong. Nevertheless, by periodic changes in legislation in both those areas, any fair-minded person could say that advances have been made in removing discrimination and that the Acts concerned became more carefully adjusted to the circumstances with which they had to deal.
The exception to that—which we have debated in this House in relation to this Bill—is the Disabled Persons Act 1944. When that Act was passed it was a pioneer Act; it was the first example of positive discrimination. But that Act was not brought up to date, and we found when we came to discuss it earlier in the Committee stage of this Bill, that it had become largely ineffective—indeed, some people say counterproductive. Therefore the experience of the past and in other areas suggests that discrimination Acts are innovations; they all require slightly different approaches; and all, with experience, produce different problems. They are therefore best subject to periodic review, especially in the area of employment.
That is the first reason for tabling the amendment. The second reason concerns the employment provisions in the Bill. There is much that is uncertain in terms of definition and consequences. There is much about which people have reasonably said, "We must wait to see how it works out". I shall quickly give five such areas. The first is the extent to which the definition of "disability" is too much dependent upon perceptions and is not objective enough. We must wait and see. It will come through in time, but it may be that the definition of "disability" needs to be changed.
The second area concerns exceptions. Clearly there must be exceptions, and we have a list of exceptions where unfavourable treatment is allowed. Whether we can, in advance, on the face of the Bill, fix the proper boundary where disability actually affects performance when we do not yet know what the regulations will say, is to be doubted. That is an argument for review. There are also the exemptions for small businesses, which we have spent much time debating. No reasons can clearly be given for setting the limit at 20, 10 or five employees. We need to know what happens in the firms where there are below 20 employees. If the Government persist—as it looks as though they will—in keeping that area out of the Act, then they themselves admit that there will have to be a review. Another area is enforcement, and whether the provisions for enforcing the Bill are strong enough. Finally, can the job be done without a commission? Some say yes and some say no. The answer to that will emerge through time.
That is the second general reason for having a review; that is, that the Act is particularly innovative with a number of definitions and revisions, and we shall only know how they work out in practice.
The final reason relates to what the amendment says about financial, social security and other support. We have no way of telling in advance whether there will be an adequacy of funds for the Access to Work scheme; how the operation of the disability allowance will work; how the work of the disablement resettlement officers will operate; what will be the adequacy of the

239
assessment and rehabilitation services. The Department of Employment, in its last White Paper—People, Jobs and Opportunities— claimed that it had conducted an extensive review and consulted all those working in the various services. It was going to bring them together into a high quality integrated service offering disabled people more personal advice and assessment,
"as well as continuing support in implementing the individual action plans".
That is something we are required to study and review. Changes are taking place in the responsibilities of the Department of Employment. What effect will that have on the operation of this aspect of the Bill? We are saying that there are many good and sufficient reasons why there should be a review of this Bill not later than April 1997. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke at great length at this time of night. I do not intend to follow his example but will respond to his points very briefly. First, the noble Lord talked about the lack of a Department of Employment. There is no such lack. We have simply merged the Department of Employment with the Department for Education to provide a much greater focus for the work that it does.
Secondly, I shall deal with the point on timing. For some peculiar reason the noble Lord—perhaps I am naive in terms of the motives behind the amendment—suggested that the report should be laid before Parliament not later than April 1997 and should include a review of the operation of Part II of the Act. I simply do not understand why he has chosen that date, but that is a matter for him. By April 1997 this part of the Act will have been in operation for substantially less than a year since we have already made it perfectly clear that we intend to commence Part II of the Bill towards the end of 1996. Even the noble Lord would accept that there is no point in mounting a review of the working of the Act barely six months after it has been brought into operation.
I accept that there is value in a periodic and continuing review of all aspects of government policy on these matters. That is what governments do and that is what governments have done over the past few years. That is why we have always made it clear that we thought that, though the Bill was highly important, it was not the sole line in our strategy in this area and that we had various other broad aspects that we wished to pursue—first, to increase the employer contribution to a positive approach towards employing disabled people; secondly, this legislation; and, thirdly, the various pieces of practical support that we are able to offer through Access to Work, disability working allowance and other such measures. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall continue to keep such matters under review, but I see no point in accepting an amendment of this kind.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall give an even shorter reply than my introduction. I think I heard the noble Lord say that the Department of Employment had been absorbed into the Department for Education.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the two departments were merged into one under a new Secretary of State.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, so when I read in the newspapers that part of the old Department of Employment has gone into the DTI, that is quite wrong, is it?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. What the noble Lord can assume is that something of the order of 90 per cent. of the department has merged with the Department for Education. A very small amount has gone to the Department of Trade and Industry and statistics have gone to the Central Statistical Office.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not going to go on like this. I have just one more question. Does that mean that the most important part of the Employment Service itself has not gone to the DTI?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Employment Service is part of the new Department for Education and Employment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is becoming more and more interesting. Very well, I shall not go further. What I would say, however, is that if the noble Lord had said that he did not like 1997 but that he would take 1998 or even 1999, we might have had more agreement with him. But he did not like 1997 and he did not put forward any other time, which means that he does not want the Act reviewed at all. Nevertheless, it being this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 18, after second ("provision") insert ("design, adaptation, and labelling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be relieved to know that I have made a précis of my speech. It is only one-and-a-half pages long instead of three-and-a-half pages. It is a probing amendment which seeks to highlight the need for service providers to take into account the needs of disabled people when designing products, goods and services. The amendment also raises the importance of adapting a product to make sure that a disabled person can use it more easily; for example, by placing tactile markings on cookers. The Bill currently excludes from Part III manufacturers who do not provide services directly to the public.
Of the United Kingdom's 1 million blind and partially sighted people, almost half live alone. Good practice in the design and adaptation of goods is a very important aspect in assisting visually impaired people to live independently. Among the advantages of taking into account the needs of disabled people when a product is designed is the fact that it is more cost effective to take note of the needs of as many customers as possible at the design stage, rather than treating the needs of a disabled user as an afterthought. All visually impaired people would benefit if needs were taken into account when products are designed as compared to a far smaller number who are likely to ask for adaptations to be made on request.
Having clearer markings and easier means of operation for goods would not only be of benefit to visually impaired people. People with conditions such as arthritis, and older people in general, may find that they, too, would benefit. The Government have accepted the importance of designing low floor buses—a method which would benefit elderly people and parents with small children, as well as those with disabilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment which has at its core the purpose of enabling people with disabilities to live independently. Indeed, by taking such matters into account when equipment for the home is designed, it would, as the noble Lord said, be more cost effective. However, it would also mean that the person with a disability does not have to be a "one off" as regards asking for something to be adapted. The design would be there and it would mean that such people would be able to stay within their own home and have a better quality of life all round. Such matters do not concern only those who are blind or partially sighted. For example, my mother suffered for many years from arthritis. If she had not had much of the adapted equipment at home, I very much doubt that she would have been able to be as self-sufficient as she was.
Of course, there is the other factor; namely, printing. I have in mind the printing of labels on products. Indeed, many people have difficulty reading such labels in any event, even if they are not partially sighted, because the print is so small. That may be an inconvenience; but it becomes more than an inconvenience when someone, perhaps, has to have a special diet and has to get the ingredients absolutely spot on when they are mixing them. If such people cannot read the labels properly, it is more than an inconvenience. It is something which is wrong and which could quite easily be rectified.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is a probing amendment. I believe that it is recognised that there are difficulties in drafting quite specifically a provision on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, the issue needs to be aired. It is, perhaps, an issue that a code of practice could cover with, say, some encouragement from the Government to the new council for disabilities. I support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am glad to hear that this is a probing amendment. For the reasons that I shall outline, it would be extremely difficult to legislate in such a field.
Clause 13(2) (b) provides that only those who provide services to the public are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The design and manufacture of products is not covered. That must be right. It is one thing to give an individual a legal right of access to goods and services as the Bill does; but it is quite another to give him a right to products of a certain type or design. It would be folly to constrain designers and producers in that way. I do not believe that your Lordships would wish to prevent the introduction of new products unless they were accessible to disabled people. There could also be
242
incalculable damage to the competitiveness of British industry as the provisions of the Bill cannot extend beyond our shores.
I am also unsure as to what noble Lords intend should be done about foreign products which do not meet the requirements of the amendment. Would they be banned from our shops? Similarly, I am not entirely sure how that squares with the single European market, let alone the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
I am happy to acknowledge that both speakers indicated that this is a field in which it is easier to ask the question, but, frankly, there is no answer because the question itself leads us into a totally hypothetical and difficult area to navigate. I do not see how we could get such legislation to work. I do not believe that any other country, even those countries that are being cited as being "more advanced" than our own have gone down that road. If they have, I should be interested to hear how they got round the problems that I have mentioned.
I readily concede the importance of accessible products to disabled people. I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about the importance of adapting equipment for people with specific problems. There are such adaptations and many are very impressive. That is the course of action that we should follow. I believe that we should also try to create new market incentives to encourage companies to make accessible goods. That will come about because we are giving disabled customers greater freedom to shop. We should also try to persuade manufacturers that more accessible products will find a larger market. As I have said previously, the National Disability Council will be able to play a role in discussing design improvements with manufacturers.
I suspect that I have confirmed to my noble friend and the noble Baroness that that is an impossible road to take. Having heard some of my observations about the difficulties, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall indeed seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like first to thank my noble friend for his reply. The important thing is that, wherever possible, the manufacturers of any goods should bear in mind that those goods could well be used by people with disabilities. For a long time people have been fighting the application of Part M of the building regulations, which relates to accessibility to and within buildings, to residential accommodation. As my noble friend knows, the Government have set up a working party on that and I expect that in the very near future there will be a change in the building regulations to make Part M apply to residential accommodation—at least, that is what I have heard. Similar thought could be given to many other articles, particularly in the manufacturing world. I hope that manufacturers will bear that in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) the provision of services in further education includes provision of appropriate transport for students with disabilities;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 to 64, 84 and 85. I have been happy to group these amendments together to save making several speeches, but I hope that your Lordships will therefore understand if I take five or six minutes to introduce them.
I should say straightaway that I am not seeking to introduce any of the amendments into the Bill but, as a result of a very helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and Mr. Tim Boswell on 4th July, together with the then Department for Education and the director of SKILL, I have tabled the amendments to elicit various statements and, I hope, undertakings from the Minister. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on his new position. For me, at any rate, it is a pleasure to be discussing students with disabilities with him once more.
Amendment No. 57 was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in Committee on 15th June because I had failed to get into the Chamber at the time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It aims to fill the loophole in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 whereby LEAs have a duty to consider the transport needs of disabled students to and from colleges, but they are not absolutely required to provide or pay for the transport. The National Bureau of Students with Disabilities, or SKILL, has many examples of the problems that students have encountered. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that he would look into individual cases and that the department would look sympathetically on the need for further guidance. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can bring us up to date on the state of play on that.
Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 are similar to amendments that I moved and withdrew in Committee on 15th June, except that I have now omitted reference to "higher education". We had a long and useful debate, with much support expressed for trying to include "further and higher education" in the Bill at that stage. I stress that the government amendments on strategic planning are very welcome and we look forward to the sector making changes in a co-ordinated way in the future.
But there are still concerns about problems encountered by individual students. In Committee, I argued that we could ensure through tight regulations that costs did not escalate and did not jeopardise the strategic plans. Having had a great many discussions, I now accept that the Government and the department feel genuinely that they cannot draft regulations to ensure that.
The question remains therefore: how can we sort out the problems for individual students in FE institutions and within LEA provision? Because we must remember that LEAs provide a great deal of further education, particularly to adults on a part-time basis. I put down
244
the amendment so that the Minister can state how he can best deal with the problems encountered by disabled students in further education.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 I moved and withdrew in Committee on 27th June. They ensure that students with severe learning disabilities who may not be able to go on directly to a more academic or vocational course are covered by the FE sector under Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and Section 6 of the Scottish Act, or by LEA provision.
SKILL says that in practice many students fall between the two stools. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made it clear in Committee (Hansard col. 739.)—I am grateful for this—that the guidance issued by the FEFC indicates that eligible course in independent living and communication skills must have as their primary objective progression to another course in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 sets out basic English, basic maths, courses preparing for GCSE and so forth. The noble Lord also made it clear that there is an equally important duty of the LEAs to secure adequate facilities for FE.
At col. 741 the Minister said that he was happy to discuss the matter to see whether something needs to be done to make it clear where the duties between the FEFC and the LEAs fall. He believed that the point I was making was not necessary, but that the boundaries were wrong, and one of the parties did not seem to realise how the Act works.
I am not trying to change the boundaries if it is clear that the original intention of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady David, when we secured the Schedule 2 amendment in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is being met; that is, that the opportunities for people with severe disabilities to learn basic skills are being met on the same basis as those for non-disabled students. By that I mean that an A-level in a physics course for the brighter academic student is the equivalent of NVQ carpentry for the vocationally oriented student, which is the equivalent of learning how to conduct a conversation with confidence with a shopkeeper for a student with severe learning difficulties. They are all preparing the student to take his place in adult society. They are, if one likes, A-levels in living.
I am not trying to change the boundaries, but in relation to the FE sector the guidance may say that the primary objective is to move on to another course, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said in Committee, but, if we look at the Act, Schedule 2, page 74, at (j) provides:
"A course to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above".
The point is that some students may take several years to be prepared for entry to other courses. There are also instances where students have progressed to other courses where professionals working with them never envisaged initially that that would be possible. I am merely asking that the guidance be no more restrictive than is the wording in the 1992 Act. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to this amendment too.
The last point—I shall speed up—relates to LEAs. I appreciate that they have many concerns and responsibilities so that non-Schedule 2 further education

245
does not always receive the priority treatment that we would like to see. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking to do something, possibly by an amendment on Third Reading, to ensure that LEAs carry out their duties in this respect. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on transport to college, problems of the individual students in FE, and the dilemma of students with severe learning difficulties falling between the FE sectors and LEA provision. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is down to all the amendments in the group. I support them strongly. We discussed them fully in Committee. I have a particular interest in Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 because I know that when we were busy going through that Bill in the House we were very anxious about the rigidity of the Schedule 2 courses and what would be done by the FE colleges and what would be done by the LEAs. We are asking that the rules should not be too rigid and that there should be flexibility. There should he some give and take so that people have an opportunity to progress at their own speed. I hope that the Minister can give us reassurance on this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments. At this stage we have nothing to add. The points were well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and by my noble friend Lady David.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to add my strong support to what has been said. I do not propose to make a speech but simply offer my strong support.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wonder whether as a mere man I may intervene in the debate. I offer my thanks for the welcome from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). It is jolly nice to know that some people welcome me back even if others do not. I also thank the noble Baroness for agreeing to group together all her amendments on education. It has probably saved the House a considerable amount of time. I apologise in advance for the length of what I have to say but it is important that I say it. I hope that the noble Baroness will read carefully what I say. If she has any points, she can always come back to them by means of correspondence and we can sort things out before and at Third Reading.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Mackay explained in some detail why the Government do not wish to include education in Part III of the Bill. Perhaps I may summarise his arguments as regards Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 which seek to place further education in the Bill. We do not think they are the most effective way of achieving greater access to education for students with disabilities. The practical effects of inclusion would be to undermine the strategic role that the further and higher education funding councils already play, and will increasingly play as a result of government amendments passed in Committee. Each institution would have to consider adaptations without having any regard to the accessibility of provision in other institutions; this would lead to unplanned and piecemeal arrangements causing scarce resources in the
246
sector to be wasted. These arguments for excluding further education provision apply equally to further education provision secured by LEAs in England and Wales and education authorities in Scotland. For those reasons we resist Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked at Committee stage whether, with the creation of a separate Part IV of the Bill, education might not be included overall with a new definition of "reasonableness". Although that might seem an attractive option, in practice it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to frame the primary legislation and regulations in a manner consistent with the strategic role of the funding councils. We would have to set out in regulations all the circumstances in which institutions, by striving to target resources strategically, were discriminating in a reasonable fashion. The Government's further and higher education amendments now in the Bill will strengthen provisions in existing education legislation.
In further education, new Clause 25, subsections (1) to (3), places a duty on the further education funding councils to require individual colleges to produce as a condition of grant information on their facilities for education of students with disabilities. The Government wish the statements to be of practical value to students without placing an intolerable burden on institutions. Therefore, they will consult before prescribing in regulations the frequency and content of the statements. The views of Skill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned and of which she is president, have already been sought. I expect the contents to be sufficient to provide students with disabilities with useful—indeed essential—advice to aid them in their decision about the suitability of a college. Statements are likely to include not just physical access and the provision of specialist equipment but also the college's admission policies, examination arrangements and counselling and support services. Once accepted by a college, students will be entitled to expect that they will enjoy the access and support necessary to pursue their studies.
As a condition of receiving entry funding units, colleges already produce learning agreements with students after assessing the suitability of the learning programme and the educational support needed during the student's time on the course. The new provisions will build upon that. In cases where colleges identify that students require extra support the FEFCE recurrent funding methodology allows colleges to claim additional support funding units to cover a wide range of extra costs. These costs range from additional teaching support costs through to extra administration costs associated with providing alternative examination arrangements for students with disabilities. These costs can be claimed, in bands, up to a maximum of £8,800 per student. This removes financial disincentives to the recruitment of students with learning difficulties or disabilities who require additional support. Those costs claimed by colleges are audited by the FEFC.
The council has also addressed the concern in the sector that the previous funding methodology did not take sufficient account of the extra equipment needs for

247
some students with learning difficulties or disabilities. For 1994–95 and 1995–96, the FEFCE has agreed that the methodology should increase the allocation for equipment in direct proportion to those units allocated for additional support within a college's overall recurrent funding allocation. I recognise that the issue of redress for students who feel themselves to be the victims of discrimination is one about which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) feels strongly. I know that she has discussed this with my noble friend. In future, students who have exhausted their college's internal procedures will be able to seek redress from the councils on the occasions when provision fails to meet expectations raised by the college's disability statement. Where other measures fail, the councils will have the power to impose a further condition on grant to colleges requiring them to fulfil the commitments set out in their statements.
I believe that requiring colleges to produce disability statements will encourage all institutions to strive to achieve best practice in the sector. I hope that the need for students with disabilities to resort to the redress measures I have explained will be rare. Nevertheless, they provide a comprehensive safety net in cases where colleges act wholly unreasonably and complaints cannot be resolved through an institution's own internal procedures.
As regards Amendment No. 84, in Committee, there was a full and, I believe, fruitful discussion of the division of duties between the FEFC and LEAs for providing courses in independent living and communication skills. My noble friend Lord Mackay explained that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 places the same duty to,
"secure the provision … of adequate facilities for further education"
on both the FEFC and LEAs; the FEFC's duty being for part-time students over compulsory school age and full-time students aged 19 and over following courses listed in Schedule 2; the LEAs' duty being for these students following courses not falling within Schedule 2.
This division places an equal duty on the FEFC and LEAs and is a logical division of responsibility: where courses in independent living and communication skills are the start of a ladder leading to vocational or academic courses, it is appropriate for the council to be able to offer an integrated package of provision. Where they are free-standing, it is sensible for LEAs to secure their availability along with other local authority responsibilities in the social services area.
The boundary between the responsibilities of the FEFC and LEAs is clear. The FEFCE's guidance indicates that the primary purpose of courses of independent living and communication skills, if they are to fall within Schedule 2, must be progression to another course in Schedule 2 such as basic numeracy or literacy. In practice, this means that the FEFC funds provisions such as national proficiency testing and modules accredited through the open college network. The emphasis is on progression—no matter how slow or seemingly small—and I believe that this has brought increased rigour to such provision. I recognise, though, that the issue of progression is a complex one. We shall
248
ask the FEFC to consider how this might be clarified further in guidance to colleges, drawing upon the work on this issue by the FEFC's committee on learning difficulties and/or disabilities and also any results from Sir Ron Dearing's review of the 16 to 19 year-old qualifications framework.
As regards Amendment No. 85, in Scotland, the Secretary' of State already funds further education colleges for the full range of provision they make under the duties and powers conferred on them by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992, including courses in independent living and communication skills. The same division of responsibilities between the funding councils in England and Wales and LEAs therefore does not arise in Scotland. I believe that amending the current legislation would confuse the position but I do recognise that there is the possibility that some LEAs may not fully understand their responsibilities in this area.
The view expressed in Committee about the need to maintain the parity of esteem between the FEFC-funded provision and that funded by LEAs for students with disabilities is one with which I have considerable sympathy. The corollary is that information on both types of provision should be readily available to prospective students. Therefore, the Government will consider whether an amendment can be brought forward at Third Reading to place a duty on LEAs in England and Wales similar to that laid on colleges to produce information about their provision for disabled students.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment No. 57 on transport to further education colleges. During Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mackay agreed to look at the need for guidance on the matter of transport for students with disabilities in further education. To summarise the clear legislative positions: LEAs are under a duty to make arrangements for the provision of free transport as they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of persons at institutions within the further education sector. The arrangements they make for full-time FE sector students must be no less favourable than those made for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by a local education authority. LEAs are also able to pay the whole or any part of the reasonable travelling expenses of FE sector students for whom free transport is available. LEAs are obliged to have regard to (amongst other things) a person's age, and the nature of his or her possible routes to school. In practice this means that an LEA cannot refuse the provision of free transport on policy grounds without considering representations made to it by students or their parents as to why in their particular circumstances that policy should not be followed.
The noble Baroness has indicated that there may be problems with the delivery of this service. Having given her concerns careful consideration, I remain convinced that to separate the provision of home-to-college transport for students with learning difficulties and disability from that for other students has more disadvantages than advantages. Nevertheless, we will be undertaking research to ascertain the current position, identifying good practice and points of difficulty. In the light of the findings of that research, further guidance will be prepared. In cases where students are

249
experiencing difficulties, my department will be more than happy to investigate. In addition, of course, the local government ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints of maladministration.
I hope that has addressed most of the concerns of the noble Baroness. As I said at the beginning, I think it probably would be useful if she read carefully what I had to say and if there are any further points she wishes to come back to, I of course would be more than happy to engage her in correspondence and come back to certain matters on Third Reading if necessary.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he clarify whether it is possible for the LEA to make more favourable provision for a student with a disability that causes him or her a travel difficulty than for other students under the existing legislation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that that is the case; that they would be in such a position. I should like absolutely to check up on that. However, I think I have affirmation of that point and I can assure the noble Baroness that that is the case; it would be a matter for the discretion of the local authority.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported me once again, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her interjection which was useful, too. I wish to thank the Minister for his full reply and also for the offer to correspond with me if I have not fully understood everything he said. That would be useful.
I start with his final point, that there will be research into the current position on transport and any problems there may be, and that further guidance will probably be forthcoming. That is most welcome, as is the offer that the department will investigate any individual problems, and the reminder about the ombudsman.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 61 to 64, I appreciate that very full answer to my suggestions about regulations and an alternative definition of reasonableness, and so on. It was very useful that the Minister said that, once accepted, a student would be entitled to expect the appropriate support within the college. He also said that there would be a great deal more about the suitability of the college and the admissions policy. He made an announcement about additional financial support, which is most welcome, and on the increase in the allocation of equipment.
The Minister then went on to talk about redress, about which I was particularly worried. He said that when a student had exhausted the initial procedures he could go to the council, which will have the power to impose further conditions of grant. I am greatly reassured by that. I thank the Minister for that answer.
Turning to the provision in Schedule 2 and to Scotland, I should like again to extend my thanks. He will ask the FEFC to consider further guidance on what he said was a complex subject. Let us hope that it will be less restrictive and more in tune with the Bill. In respect of LEAs, the Minister said that he is willing to
250
consider whether to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. That would tie in very neatly with the welcome government amendments on students in higher and further education. I look forward to that, and I may communicate with him beforehand to ascertain whether that amendment will be forthcoming.
That is a very auspicious start. I appreciate that the groundwork was done by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. We must not forget him. I thank the Minister very much, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) other service providers not defined in paragraph (b) above shall, where necessary, make accessible information ancillary to the use of a product, good or service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have made clear that manufacturers not selling directly to the public will not be covered by the Bill. If a company sells to the public by way of a retailer, the onus will fall on the retailer to explain to a customer who, for example, is visually impaired or has learning difficulties how the product works. In reality, that will probably be considered an unreasonable requirement for a retailer to undertake.
The manufacturer is best placed to ensure that instructions relating to the safe use of a product are made accessible on request. The use in the amendment of the words "information ancillary to" are designed to distinguish written information from adaptations to the product.
The provision of information is of vital importance following the purchase of a product so that blind and partially sighted people can get the most out of a service. For example, information is needed about the installation, operation, maintenance and safety aspects. However, blind and partially sighted people are denied access to this kind of information every day.
I have been told of the case of a deaf-blind man who bought a washing machine. He was told that if he wanted the manufacturer's instructions in braille it would take about seven months before he would receive those instructions and in addition he would have to pay an additional cost. Why should a disabled person have to pay extra for instructions which are given free of charge to other people? Furthermore, why should he wait an unreasonable amount of time in order to be able to operate the product independently? I beg to move.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, the amendment has been clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Clearly, if you are buying a product you need the instructions on how to use it. If one is blind or partially sighted, one cannot read the instructions on how to use the equipment. Quite frankly, that is wrong. I support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I wish to intervene even at this late hour. I think we are being a little unrealistic. My noble friend referred to a situation involving a washing machine. I beg to suggest that the washing machine was almost certainly not manufactured in this country. Perhaps I may say, as someone who has

251
worked a long time in the manufacturing industry, that unfortunately the greater proportion of domestic and other equipment that we buy is not manufactured in this country.
It is a difficult situation. Although not necessarily through the provisions of this Bill, people should be mindful of providing some other ways of communicating the instructions for such a machine, perhaps by a tape in a cassette player. If noble Lords buy equipment manufactured in other countries—for example, Japan, or even Germany—they no doubt find that the translated instructions are almost as impossible to follow as if one were blind. I believe that we are being a little stupid on this matter, much as I support the principle.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot agree with this amendment. It seeks to widen the effect of the right of access provisions to beyond those who provide service to the public and include manufacturers of goods and services. It seeks to make manufacturers provide information ancillary to the use of their goods and services in accessible formats.
As the Bill stands, there will be no compulsion for manufacturers to alter the way in which they make their products, for the reasons I have already discussed in responding to one of my noble friend's previous amendments. This is the case even where the product could be regarded as "information"; for example, newspapers, books and television programmes. There will therefore be no requirement for those items to be made available in an accessible format.
Manufacturers' instructions and packaging are special cases. Although they can be thought of as "adjuncts", I do not believe that it is practical to compel them to be made available in different formats.
If we did not place the duty on the manufacturer, the only other agent who could be asked to comply is the retailer. But it would be an extremely onerous liability, particularly where information about products is supplied as part of the packaging, in a situation where a retailer might stock thousands of items. Imagine the responsibilities that it would place on, say, a large supermarket to provide accessible information on all the goods that it sells.
There are also two major problems with holding manufacturers responsible for providing accessible information. I have already used these arguments in relation to a previous amendment. Foreign manufacturers would clearly fall outside the scope of the Bill and therefore only some of the products available in a shop will be covered. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain made the point exactly. If my noble friend looks for a washing machine, he would probably have to spend a great deal of time before he finds one manufactured in Britain. What will he do? Will he force the Italian manufacturers to go down this road? The Italian manufacturers, I think, will very quickly tell him where to go. If we say, "You cannot bring your product into the United Kingdom", then we are up against all sorts of problems with market access, the European Union, and, indeed, GATT.
252
Secondly, it would prove very difficult to tie down exactly what was meant by information. For example, would the operating instructions for a CD player include the booklet that comes with the product together with the labels and knobs on the machine itself? If they did, the implications for designing and bringing new products to the market would be enormous.
I think. that the problems I have outlined show how this amendment would add nothing but uncertainty and, frankly, unreasonableness to the right of access provisions. Every opportunity will be taken to persuade manufacturers to make information about their products accessible, but it would simply be wrong to risk constraining the creation and design of new products within the straitjacket of legal compulsion. It would be wrong to impose these additional costs on the United Kingdom manufacturers with all the other aspects I have mentioned about products coming in from abroad.
While we probably all have some sympathy with the points of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, people who lobby my noble friend and bring amendments like this before your Lordships' House must try to live in the real world. I fear that the amendment is going a few bridges beyond the real world. I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the answer my noble friend gave was much as I expected. However, I feel that manufacturers should take advantage of what will become a growing market over the years as we have more and more disabled people in the country with one form of disability or another. Much can be done in the way of instructions by the use of cartoons, which to a great extent would overcome the problems pointed out by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain of translations from strange languages into English. One can get some funny answers on that. I agree that they may make absolute nonsense. I have tried to make sense of some myself.
While I appreciate the difficulties that have been pointed out, I am sure that manufacturers could do a great deal more than they do at present. It could be done at the manufacturing stage. After all, on many products we now have instructions given in half a dozen or more languages. It would not be difficult to do it in cartoon form or possibly even in braille, which is not expensive to produce, provided it is not long. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) legal services, including the services of any court or tribunal and of agencies of the criminal justice system.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, someone once said, "All things come to those who wait". In the Marshalled List this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 60, to be moved by my noble friend Lord Ashley. He and I are agreed that, although any common theme linking them is somewhat tenuous, we

253
are content that in the interests of expedition they should be discussed together. However, I propose to confine my contribution to Amendment No. 59.
The amendment was set down at the suggestion of the Law Society, whose Mental Health and Disability Sub-Committee has been responsible for much valuable work on behalf of those with disabilities but whose anxieties have not so far been ventilated in the course of your Lordships' debates.
My noble friend Lady Hollis and I set down an amendment in these terms at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was kind enough to add his name to it. In the event, it was not moved. One reason for that was that I proposed to ventilate a number of specific problems confronting people with disabilities. This amendment is not a theoretical exercise, and I would not wish the noble Lord to accept it unless he can assure us that the Government are addressing the specific instances where the shoe pinches. It did not seem fair to expect him to do that in the absence of some notice of the issues which I proposed to raise, so accordingly I deferred moving the amendment in order to write to the noble Lord setting out the issues. That I duly did. He was kind enough to reply, indicating a view on one of the issues—and this is a summary of his reply—and undertaking to offer his reflections on the others in the course of the debate.
Before I indicate the specific concerns, may I invite the Government's views as to the impact of the Bill upon the provision of legal services generally. Of course, the list of services in Clause 13(3) is said to be simply a list of examples of the services to which that clause and the subsequent three clauses are intended to apply. It would follow that the fact that legal services are not specifically included in the list does not entail that they are intended to be excluded. But I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that it is better to set the matter beyond doubt by saying clearly in the Bill what is intended.
What is perhaps in greater need of clarification is what activities of the Government and their agencies we intend to be subject to the Bill. Clause 35 says that the Bill applies to the Crown; but presumably these clauses apply only when the Crown is providing services. Are Ministers providing services when they make regulations about the provision of legal aid; or is the Courts Agency providing services when it builds a courthouse? I understand that the noble Lord's answer to the former question is: no, there is nothing in the Bill which precludes a Minister from discriminating when he issues regulations. I think that he is probably right, if it will comfort him, and I do not suggest that the Bill should be amended to impose an obligation on him not to discriminate when he is exercising that function. I shall return in a moment to the problems arising from that situation. However, I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that those who provide court premises are intended to be subject to the provisions of the Bill.
These are general concerns, but I should not wish to turn this amendment into a lawyer's debate about draftsmanship. The Law Society has three practical concerns—or more accurately, three groups of practical
254
concerns. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take a little longer than I would normally presume to do at this hour. This amendment really incorporates four amendments into one, so I hope your Lordships will think that it represents a saving of time.
The first group of concerns relates to the provision of legal aid. and the ways in which disabled people encounter discrimination. It is here that I return to what I was saying a moment ago about discrimination in the regulations. That may not be the subject in this Bill, but it may compel others unwittingly to discriminate.
For most people who seek advice and assistance on legal aid, the process begins with the green form scheme. That is to enable the solicitor to have preliminary discussions with the client, to hear about the problem, to offer initial advice and to discuss how to proceed. It is the very beginning of the quest for redress.
The regulations require that before anything happens at all, the applicant must sign the green form in the presence of the solicitor. So the applicant must be present in person; it cannot be done by post or on the telephone. Therefore if the applicant has difficulties in travelling to the solicitor's office, there is a problem. It can, of course, be overcome if the solicitor is prepared to travel to the applicant's home or to the hospital where he or she is an in-patient. But he will not be able to recover the cost of travelling there, or any recompense for the time spent, because when he incurred the costs the form was not signed. If the applicant is in some remote psychiatric hospital, the costs may be considerable. It may be possible to circumvent the difficulty if the solicitor's firm has a franchise under the franchise scheme, since it can then authorise its own travel costs.
That, however, gives rise to at least two further difficulties. First, the applicant may not be immediately aware of a firm in the area with the appropriate franchise. Disabled people do not always find it easy to visit the town hall or the post office, or to read notice-boards, even if the information is available there. Secondly, the franchise scheme does not apply to a number of areas of law which are of particular concern to disabled people: eligibility for community care services or the law relating to children with special educational needs. Those are subjects that are not within the franchise scheme. The consequence is that the people who provide legal services, the solicitors, do discriminate against disabled people. They may have to begin by imposing a charge on them on a private basis. That is not what they want. They do not want to be able discriminate with impunity. They want not to have to discriminate at all. So, although they are protected presumably under Clause 13(1) (d) of the Bill, that does not solve their difficulty.
Whether or not this amendment would directly address the problem, the disturbing truth is that that law is not open to all alike. There is not that equality before the law of which this country has always boasted. What is needed is for the regulations either to provide for postal applications for green form assistance or to enable non-franchised solicitors to claim the cost of travelling to visit the disabled applicant before the form is signed.
There is one other problem in relation to eligibility for legal aid. People who are in receipt of incapacity benefit are allowed it because that is what they need to cope with the additional cost of living imposed on them by their disablement. It is not to make them rich or to give them some spare cash. Yet, if they are awarded legal aid, when their liability for contributions is calculated, their benefit is taken into account. So the Government give it to them with one hand and then proceed to take it back with the other. I am sure that was not the intention of the Lord Chancellor.
In April 1993, changes were introduced into the regulations to ensure that normally people who were in receipt of income support would qualify for legal aid without a contribution. Those receiving either of the lower tiers of incapacity benefit will normally need to be topped up by income support, so that they will not be required to pay contributions. But those who receive the highest level of benefit—presumably because they need that money to cope with the highest level of difficulties—find that, if they apply for legal aid, much of their benefit is taken away again. It has been calculated that normally it will be a loss of something around £8 a week. The problem is that the legal aid means test takes no account of disability costs.
I am aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department has assured the Law Society that it is considering the matter. But it has been considering it for something like three years. Again, we have a situation in which disabled people encounter discrimination when they seek legal aid and advice and the solicitors who provide it have no choice but to discriminate.
Let me mention briefly two further instances of discrimination. When a child complains of abuse, physical or sexual, a number of practices come into play which have been developed over the past few years as we have learnt more about such matters. The child may be interviewed by skilled social workers. They may make use of facilities for describing what happened, such as pictures and dolls. The police have squads trained in investigating such complaints. The Crown Prosecution Service considers the difficulty of presenting the case and how it might be overcome. The Judicial Studies Board addresses these difficulties and helps judges see how the courts can help. That is if the complainant is a child.
But at present there are no corresponding facilities if the complaint is made not by a child but by a mentally vulnerable adult. I heard the noble Lord at Committee stage explaining that in dealing with mental disorders it is necessary to confine ourselves to identifiable clinical conditions, and I do not seek to go beyond that. But what is important is that the police, the CPS and the courts should not assume too readily that people with mental disability are unable to understand what they are being asked or give a reliable account of what happened to them.
On 5th May this year, there was a seminar held at the Law Society's Hall on mentally vulnerable complainants and witnesses. It was attended by delegates from a wide range of bodies with a great deal of expertise. From their deliberations there emerged a
256
report containing 25 recommendations. I have them with me. I hope that the noble Lord has seen the document. If not, I commend it to him and would be happy to supply it to him.
I hope that the noble Lord will not reply that the courts do not provide services for witnesses, so that Clause 12 is not applicable. They are users of the courts. Certainly the Government, in the National Survey of Court Users, designate as users a whole range of people, including journalists, members of the public, jurors and, specifically, witnesses.
I apologise for the length of this contribution but, as I said, this proposal is probably four amendments in one. I come to the last subject of concern. It relates simply to access for disabled people to the courts and tribunals and the facilities which may be found there. Here, I declare an interest. The Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair, produced in 1993 a checklist and code of practice on access for disabled people using tribunals. It deals with provisions such as have been mentioned by some of your Lordships tonight in other contexts: car parking; barriers to access; signposting where it can clearly be seen by those who are partially sighted; impediment-free entries and corridors; doors which can be opened by people on crutches; entry phones accessible to people with wheelchairs. They are examples which are known to most noble Lords here but which are not always present in the mind of busy officials building courthouses. I commend the document to the noble Lord and, if he does not have a copy, I shall be delighted to supply him with one.
The noble Lord may recollect that in the course of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, as it then was, my noble friend Lord Ashley moved an amendment relating to the right of deaf people to participate in the public duty of jury service. He spoke of a judge discharging a deaf juror because he could not hear the evidence. Of course, if he cannot hear the evidence, justice requires that he be discharged. But my noble friend wanted to ensure that judges were aware of the technological provisions available to enable deaf people to hear. Since then the Lord Chancellor's department has sent a circular to courts on those matters, for which I am grateful. But these are topics where judges would benefit from information and guidance.
When questions of discrimination arose against people from minority ethnic groups, the Judicial Studies Board provided seminars which were immensely helpful to judges and recorders. I hope that the JSB will consider whether it is possible to provide similar guidance in relation to disabled people. The Human Awareness Working Party of the JSB discussed at least some of these matters and I hope that, when he replies, the noble Lord will be able to share with the House what the Government are doing.
Those are some of our anxieties. No one believes that they will be addressed simply by incorporating this amendment into the Bill. But whether the Bill can assist in addressing them is a different question. I apologise

257
again for the length of this contribution, but I hope the noble Lord is able to tell us something of the Government's thinking on these matters. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble and learned friend treated the House to a fine mixture of lawyer's analytical logic and a politician's powers of persuasion. He is an old ally from another place and I hope the Minister took on board the legitimate concerns that he expressed. I warmly welcome his amendment and strongly support it, because it will ensure that all criminal justice agencies will have to ensure equal access and justice for all.
The concept of justice for all is a British birthright, at least in theory. Though it is the subject of many erudite speeches, in practice it is a mirage; justice for all in Britain simply does not exist. Let me take one example; that is, the lack of signing interpreters for deaf people in our courts of law. Some discretionary funds are available, but by definition they are discretionary and so can be withheld. I do not see much of a guarantee of justice with that arrangement. We do not have discretionary prosecutions and we do not have discretionary English language in the courts, so we should not have discretionary funds for interpreters. Without an interpreter some profoundly deaf people can neither follow court proceedings nor contribute to them.
Perhaps I may briefly explain to the House that people speak of "deaf" people, but they range from the slightly hard of hearing to the profoundly or totally deaf. Those people who are born profoundly or totally deaf need a sign-language interpreter, because that is their first language. They are the very people who are denied interpreters in a court of law.
There would be a great howl of outrage if a British citizen was tried in a foreign country in that country's language without an interpreter; but that is precisely what happens in Britain when profoundly deaf people go to a court of law without an interpreter. There is absolutely no point in our claiming justice for all in Britain; it simply does not exist.
Funds for interpreters, if required, should always be available because that is a necessary cost of justice. An interpreter should also be provided for deaf parents if their child, although hearing, is involved in a court case. Otherwise deaf parents are unable to understand what is going on. They have not only a right to know but a responsibility. Failure to provide properly trained interpreters can result in wasted time and money. I am sure that all of us, especially Ministers, do not want that. That happened at the Old Bailey in June of this year. The interpreter made an error and the trial, which cost £1 million, collapsed. Everyone lost in that case. The £1 million could have paid for a good many interpreters. We really must have fully qualified interpreters.
My noble and learned friend mentioned deaf jurors. That became a scandalous situation not simply because a deaf person was denied the right to be a juror but because that woman had computer aided transcription. Like myself, with the wonderful Palantype display I have in front of me, she could follow every word without difficulty. But the judge was biased and
258
prejudiced and discriminated against that deaf woman. He said, "No, we are not having you in this court". That is the kind of thing which we simply cannot tolerate. That is why I hope that my noble and learned friend's amendment will be accepted.
I, too, apologise for the length of my contribution but perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 60 and make two basic points. First, disabled people should not he prevented by their disability from consulting Members of Parliament or councillors, from lobbying them or watching them at work, or having access to the political process. Secondly, they should not be prevented by their disability from becoming elected or appointed. Yet both of those things happen in Britain today.
On the first aspect, when deaf people go to see Members of Parliament—I should know and my noble and learned friend will know as well—there are very rarely loop systems in the MPs' surgeries. There are never interpreters and there are very few minicoms. Therefore, in that sense people are denied the right to talk to their Member of Parliament, which is a ridiculous situation in a democracy. The position is similar for people in wheelchairs. Very few MPs consider access to their surgeries. I was one of the guilty ones. Even while I was chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group I was holding my surgeries in a place with steps. Admittedly, I could not get another place, but I should have fought harder to demand an easily accessible surgery. Very few MPs consider access to their surgeries or provide Braille or large print for the leaflets for their constituents.
There was a recent lobby on the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and all his colleagues were there. I think that we saw them there, or certainly they know about it. Thousands of disabled people came to press for the passage of a strengthened Bill. No microphone was allowed in Westminster Hall. The Serjeant at Arms and his colleagues were very helpful. They were almost as good as Black Rod and his colleagues are in this place. They were very helpful indeed. But they had to accept what Parliament lays down, and Parliament laid down that no microphones could be used in Westminster Hall. That is a fine situation! Westminster Hall is accessible to wheelchairs but we could not use microphones. Even my rather loud voice could not be heard shouting, so it was a fairly bad situation. Microphones can be used in Westminster's Grand Committee Room, but that is inaccessible to large numbers of wheelchair-bound people. So one cannot win either way. That is the kind of situation that could be dealt with if this amendment were accepted. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will view it with great sympathy. In this House, or anywhere else where elected representatives meet disabled people, it is not appropriate that rigid rules should be enforced.
I believe that disabled people, especially those who are deaf and blind, have enormous difficulty. Yet, in Britain today, there are no sign language broadcasts on political programmes; there are no election addresses in large print; and there is nothing either on tape or on

259
video. There are some sign interpreters at party conferences for a handful of deaf people, but not on television where they could be viewed by thousands.
A few weeks ago I interviewed a Canadian Member of Parliament for a television programme. That man was totally deaf and without speech. However, he had been elected a Member of Parliament. The Canadian Parliament provided four full-time sign interpreters for that man, not only in the House of Commons in Canada, but also in his constituency. That is really remarkable provision. He had Palantype and all the necessary provisions for sub-titling of the proceedings all the time. It makes us look really shabby by comparison. I am not saying that we want the moon. What we really want is a big change in attitude as regards the people in our Parliament and in our councils.
Finally, I have one further question for the Minister. I have read in some learned books about the law—although I have not found this in the law—that people who are "deaf and dumb" are debarred from standing for Parliament. Can the Minister comment on that? Is it the case that deaf and dumb people are debarred from standing for Parliament by statute? My noble friend Lady Hollis shakes her head, and she is a person with whom I do not readily disagree. However, I am not asking for her opinion; I am asking for the Minister's opinion so that the answer is official. We want to know the Government's policy on the issue. Can the Minister kindly tell us whether or not such people can stand for Parliament. In other words, are such highly-related legal textbooks written by distinguished lawyers right or wrong? I apologise for having taken so long. I hope that the Minister will consider my amendment sympathetically.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the general direction of the amendments. If the criminal justice service is not included in the Bill, as provided for in the first amendment, it really should be. As mentioned by both speakers, that is one of the basic rights of our society. The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is important, but I am afraid that legal services might just take priority as regards being an essential requirement for living in our society.
Midnight
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 59, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is to extend the list of illustrative examples in Clause 13 to include legal services and the services of any court or tribunal, as well as the agencies of the criminal justice system.
Once again, I should like to clarify that Part III of the Bill is about the elimination of discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services to members of the public. That statutory right is intended to be drawn widely in order to embrace all services which are provided to members of the public.
The list of examples included in Clause 13(3) is intended as an illustration of how widely the right of access is drawn and is not intended to be exhaustive. There have been a number of attempts in earlier debates
260
to have the list of examples extended—and, indeed, to have other such lists extended—to a degree which, I might add, would have increased the size of the Bill even more than it has already grown.
As in the other debates, for two reasons I cannot agree to extend the list to include the amendment. First, the greater the number of examples in the list, the greater the likelihood is that it will be seen as being an exhaustive one, with the consequent risk that certain services will be thought to have been excluded. By adopting a more general approach, we are able to avoid the pitfall of important areas being overlooked.
Secondly, the right of access already applies widely to all services provided to members of the public, including those services provided by government departments and, in this instance, to courts, solicitors and the Legal Aid Board. It therefore follows that the services which the courts, tribunals and agencies of the justice system provide directly to the public are already covered by the Bill. My noble and learned fellow clansman the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the provision of court services and for some tribunals, is already taking steps to ensure that those services are accessible to disabled people.
I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on his question about buildings. My noble and learned friend has a continuing refurbishment programme in which buildings are upgraded as resources and physical constraints allow. This programme includes the provision of improved facilities for disabled people such as ramps, better court layouts and infra-red hearing enhancement systems. For example, the Royal Courts of Justice have recently been upgraded and now include stairlifts which were not previously available.
It is worth mentioning that the majority of courts and tribunals already provide facilities to enable disabled people to participate in hearings. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, drew our attention to the checklist which is available to encourage tribunals to ensure that they keep the needs of disabled people in mind. The position will continue to improve as a result of good practice and as a direct result of this legislation once it is enacted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to regulations. I concur with him in the view that the issuing of regulations is not covered by the Bill, but it is not Ministers who approve regulations; Parliament does so and I do not believe that Parliament's right to approve or reject legislation should be fettered in any way. I believe that I am right in saying that no legislation could bind Parliament in that way.
I have been asked about legal aid, the accessibility of the legal aid system and the green form scheme. Solicitors' firms which are part of the Legal Aid Board's franchising scheme have the authority to accept applications for green form by post or by telephone, and to give advice and assistance by post and by telephone in any category of work in which they hold a franchise. The special authority which has been delegated to franchisees is in recognition of the fact that they have met quality standards and have therefore built up trust with the Legal Aid Board. At a time when the green form scheme is known to be vulnerable to abuse by

261
some solicitors, it would not be in clients' interests to extend these authorities to firms which have not demonstrated compliance with the board's standards. Over 1,050 solicitors' offices have been granted a franchise and that figure is expected to double over the next 12 months. The number of franchises granted so far represents approximately 27 per cent. of legal aid fund expenditure and that figure is expected to rise to nearer 70 per cent. in the next 12 months. Firms can already be franchised in many categories such as matrimonial, crime, welfare benefits and personal injury. It is planned that firms will be able to obtain franchises in the categories of mental health and education in the near future. I should add that, for those people who are unable to travel, any person with a good reason can authorise someone to go to a solicitor (whether franchised or not) to apply for green form assistance on his or her behalf. This may be useful if a disabled person wishes to seek advice in a category of work in which solicitors cannot yet obtain a franchise.
With regard to financial eligibility for legal aid, I should point out that neither the receipt of sickness benefit nor invalidity benefit allowed for automatic qualification of free legal aid prior to the introduction of incapacity benefit. However, I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department has undertaken to look at the situation where the requirement to make a contribution towards legal aid by applicants who are in receipt of the higher rate of incapacity benefit would put them at a financial disadvantage compared to those applicants in receipt of income support. I should perhaps add that we are not convinced that significant numbers of people would in fact be affected in this way.
I shall deal now with the question of mentally vulnerable witnesses and the difficulties faced by them. We are very much aware of the problems faced by such witnesses, in particular those with learning difficulties. We are concerned to ensure that they can give evidence in courts with the minimum of trauma. The Home Office has also commissioned research into how the criminal justice system treats people with learning disabilities and the results are expected later this year.
The question of deaf jurors was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I should, first, clarify the position. Service as a juror is not covered by Part III of the Bill since that cannot be construed as a service being provided to members of the public. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the improvements the courts are already making and those they will require to make to comply with the Bill will clearly have a knock-on effect for all court users, including jury members. Moreover, Section 41 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which came into force in February 1995, makes it clear that a disabled person is eligible for jury service, and that the judge should affirm the summons unless, in his opinion, the person is not capable of acting effectively as a juror on account of his disability, in which case the judge should discharge the summons.
I appreciate that the noble Lord's concern relates to profoundly deaf people being able to perform jury service. I am aware that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been considering whether it might
262
be possible to amend legislation to enable a profoundly deaf juror to take an interpreter into the jury retiring room. However, there are a number of difficulties associated with that, not least the concern that there should be no suggestion of any outside party being able to exert any undue influence over the jury's consideration. Because of those difficulties, and the principle That a defendant's needs must be paramount and given paramount consideration, the Lord Chancellor has decided that it would not be practical to pursue such a change to the legislation at the present time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked me whether witnesses would be classed as receiving a service. The fact that witnesses are classed as users of the court services does not mean that they are receiving a service within the meaning of the Bill. However, as I said with regard to jurors, the measures to provide access to defendants and other people using the courts as a service should also have a knock-on beneficial effect for witnesses.
I shall turn to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, about his Amendment No. 60. If I followed him aright, we were talking about MPs, how they are covered by the Bill, and whether they provide a service which would be consistent with the Bill. The Bill's provisions cover all those providing services to the public. I can confirm that MPs provide services to the public.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that might bring forward some reaction from your Lordships. That means that MPs must take reasonable steps to make themselves accessible to disabled constituents. However, an MP who visits a constituent in his own home would probably be providing a reasonable alternative to making his surgery accessible. I suspect that most MPs visit people in their own homes if they are unable to go to the surgery for any reason. I believe that answers that point.
As regards the interesting question of whether there is provision on the statute book which prevents deaf and dumb people standing for Parliament, I have to be careful because I do not know of any such statute. If the noble Lord does, I should be more than interested to see it. We do not know whether such a statute exists and I should prefer to have it drawn to my attention before giving any judgments, so to speak, on such a weighty matter.
I hope that I have not spoken for too long. Clearly, both noble Lords who introduced the amendments asked a considerable number of questions. I hope that I have answered most of them. I have also written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and I hope that between the letter and my remarks I have responded to his points sufficiently for him to withdraw his amendment and for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to refrain from moving his.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. My noble and learned friend and I would have liked him to go further but we shall return to the points at a later date. In the meantime, I shall not move my amendment and my noble and learned friend will tell the House what he intends to do.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am sorry that I confused my noble friend. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I propose to ask leave to withdraw my amendment but I did not wish to do so before my noble friend had had an opportunity of saying what he wished.
This is not the time to reply in detail to all that the Minister said. It may be that when he reads what I said he will appreciate that not everything in his brief was totally unknown to me. I too mentioned that this merely added to the list of examples. However, I ventured to say that, in parliamentary draftsmanship, as a matter of wisdom it is a general rule that if you mean it there is something to be said for saying it expressly.
I was of course aware of the provisions made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to court premises. However, before we become too smug, the Minister should visit some of the premises which we on the Council of Tribunals have to visit. There are 70 different systems of tribunals in this country, covering almost every human activity that one can imagine. Most of them have tribunals in most urban centres and there are quite a few rural ones. The Minister said that most of them now have adequate provision for disabled people. I should be happy on some occasion to show him some of them.
I was grateful to hear the Minister's comments about the green form scheme. This is not the time to go into the details of the matter but I shall take it away and look at it. I was also grateful for his comments about contributions for those who have been awarded legal aid. He said that the Lord Chancellor's Department is considering that, but I must point out that, as I said in my opening remarks, it has been considering it for some three years. I had hoped that the Minister would give us an idea of how much longer we must wait.
I promise that I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In return I ask only that he reads carefully what my noble friend and I have said. Perhaps at an hour when we are all a little fresher and we have all had time to reflect on these matters we might consider them further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 67:
Page 11, line 33, leave out from ("treat") to ("cannot"), in line 35 and insert ("others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) he").
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("under section 15").
Page 11, line 37, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
("(2) For the purposes of section 13, a provider of services also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) he fails to comply with' a section 16 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and

(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified.

(3) For the purposes of this section, treatment is justified only if—

(a) in the opinion of the provider of services, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied; and

264

(b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.

(4) The conditions are that—

(a) in any case, the treatment is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person);

(b) in any case, the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;

(c) in a case falling within section 13(1) (a), the treatment is necessary because the provider of services would otherwise be unable to provide the service to members of the public;

(d) in a case falling within section 13(1) (c) or (d), the treatment is necessary in order for the provider of services to be able to provide the service to the disabled person or to other members of the public;

(e) in a case falling within section 13(1) (d), the difference in the terms on which the service is provided to the disabled person and those on which it is provided to other members of the public reflects the greater cost to the provider of services in providing the service to the disabled person.

(5) Any increase in the cost of providing a service to a disabled person which results from compliance by a provider of services with a section 16 duty shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (4) (e).
(6) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which the condition mentioned in subsection (3) (a), or that mentioned in subsection (3) (b)—

(a) is to be taken to be satisfied;

(b) is to be taken not to be satisfied.

(7) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances (other than those mentioned in subsection (4)) in which treatment is to be taken to be justified.
(8) In this section "section 16 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 16.
(9) In subsections (3), (4) and (7) "treatment" includes failure to comply with a section 16 duty.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 69:
Leave out Clause 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duty of providers of services to make adjustments]:
12.15 a.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 45, leave out from ("which") to ("which") in line 46 and insert ("has an adverse effect on a disabled person's enjoyment of, or participation in, a service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from what was said in Committee, I gather that the Government remain unpersuaded as to the need for an authoritative disability council. That will mean that it will depend entirely on the disabled individual to test the legislation through the courts.
In court, the disabled person must overcome two hurdles: first, he must establish that discrimination has occurred; and, secondly, he must prove that the service provider has not taken steps which are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to remove discrimination. That second hurdle is of itself difficult to surmount, dependent as it is on many factors which are particular to the service, the time and the place and the cost cap.
In addition, to establish that discrimination has occurred, the disabled person must demonstrate that it is impossible or unreasonably difficult to use the service. How will that be measured? Even in the most clear-cut situations where there are physical obstacles to access, the service provider could quite easily argue that access was not impossible or unreasonably difficult. For example, he may argue that porters could be made available to manhandle a wheelchair user up flights of stairs or that a disabled person could be redirected to a back alley to use the service entrance. Those strategies make access possible and perhaps not unreasonably difficult. I was going to read a letter from a well-known bank to one of its customer which said that it was far too expensive to lower the steps so that she could get into the bank. Therefore, she still has to conduct all her business on the pavement.
We should be looking for a duty for service providers to take steps which will afford disabled people the same dignity and respect as any other customer might expect. The amendment states:
"has an adverse effect on a disabled person's enjoyment of, or participation in, a service".
That conveys a more positive message to service providers and the courts and it lowers one of the hurdles which a complainant must overcome. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have some sympathy for the idea behind the amendment but I believe that, as it is drafted, it is rather too sweeping. I suggest that it would be much more acceptable if the word "adverse" were to be qualified by an adverb such as "seriously", "substantially" or "markedly".
The problem here, as elsewhere in the Bill, lies in the interpretation of the word "reasonable". After all, "reasonable" means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. Let us take, for example, the case of a restaurant which spreads over two or three floors. One can think of a dozen such restaurants in London alone. The food served is identical wherever you happen to eat in the restaurant and the prices charged for the food are' also the same. A disabled gentleman rings up and says that he would like to book a table on the first floor, or possibly in the basement, but that he will need assistance because he walks with two sticks. He can just about manage steps provided that there are two people to help him. The manager says, "I am extremely sorry, sir, but we are extremely busy and I cannot take two waiters from their other duties to help you up the stairs at the beginning and end of your meal, but you can have an excellent table on the ground floor and I am sure that you will be very happy there".
The would-be customer says, "There is absolutely no question of this; I found the decor on the ground floor quite repulsive. I cannot stand the colour you have painted your walls. It has got to be the first floor or the
266
basement or nothing". The manager says, "Well, in that case I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it". If the case goes to court, it is probable that the court will find that the manager had behaved not unreasonably in the circumstances, but perverse decisions do occur and he or she cannot ever be entirely certain about that. The worry will be there. If, however, the word "adverse" were to be qualified by some word such as I have suggested, for example "seriously" or "markedly", I believe that would improve the situation and make it more acceptable. That is a suggestion I put to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the reasons why my noble friend has felt that an amendment of this nature is necessary. I hope, if I can, to be able to persuade him that his concerns are already catered for by the Bill as it stands. The distinction between my noble friend's approach and our own is a subtle one and your Lordships will need to bear with me as I try to set out the Government's position.
My noble friend's amendment seeks to wrap up two concerns in a single proposition: the first is that service providers should seek to make their services accessible to disabled people, and the second, that the service in question should not be offered at a lower standard. I quite recognise that there is a degree of overlap between the two requirements. But, in my view, the Bill as currently drafted deals with them in a better way by dealing with them distinctly in two separate clauses.
Clause 16 is primarily concerned with the extent to which services are accessible. Clause 16(1), which this amendment seeks to alter, puts a duty on a service provider to change a policy, practice or procedure which has the effect of making his service inaccessible to disabled people. So, for example, a restauranteur would have to waive a "no dogs" policy if it meant that his premises were inaccessible to a blind person with a guide dog.
I can assure my noble friend that his concern that the Government's test of discrimination is insufficiently tough on service providers is unwarranted. Service providers will not be able to get away with treating disabled people without the same dignity and respect as any other customer. If, for example, a café proprietor does have to change a "no dogs" rule it will not be good enough for him to suggest that he is happy to see the animal tied up outside with a bowl of water!
I can also assure my noble friend that, in this context, the term "service" includes the concept of service as far as possible to the same standard as that received by other people. There is no question of service providers being able to get away with providing access to a lower standard than normal unless there are inescapable reasons. This applies to all of the duties in Clause 16. For instance, under Clause 16(2), a cinema will have to make reasonable provision to allow wheelchair users a degree of choice as to where they sit. But all the seats in the cinema would not have to be movable to leave space for a wheelchair. Of course, this means that the wheelchair user would have less choice than other customers and thus receive a lower standard of service.

267
The requirement, however, is to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered.
A further illustration might help to clarify what this means for Clause 16(1). The dining area of a particular café may occupy two rooms. In one, where 80 per cent. of the tables are accommodated, the management are happy to admit guide dogs, but in the other room, where diners are entertained by a pianist, a ban on dogs is applied. In this circumstance, it will not be good enough for the proprietor to suggest that, because a blind person is able to use 80 per cent. of the café, the service is reasonably accessible. He must consider a reasonable adjustment so that the disabled person can use the service to the full. However, as I prefer to eat my meals without the accompaniment of music, I would volunteer to sit in the 80 per cent. of the restaurant without the music.
A different issue arises where nothing has to be done to make the service accessible but the disabled customer needs to be protected against poor quality service. To return to the café again, it might be that all of the tables are now accessible but the proprietor has decided that he does not want to encourage them to become regular customers because he feels they will make his other clientele feel uncomfortable. That example is not as unlikely as it may sound. There is evidence that that kind of thing goes on, as some of your Lordships will be aware. He therefore makes sure that his disabled customers are made well aware that they are not welcome—ushering them to the least desirable tables, making sure that they have to wait a while to be served, and generally adopting a surly attitude.
Here again, I can assure my noble friend that service providers will certainly not be able to get away with that sort of treatment. But it is not Clause 156 to which a disabled person can look for protection but to Clause 13. Here it states that:
"It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person … in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him".
Bearing in mind that discrimination consists of less favourable treatment for a reason related to a person's disability, your Lordships can be reassured that a disabled person's enjoyment of a service will not be able to be adversely affected by conduct of that kind.
I have gone on at some length, but I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that there is a distinction to be drawn between two different varieties of discrimination which I believe the amendment would obscure. I am content that the Bill already protects disabled people as comprehensively as my noble friend would wish. In view of my explanation of how the Bill does that, perhaps he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his suggestion that the word "adverse" should have a suitable adjective tied to it. He is probably right.
With regard to what my noble friend said, he spoke for some time and at this time of night my brain is moving more slowly than its normal snail-like pace. I
268
would therefore like to read what he had to say with a view, if necessary, to coming back to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether a provider of services has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Television broadcasts: subtitling for the deaf
—(1) The Broadcasting Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 35 (subtitling for the deaf)—

(a) In subsection (3) (a) (ii), for ", the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable" substitute "such numbers of hours in a week as the Commission shall determine in order to achieve 100 per cent of programme hours by the year 2010";

(b) in subsection (3) (b), for paragraph (ii) substitute—

"(ii) for the year which includes the tenth anniversary of the date of the commencement of the provision of Channel 5, 100 per cent of programme hours.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I began speaking in these debates on an intervention. This is the last speech I shall make this evening. I see smiles all round the Chamber!
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is taking part in these debates again. That sentiment will be echoed all round the Chamber.
The purpose of the proposed new clause is to establish a timescale for the coverage of all television programmes. Subtitling is crucial for totally deaf and profoundly deaf people, because without it television is meaningless. That is a deeply regrettable form of discrimination. With specially adapted sets, and given subtitling, totally deaf and profoundly deaf people can participate fully in this most powerful medium of information and entertainment.
Great progress has already been made, and deaf people and those who are hard of hearing appreciate it. Nevertheless, if we are not to discriminate against them in access to television all programmes should be subtitled.
The proposed new clause lays an obligation on the ITC, but it is in no way critical of the ITC. I pay tribute to the work of Mr. David Glencross and his colleagues at the ITC as they have been vigilant, understanding and helpful. However, they can only operate within the remit laid down by Parliament. That is why I have tabled this new clause. Although the new clause only deals with subtitling, I hope that the Government will think hard about the needs of deaf people whose first language is sign language.
One programme per channel per day should be produced for them and some general programmes should also be covered by sign language. That would be one small step forward. The Government should remember that sign language is the fourth indigenous language in the United Kingdom: after English comes Welsh, then Gaelic, with sign language not far behind. The Government subsidise channels with Welsh and Gaelic programmes. Therefore at the very least they should help with some signed programmes.
Finally, the pattern of broadcasting is changing steadily, with satellites and cable competing with terrestrial television. I recognise that there may be difficulties with satellite programmes beamed from other countries. However, the Government should examine the position with the television under their control or where they have an influence.
For the reasons that we have subtitling of our terrestrial television, so we should have it with cable and satellite. In addition, it is important to ensure fair competition for all competitors: they should all have the same subtitling regulation.
In his response will the Minister tell us about the European situation? Have the Government made any representations to other European countries regarding subtitling targets? I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord on the importance of the British sign language. I associate myself, too, with his remarks about David Glencross and the ITC.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment seeks to set target dates by which the Channel 3 and Channel 5 licence holders would be required to achieved 100 per cent. subtitling for deaf people of their television programmes. I recognise that subtitling is clearly important for many viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing and it should be encouraged. I hope that I can offer some assurances on this matter to your Lordships. I have to say that just because those people will be able to hear the programme, it will not necessarily change it from being meaningless. Although I do not see much television, when I do, so much of the content seems pretty meaningless. However, that is a little aside as a television critic for this evening.
First, I confirm that broadcasting is covered by the Bill since it is a service which is provided to members of the public. Providers of broadcasting services will therefore be under the same duties under Part III of the Bill as all other service providers to ensure that they take reasonable steps to make broadcasting services accessible to disabled people.
We must bear in mind the excellent legislation which already exists in this area in the Broadcasting Act. The Government believe that better progress can be made by working with the grain of existing legislation to achieve improvements for disabled people in the field of broadcasting.
270
We have made provision for specific targets for both Channel 3 and Channel 5. The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets a target of 50 per cent. of subtitling of programmes by 1998 for Channel 3 programmes and by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the service for Channel 5 programmes. Thereafter it is for the Independent Television Commission to determine the greatest number of hours per week which it judges is reasonably practicable.
There is no specific requirement on the BBC to provide subtitling. However, the BBC accepts that it has a responsibility to do so as part of its general public service objectives. In practice, the proportion of programmes subtitled on the BBC is in excess of that required of commercial broadcasters.
Progress is already being made. For 1994, the commission set a target of 27 per cent. of subtitling of programmes and all the Channel 3 licensees met this. The target for 1995 is 31.5 per cent. The Channel 5 licence has not yet been awarded.
A target date for total coverage clearly has its attractions, and the Government considered this during the passage of the Broadcasting Act. However, as I said earlier this evening, we need to be realistic. We should remember that full coverage would include live unscripted material, news flashes, football matches, panel discussions and so on. Subtitling might be easier said than done. There might also be legal difficulties for the licence holders if, for example, subtitling were omitted from just one programme.
We also have to consider that subtitling involves licensees in extra work and additional costs. One must bear in mind that, as the proportion of subtitling increases above the 50 per cent. figure, it is likely to have higher cost implications, chiefly because it will bring into the frame programmes which are live and for which subtitling is more difficult to provide such as news, current affairs programmes and sport. Many sports commentators appear to want to speak so fast that I sometimes find it difficult to make them out. The holders of licences bid for them on carefully costed plans, taking into account the statutory requirements placed upon them. It would be difficult now to change the ground rules.
The Broadcasting Act aims to ensure that the obligation on subtitling continues after 1998. Therefore, after the 50 per cent. target is reached, it gives the ITC discretion to set targets thereafter which are reasonably practicable. This does not rule out achieving a much higher target than 50 per cent., and advances in technology may aid that. The advent of digital technology may open up prospects for the further provision of subtitling services.
The noble Lord asked me about Europe, and when considering it one thinks of satellite television and all the other things coming along like the Internet. They are opening up worldwide communication far beyond what we have with our four, nearly five, terrestrial channels. The same problem arises with them as with the manufacture of goods. The services are international. Therefore, quite rightly, we cannot impose the laws

271
which we may or may not wish to pass in this country on the international community and international communicators. That is a much wider field.
As regards Europe and European standards, I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's point this evening, but I shall look into it. I suspect that we may well be ahead of the game on that aspect. From what I see when I am abroad, television there does not provide any of the facilities that I see from time to time on my own television screen.
I hope that with that explanation of the position and the progress that has been made, and with a bit of enthusiasm from myself to encourage progress, the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, last Sunday I visited my grandchildren, one six years old and one three. They explained to me what a CD-ROM and a mouse were. I felt rather old-fashioned. I have the feeling this evening that the Minister is revealing himself as being old-fashioned because he said that if we had 100 per cent. subtitling it would mean that news flashes and unscripted programmes should be subtitled. With modern methods of subtitling, that is a piece of cake. Just as a child can use a CD-ROM with a mouse and the rest of it, so people in broadcasting can subtitle anything within one-and-a-half seconds, whether it is unscripted or news or whatever. So the Minister should not reveal himself as being old-fashioned, as he did. That is a fact. I suggest he watches any BBC programme which is high quality, with unscripted interviews, tomorrow night at six o'clock or nine o'clock, and then I shall accept his apology.
The Minister mentioned the cost of subtitling for all programmes. I am afraid that there is a cost, but it is necessary. I am speaking only for profoundly deaf people now, but the alternative is for them to be denied television, and that is discrimination. This cost should, and must, be met in order to do justice to the very small minority of deaf people. It is done in other countries. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be done here. Why must we always find excuses for lagging behind, not being able to do this, not being able to do that?
The Act to which the Minister referred is very limited indeed. It speaks of 50 per cent. This new clause speaks of 100 per cent., and that is the difference. We want subtitling, but we want signing as well, for the even smaller minority who rely, upon sign language. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his reply. I shall return to this subject; I am laying down a marker. In the meantime, I thank the Minister for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 74:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Requirements as to consultation in respect of community care developments
. The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines on good practice in establishing homes and other resources for people with disabilities in the community which shall include guidance on—

(a) the extent of the information to be provided to neighbours and other interested parties in order to accord with the principles of this Act; and

272

(b) the rights of intended residents or of users of services as to the disclosure of personal details to third parties.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I take only a couple of minutes to move Amendment No. 74. It touches on a new subject for this time of night, "nimbyism"—not in my back yard.
Very few of us have been so fortunate, or unfortunate, as never to have moved house. I think I am safe in assuming that, while we may on occasions have looked the neighbours up and down to see whether we want to live next door to them, none of us has invited the neighbours to look us up and down to decide whether they wanted us living next door to them as well.
People with learning disabilities, however—and I speak only for them, recognising that exactly the same applies to people with other disabilities—commonly have little choice as to where they live, but are by convention exposed to a process of public consultation which gives others the chance, and indeed the encouragement, to object to their living in the same street. Parliamentary commissioners have been known to criticise those developing homes in the community for not consulting the neighbours. Minister have not to my knowledge ever criticised this requirement and this practice. Although there is no legal basis for it, it has come to be commonly accepted—though not, I am glad to say, universally adopted.
I do not complain about the normal process of planning applications under which, where a property is to have bits added or taken away, the aesthetics are quite rightly exposed to public scrutiny. I am raising questions about the additional consultation which often takes place in advance of planning applications. It seems to me that if a family with a large number of teenage children, each cherishing a ghetto-blaster and a motorbike, is building a house or moving in, no additional consultation is required; whereas if a group of quiet, middle-aged people with learning disabilities moves in, there may be public meetings, door-to-door questionnaires and so on. Indeed, I am sure that noble Lords would like to know that in the Surrey Comet only two weeks ago there was a headline about housing in Hampton:
"Psychiatric patients move from hospital into supported home: despair at plans for rehousing".
Noble Lords will see, therefore, that it is very much a current subject.
I definitely challenge what I regard as the wholly unjustified convention, encouraged by those who ought to know better, of knocking on doors and saying, "Would you mind if Miss Smith moves in next door? Miss Smith has a learning disability". I regard that as grotesque discrimination and entirely contrary to the principles of this legislation.
MENCAP and other similar organisations have had the painful experience of public meetings and individual consultations which provide a platform for the nastier elements of the local community to scare the rest into believing that the character of the local community is to be destroyed forever. Sometimes the head of steam is such that project managers or local councillors take fright and people lose the home into which they might

273
have moved. In other words, it is about real life discrimination, which in turn leads on to, and indeed invites, further discrimination. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, as my name is to this amendment perhaps I may say very briefly that I support it most warmly, but in view of the lateness of the hour and the clear explanation that my noble friend has already given, I shall say no more.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has spoken eloquently on what is a real problem. Despite the fact that the great majority of people with learning disability have always lived with their families in the community, there is a popular impression that they used to live in large hospitals and are now being dumped in the community as a result of a change in government policy. That impression is reinforced by a process which, as the noble Lord pointed out, involves asking neighbours whether they mind if someone with a learning disability lives next to them.
Change of use requirements are less onerous than they used to be but still raise questions about residents' rights. However, a parliamentary commissioner has, in the past, gone beyond that in commending consultation with neighbours as good and required practice. Consultation implies that if neighbours do not like it, it will not happen. It is not surprising that neighbours, given a power in relation to neighbours with learning disabilities that they do not enjoy in relation to any other neighbours, both anticipate problems and take the opportunity to object. Even a hostile minority can doom a project to failure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not suppose that the Minister will accept this amendment. But he would save himself an awful lot of trouble if he did.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, let me first welcome the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thought that my day was going to be totally incomplete, but there you are!
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I appreciate the concern which has led him to table this amendment. It seeks to offer some protection to disabled people moving into the community. I hope that I shall be able to alleviate his fears sufficiently to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
The Government's policy on development control recognises the right of local residents to have their say about planning applications in their neighbourhood. Indeed, as my noble friend said, that is even encouraged. Both statutory and non-statutory bodies which are responsible for planning such facilities are encouraged to involve potential neighbours and take account of their views. But we have made it abundantly clear that a council cannot reject a proposal simply because a lot of people are against it. Opposition to a proposal simply does not count unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons which can be substantiated, including such things as parking and traffic problems. The effect that a development might have on property values, for
274
example, is not a planning issue. Indeed, the planning authorities' own representatives at the National Development Forum said:
"Care must be taken to see that it is the matters of general community interest that are given weight in decision-making, not those private, narrow or sectional interests which many organisations or individuals with a particular perception are inclined to express on their behalf".
That advice is relevant to comments made by local residents after an application has been made. But it applies with even greater force to comments made in ignorance of the specific project in question.
If a planning application is refused by a local planning authority, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment. A council that has refused an application just because of local prejudice can have no doubt that the Secretary of State will not support it. The council will have wasted public money on rejecting a proposal that it should have allowed. It may even have to pay the appellant's costs if the appeal is decided by public inquiry.
All that is familiar ground to local planning authorities, both officers and members. That being so, we do not believe that the guidance proposed in the amendment is necessary. But I hope that my firm restatement of the policy will in fact be of assistance. I hope that, in the light of my firm restatement, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. I regret that they have fallen on slightly deaf ears because, in spite of his assurances, I know that this "NIMBYism" goes on in a number of places throughout the country. For instance, recently a group of people clubbed together to buy a house, but people with learning disabilities were not allowed to move in. It may be said that those were market forces. They were not; they were motivated purely by the total dislike of having people with learning disabilities move in next door.
I recognise that it may be tactful to consult neighbours, but it is demeaning for those moving in to be labelled and have to apologise for moving into the neighbourhood. Only two weeks ago it was said,
"A lot of us in this street have very young children. The last thing I want to do is tell my kids not to go near these people… A lot of elderly people living around here are suddenly feeling extremely threatened".
That is not exceptional; that is commonplace. I cannot accept the Minister's assurance that that is not happening. Obviously I shall not divide the House at this hour of the night, but I shall to continue this discussion, perhaps with his department during the Recess, and hope that we can come to some accommodation, if only in codes of practice or something of that nature. I feel that we must continue this discussion into the Third Reading of the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:
Page 16, line 14, after ("person") insert ("("A")").
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("who do not have the disability") and insert ("to whom that reason does not or would not apply").
Page 16, line 19, leave out ("under section 20").
Page 16, line 20, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this section, treatment is justified only if—

(a) in A's opinion, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are satisfied; and

(b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) in any case, the treatment is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person);

(b) in any case, the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;

(c) in a case falling within section 17(3) (a), the treatment is necessary in order for the disabled person or the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility;

(d) in a case falling within section 17(3) (b), the treatment is necessary in order for the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility;

(4) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which the condition mentioned in subsection (2) (a), or that mentioned in subsection (2) (b)—

(a) is to be taken not to be satisfied;

(b) is to be taken not to be satisfied.

(5) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances (other than those mentioned in subsection (3)) in which treatment is to be taken to be justified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 10. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 80;
Leave out Clause 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Advice and assistance]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 17, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State' shall make arrangements for the provision of independent advice and conciliation services to parties to disputes arising under this Part with a view to promoting the settlement of such disputes otherwise than by recourse to the courts.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make provision for an independent advice and conciliation service to be even-handed. In the explanatory memorandum to the original Bill which was brought to the House before Committee stage, it was stated:
"Clause 22 provides for the establishment of a conciliation service to provide advice and support to individuals alleging discrimination under Part III, in order to promote the settlement of disputes".
There is no mention of a conciliation service on the face of the Bill under goods and services. Surely it is equally important for an independent conciliation
276
service, akin to that provided by ACAS on employment issues, to be available for all parties on access issues to help weak claims and encourage settlements without recourse to the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for independent advice and conciliation. As she explained, she has her own views on how advice may best be provided and clearly she is looking to the service to provide not just advice, but also conciliation.
I am concerned that my noble friend's amendment might make the operation of the service we have in mind more difficult. As it is presently drafted, Clause 23 provides that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for advice and assistance, rather than conciliation. We are concerned that the strict neutrality implied by the term "conciliation" might be an unrealistic and unacceptable imposition on the type of service we intend to set in place.
We will ensure that disabled people have access to information about their rights under this legislation and can obtain advice and assistance if they feel that they have been discriminated against. However, we recognise that a disabled person may often be the more vulnerable party in a dispute arising under the right of access and we are committed to ensuring that disabled people can secure their rights. That is why we provided, in Clause 23, for advice and assistance, rather than strictly neutral conciliation, to be available. We hope that the provision of advice and support will help to empower disabled people to gain the benefits of their new rights. We intend to ensure that advice and support are provided in the most practical and sensible way and we are keen to learn from the experience of existing networks so that we may be better able to plan the way forward.
My noble friend is looking to this service to do something a little different from that which we are looking to it to do. As I have said, we do not see it as necessarily having as its main role conciliation, because that involves neutrality. Of course we hope that in many cases its assistance will amount to conciliation between the disabled person and the provider of goods and services in order to find a way forward to resolve the dispute. But I do not think that we want to give it the flavour, which conciliation would give to it, of being neutral when it comes to, looking at the problem. We want the body to feel that it is there to assist the disabled person and, therefore, without reading too much into my words, that it is batting slightly more in favour of the disabled person, is trying to find a way round the problem, is trying to find an accommodation and is assisting in the search for that accommodation. With that explanation of why we have gone down the road that we have gone down, and why I am reluctant to take on board the use of the word "conciliation", I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving that explanation. The word "conciliation" was included in the explanatory memorandum but now the Minister has changed his

277
mind. However, in view of the fact that it is five minutes to one in the morning and in view of the fact that he said quite a lot and I was not really concentrating on it too hard, I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall read what he said. I want to ensure that the provision of the services which he envisages will be evenhanded. There is a feeling that perhaps different types of conciliation or advice could be given which would mean that it was not. With that warning, so to speak, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Further and higher education of disabled persons]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 20, line 3, after ("of) insert ("physical or other support").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his welcome and I should like to extend a welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who I am very glad to see joining us on this Bill. In moving Amendment No. 83 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86, which is the Scottish version and is otherwise identical. In any matter involving higher education, I must declare an interest.
We discussed this matter in Committee. I was entirely satisfied with what the Minister said then. In fact, I was so satisfied that I threw away all the papers. I thought the business was finished. So I can claim to have added a new meaning to the phrase "Pride goeth before a fall". But after that I received a letter from the Minister written, I think, on advice from within the Department for Education on 5th July. I am not sure whether it was the Department for Education or whether it had already become the Department for Education and Employment. Having given me an assurance in Committee that the facilities referred to in the Government's Bill related only to physical facilities, he told me in that letter:
"For the avoidance of doubt, in referring to physical facilities, it was not my intention to imply that the statements would deal only with physical facilities".
That may have been done for the avoidance of doubt, but it has in fact led to the creation of doubt.
I should explain that what we are dealing with here are disability statements which universities are to be required to supply under the Bill. Clause 26(6) says that such statements should contain,
"information of a specified description about the provision of facilities for education and research made by the institution in respect of persons who are disabled persons".
There is one aspect that has always concerned the universities in this respect. We are perfectly happy to provide any information about physical facilities, support services and so on. However, what we are not as happy with is the detailed investigation into curriculum matters, possibly leading to pressure to change course content.
I understand the point made in the Minister's letter of 5th July, but support services may not necessarily be physical. For example, if someone reads to a blind man, is that a physical facility? I can understand that a court might amuse itself on that point. Therefore, I propose the insertion of the words, "physical or other" support
278
facilities. I hope that that will be satisfactory. However, if it is not satisfactory for any reason, I would be very glad indeed to know what else it is that the Department for Education and Employment desires from such statements. Once we know exactly what is wanted, we might then be able to achieve a form of words which could express the purpose in the Bill. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I have one question for the noble Earl. Perhaps he could include his answer to me in his response to the Minister. I absolutely accept that universities want to keep their academic freedom. Indeed, the noble Earl has said again tonight very much what he said in Committee on 15th June (at col. 1983 of Hansard); namely, that what tends to cause us concern is any intervention by an outside authority in matters of specific curriculum and academic content.
However, we are now talking about something quite different—the provision of support so that students can gain access to the curriculum. But the wording of the noble Earl's amendment of "physical and other support" seems wide enough not to cause me concern, especially if he can give me a positive answer to my question. Does the noble Earl agree that universities should take it upon themselves to consider in relation to an individual student whether there is leeway for flexibility if a particular part of the curriculum prevents that student reaching his educational goal? Any subsequent decision on that would, of course, be entirely a matter for the university concerned, but I would be happier if the noble Earl said that they should at least ask themselves the question.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that, whatever the noble Earl feels, his amendments would in fact limit the information that could be provided in disability statements to information about purely physical or other support services. Perhaps I may also say how grateful I am to the noble Earl for his welcome for my return to such matters.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to exclude information about academic matters upon the grounds of possible interference in academic autonomy. In Committee the noble Earl sought to limit the scope of disability statements to physical facilities. But the amendment now before us provides for a broader scope to include physical and support facilities. It would, however, appear that, even with that broader scope, the effect would be to exclude information about access to various courses or types of course which disabled students might find helpful.
The noble Earl referred to the comments made both in Committee and in the letter from my noble friend Lord Mackay. Obviously, I regret it if those comments have given rise to any misunderstanding. My noble friend made it clear in his speech in Committee that the Government considered that disability statements should go wider than simply including information about physical facilities. In referring to physical facilities later in that debate, it was not my noble friend's intention to imply that disability statements should deal only with

279
physical facilities. I hope that I have set the matter straight as regards my noble friend's letter as it has obviously raised new fears in the mind of the noble Earl.
Obviously we wish to be as helpful as possible to all disabled students. We feel that the disability statements should assist such students to understand what provision will be available to them. By limiting the information required, the amendment could reduce the possible value of such statements—for no good reason, it seems to the Government.
I understand that the noble Earl's prime concern is that the provision of academic information could possibly intrude on an institution's academic autonomy. I do not see how that can be the case. It is certainly not meant to be the case. Any university is in the business of informing potential students, disabled or otherwise, what the university has to offer. The information in the disability statements is meant to be helpful to that client group. As my noble friend made clear in Committee-am happy to restate this-it will be for the institution to decide what provision it wishes to offer. In all honesty, I do not see how that could lead to interference in the subject matter of the course, as the noble Earl fears. I hope that he will accept my assurance that that is very much the case and that his amendments are therefore not necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I should like to reply first to the noble Baroness. I stress that I can speak only for myself. I have no ministerial authority in this - in fact, nobody has. Obviously, if one accepts a student, one undertakes a duty to that student. One is therefore bound to do everything that one can to get that student a decent education. That is a duty and it is within the limits of possibility, which must be enlarged (if they can be), and binding.
There is a difficulty about altering a syllabus in relation to just one single student. We shall have to think about syllabuses in general as well as in particular. But that difficulty gets easier to overcome because of the way syllabuses are now changing. They are now incorporating a much wider range of options and
280
alternatives which should give a lot of scope for doing what the noble Baroness wants. I hope that it will, and I shall try to see that it does.
The Minister's reply makes me feel that the plot thickens. He says that my amendment would limit what the Government may do. Of course, any form of words necessarily limits what can be done under them. The question is: does it limit it to what the department wants, or does it rule out something that the department wants to do and, if so, what?
The Minister referred—I think that I have his words right—to "information on access to courses or types of courses". That puzzles me because it seems that the Government are trying either to do something that they cannot do or to do something that they should not do. Are the Government asking universities to list courses which are or are not open to people with disabilities? All of us who have followed this Bill know how impossible it is to do that. There is no such thing as a course open to people with disabilities, full stop. So, if that is what the Department for Education and Employment wants, even if the full power of parliamentary sovereignty requires it and everyone in universities does everything they can to co-operate with it, it still cannot happen. If that is what is wanted, I am afraid that it really will not work.
However, if what is wanted is to try to produce a whole lot of detailed information about course content leading to proposals to change course content, that would be an interference with academic judgment and would be extremely unwelcome. As far as I can see, the department is trying either to do the impossible or to do the improper. If that is not the case - may perfectly well be wrong about it - it would be nice to know exactly what it wants, and when we know what it wants, we may perhaps be able to accommodate it. I hope that we shall. We cannot do any more with this tonight, so we shall have to discuss the matter over the Recess. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
House adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.