Sitting of 19 July 1995

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

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House at its rising today do adjourn till Monday 16 October.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Before the forthcoming Adjournment, I think it right to draw the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory and deteriorating situation at the Liskeard junior school.
  I am obliged to remind the House that this is not the first occasion that I have felt it necessary to raise the subject on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the first occasion was in March 1971. On that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for Education who replied was one William van Straubenzee. Sadly, the position has altered little since then.
  I should add that during the late 1970s and the 1980s there was relief on the numbers and space at Liskeard junior school as a consequence of the construction of a new Church of England primary school serving the town. However, the advantages gained by that development have now been exhausted. In practice, we are back to the situation of the early 1970s except that the problems are now greater through the combination of higher pupil numbers and the fact that the various buildings that comprise the school, to which I shall come in a moment, are also 25 years older.
  The school has a classic market town centre situation. The main buildings were constructed in 1880. They comprise four classrooms, the library, the administrative accommodation and the special needs area. From the 1970s onwards, a series of temporary buildings have been constructed, but, as is so often sadly the case, they have assumed an air of permanence and, because they were constructed as temporary buildings, over the years their maintenance has not been to such a high level as one would have wished and they themselves are causing problems.
  I am sure that that set of circumstances is mirrored in all our constituencies. Every time one builds more temporary accommodation to house growing pupil numbers, one cuts down on the playground space. In other words, the position at Liskeard is very unsatisfactory.
  The school is centred in the town, adjacent to a main road on a cramped and confined site. I should also mention in that context that, in addition to inadequate space, in recent years there have been problems with the boilers at the school, the hall is totally inadequate and the sports field provision is located away from the school site
  1582
  and there have been times when, for the children's safety, the head teacher and his staff have felt it necessary temporarily to suspend sports field activities.
  The number of pupils at the school is roughly 300. During the next three years it is projected that that number will rise to 352.
  There is projected housing development in Liskeard. Over the past eight years, on average there have been 100 new dwellings constructed each year. The structure plan for the area allows for a greater increase in housing development. Pressures are being exerted on the school from all sides.
  I turn now to the financial position. The school had been allocated, over the next three years, the sum of £220,000. That is part of the basic need bid that the Cornwall county education committee made this year. From my description of the school, its site and its inadequate facilities, I think that the House will realise that it would be futile to spend scarce financial resources on those deteriorating buildings.
  Earlier this year, a responsible campaign was undertaken by the parents, in conjunction with the headteacher and his staff and the parent-teacher association. Pressure was put on Cornwall county council. A number of visits to Liskeard were undertaken by county councillors and, as a consequence, they agreed to give Liskeard junior school top priority. In the 25 years that I have been dealing with the county council in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, I have never known it to move so quickly. That testifies to the current unsatisfactory position.
  Cornwall made an application to the Department for Education for a supplementary credit approval. A site has been allocated for a new junior school. The total cost of that project will be of the order of £1.6 million. We all recognise that, with the existing constraints on public expenditure, there is no chance of our being successful, in one go, for the whole bid.
  Therefore, the school governors have drawn up a rolling new-build project. We are looking for £580,000 for the first phase. Last week, the previous Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), announced that there was to be an allocation of £20 million for supplementary credit approval. Liskeard was allocated just £38,000. I shall not bore the House now with the predictable response to that paltry figure, which was clearly inadequate and, in many ways, an insult.
  We are now in a genuine dilemma. Over the next three years, a total of £258,000 has been allocated to Liskeard junior school—a sizeable sum that we do not wish to waste. The purpose of my raising the subject here this morning is to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House two specific questions that I am sure he will convey to the Department for Education and Employment.
  First, I gather that in the autumn further supplementary credit allocations are made by the Department. Will he ensure that the Liskeard application features in that list even though we were successful to the tune of a very modest £38,000 last week? We must keep the project rolling forward. The momentum has been created and the only satisfactory outcome is an allocation of a meaningful amount so that we can start the first phase.
  Secondly, during the past few months I have kept in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch who was the Minister responsible for the financial

  1583
  allocations. We now have a newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I have already extended an invitation to her to visit Liskeard. I hope that I have been able to impress on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the urgency of the situation. I hope that he will support me in trying to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that she should visit Liskeard as early as possible in the forthcoming autumn 1995 term.
  10.14 am
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted to have been called to speak this morning as I wish to raise the subject of the Coxhoe medical practice in my constituency and the events that have occurred over the past few days, which are nothing less than an absolute disgrace.
  It is important for me to give a brief history of the medical practice. Until two years ago, seven doctors served 12,000 patients in a newly formed budget-holding practice. The practice served the villages of Coxhoe, Cassop, Kelloe, Quarrington Hill, Bowburn, which is in my constituency, and West Cornforth, a village in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  Within six months, three partners left the practice and the other four doctors separated. One, Dr. Pollard, set up a practice in the village of Bowburn. Another, Dr. Drew, set up a practice in West Cornforth. The other two doctors, Dr. Woods and Dr. Shami, remained in Coxhoe with the bulk of the practice—about 8,000 patients. From a state-of-the-art surgery, with all modern facilities, Dr. Pollard moved to Bowburn, to a room in the local community centre with virtually no facilities. Dr. Drew moved into one room in a house in West Cornforth, again with few facilities.
  Dr. Woods and Dr. Shami have apparently struggled to keep the Coxhoe practice going, with nearly 8,000 patients between them. I am told that that is an impossible workload and they have finally had to accept that they are overwhelmed and cannot cope with the number of patients. The maximum that any general practitioner is allowed to have on his or her books is 3,500 patients.
  The practice in Coxhoe has survived with a number of locum doctors who have now all left. The Coxhoe doctors have tried in vain to find new partners, or even locums, to keep the surgery and the practice ticking over. It appears that there are just not enough doctors to go around—the Coxhoe surgery is two short. On making investigations, I have found that the rest of the county of Durham is a further 18 doctors short. I am told that, nationally, there is a shortage of literally hundreds of general practitioners.
  The two vacant posts have been advertised four times, including once in the "Irish Medical Journal". Four candidates were interviewed when the first advertisement appeared in the papers and one was appointed. She subsequently took another post elsewhere and did not turn up for the job. Six doctors responded to the second interview, but eventually all withdrew. The third and fourth advertisements produced no response.
  1584
  As a consequence—and the reason why I desperately needed to address the House this morning—the Coxhoe doctors announced that they have asked the family health services authority to remove 2,500 patients from their lists and find new doctors for those people. The practice has identified the 2,500 patients to be removed from the list. The only exceptions that will be made in those areas, which include Kelloe and Cassop, will be terminally ill patients.
  Although all the patients removed from the list will be found other doctors, it is a deplorable situation. Many people will have to travel long distances to find a new doctor. Many mothers with children, and pensioners, will have to go by foot or catch a number of buses, and will have to travel much further than was previously necessary. Those people's local surgery, which many of them raised funds to develop, will no longer be theirs. Many have been patients at the surgery for 40 to 70 years or more and it is outrageous that they have been dumped, thrown off the lists.
  It should not surprise hon. Members to know that the affluent parts of the practice have been retained and the less affluent parts have been dumped. Some patients removed from the surgery have received letters and others wait in trepidation for their letters to arrive. As hon. Members can imagine, wholesale panic has set in, and old people in particular are worried sick about the situation because they do not know whether they will be able to see a doctor—if they ever can.
  Questions must be asked about how this situation arose and who is to blame for it. At the weekend I was never off the telephone. I spoke to the chairman of the family health services association, I met members of the Durham health commission and I spoke to the doctors. I have had about 30 constituents at my surgery. Anyone who listens to the arguments can draw different conclusions. The doctors of Coxhoe, the FHSA and the county Durham health commission say that there is a desperate shortage of doctors. Therefore, according to them the blame lies with the Government. They tell me that cuts that were made some years ago in the Government programme for training doctors have resulted in a desperate shortage of doctors. Also to blame are the Government changes in the funding arrangements for general practices. Those were changed in 1990 to encourage doctors to set up clinics and other services. Disastrously, not enough money was allocated to cover all the new services that were set up.
  The doctors and others have told me that the expectations of newly trained doctors "have moved with the times". That is a nice way of putting it. Doctors do not expect to be on duty at all hours of the day and night or for unbearably long periods. I am also told that they are not attracted to country practices such as those at Coxhoe, Kelloe and Cassop but are attracted to the lush suburban practices that are favoured by the latest funding arrangements of the NHS.
  Taking a different perspective, because I sit on the fence on this issue as I do not know who is to blame, is it not strange that a large, successful practice, one of the first to accept the bribes to go fundholding—those are not my words but those of one of the partners some years ago—should disintegrate within six months? I am told that some of the partners do not speak to each other and that the office manager was ignored by some of the doctors because they disliked her so much and that they communicated with her only through a third party. I am

  1585
  told that one or two of the doctors left the surgery because of her and that the atmosphere was so bad that other doctors would not work there or wanted to be away. If that is accurate, is it any wonder that the practice cannot get recruits?
  Was it the disunity and incompatibility of the doctors that broke up the practice and led to the eventual catastrophe that my constituents have had to suffer? The dreadful consequences are that patients have been dumped from the list and do not know whether they have a doctor. Internal squabbles in the practice should not have been the first issue: the first issue for any doctor or practice should be the patients that they serve.
  Out of 12,000 patients in a state-of-the-art practice fewer than half now enjoy the facilities. Some 2,000 do not know who their doctor will be and the others are seen in substandard conditions compared with what they were used to for many years. It is important that the practice remains intact: it must not be allowed to disintegrate. I urgently request the Leader of the House to take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to intervene, perhaps along with the regional health authority, because it is now clear that the FHSA and Durham health commission are not prepared to intervene. That is not a criticism because they have done their best to get doctors. Unfortunately, they have not been able to do that and now the matter must be subject to ministerial pressure and perhaps the help of the regional health authority.
  We must ensure that adequate temporary cover is found so that the practice can continue without kicking out 2,500 patients. Temporary cover should continue until new, permanent appointments can be made to the practice to enable it to continue as before.
  I ask the Leader of the House to request an investigation to see why the events that I have outlined have occurred. It is in the interests of the Government to do that because their policies are being blamed for the disaster although, as I have explained, as far as I can see there are two sides to the story. I am not making any judgment whatever, but there should be an investigation to find out exactly what happened and why this tragedy has occurred. Some 2,500 people have been disregarded by the doctors whom they trusted. Those people need help and only the Secretary of State for Health and the Government can halt this despicable situation.
  10.26 am
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to make five brief points that I hope the Government will bear in mind before we adjourn because it would be scandalous if we adjourned without looking at them. The first item, which I hope the Government and all hon. Members will consider seriously, is the simple fact that spending on agriculture is once again out of control and will continue to get worse.
  It is rather sad to hear hon. Members speaking with great feeling and passion about the needs of the education authorities for more money for schools when at the same time an appalling amount is poured down the agricultural drain. That situation is getting worse every year, although the House tries to confuse and mislead itself that things are getting better.
  I have a copy of the European Community's general budget for 1996. It contains precise, clear figures and it should be available in the House next week. It shows that
  1586
  spending on agriculture by the EC on the common agricultural policy has increased by 25 per cent. in two years. The figures show that the amount spent is £90 million a day, which is £630 million a week or £2.6 billion a month. What worries me is that we are consistently told by the Government that reforms are coming and that changes are about to occur. But everyone knows, clearly and precisely, that there is no possible way in which we could reform this filthy, evil policy which is no more than a protection racket and an invitation to fraud.
  I appeal to the Government and to the Liberal Democrats, who have always fought for people and their rights, to say what the blazes we are to do about the policy when the figures show that it is out of control. Sometimes the Government say, "Their spending has gone up and ours has come down." That is again absolute codswallop because every hon. Member who takes an interest in agriculture, as some do, knows that national spending is higher since we joined the EC and that it continues to rise. The situation is getting considerably worse.
  Every hon. Member who pleads with the Government to spend money on hospitals, schools, doctors or anything else should realise that we are pouring enormous amounts of money down an open drain, that the drain is becoming larger every year and that there is absolutely no possibility of the policy being reformed. That cannot happen as a result of people sitting around a table and at some stage we will have to face it.
  Secondly, I appeal to the Government to stop what I regard as a conspiracy of silence on European Union information. Over the past 48 hours I tabled two questions, one of which asked for information on the amount that we had spent on agriculture over the past 10 years. That seemed a simple question.
  I asked another question about the amount that we have paid in net to the European Union in the past 10 years. The Government have rightly said that Members should not be allowed to table questions about information that is freely available in the House of Commons Library. The sad fact is that to get that information I would have to ask the Librarian to look up 10 separate documents. What was meant to be a protection against abuse has now simply become a means by which factual information about the European Union that the Government do not want to be revealed no longer appears in official publications of the House of Commons.
  Why on earth should we not tell people what money we have contributed to the EU in the past 10 years? Why should we not tell them about our expenditure on the CAP?
  The third issue to which we must face up is border controls. Once again, I believe that the House is deliberately seeking to evade the straight facts. Some hon. Members may say that I am rather obsessed about border controls, but I appeal to them to reread the announcement about our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. Then, every single Member said that that was wonderful news, which would bring stability and create jobs. If anyone had studied the announcement with common sense they would have realised that it was complete economic nonsense.
  On border controls we are simply jumping up and down and saying that we will veto any EU measures. We have said that we will make absolutely sure that we retain our border controls. The plain fact is we simply cannot do that. As we know, our border controls are fading away

  1587
  almost every month. Whereas we used to require people to show their passports at the border, because of the problems of legislation, we agreed that we would operate only what is called the Bangemann wave, whereby people wave their passport at the control. We then agreed that we would let people in with identity cards. The unions who control our borders have said that more than 50 per cent. of all illegal immigrants come from the EU.
  What about our remaining border controls? The Government are well aware, as is every Member, provided he or she faces up to it, that our only border protection is the declaration attached to the Single European Act. If that has any validity, can the Government tell me why Commissioner Monti published three directives which will effectively remove all British border controls? He could not have done that if the treaty law was clear. There is only one thing we can do: simply ask that the declaration attached to the Single European Act is transferred into a treaty clause at the intergovernmental conference next year.
  If we want to keep our border controls we must make it clear that nothing can be discussed until the issue has been clarified. The Government tell us that those wise, delightful and sensible people all signed the declaration and that we must take their word for it. Their word does not count for anything before the European court. The Government are well aware that proceedings have been initiated by the European Parliament against the European Commission, which issued those directives. Although the Government say that they will stand firm and throw those directives out, individual legal actions will involve the payment of massive damages. It will not be possible to keep people out of the United Kingdom unless we have the courage to say we will try to enshrine our border protection in treaty law.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend suggests that there should be a treaty change to make our control over our borders absolutely total and uncontroversial. If there is a treaty change, that treaty must then be ratified by every country in the European Union. Is my hon. Friend optimistic that such a treaty would be ratified?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: No, I am certainly not, and that is the problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the other member states will not want to ratify it. All we are asking is that something at the back of a treaty should be put at the front of it. We are not advocating any change in wording, but just to transfer those words from one place to another.
  Other member states such as Belgium and Holland will not support such a change. At next year's IGC the Government should ensure that there is no discussion on anything until the issue has been resolved. Hon. Members may say that that is not a helpful way to solve things. They may ask why we cannot sit round a table to discuss it. We hear that request every five years or so, when we are told that we should adopt a positive approach. Quite frankly, unless we demand that change, border controls will be kaput, as we will find out when the matter is discussed before the European Court. We must wake up to that fact.
  What on earth are we going to do about fixed exchange rates? Hon. Members will be well aware that we had a bad experience with the ERM. Under the Maastricht
  1588
  treaty, the next time we go into the ERM, there is no way out of it. That decision is irreversible and unchangeable. Even if that led to massive unemployment and the borrowing of lots of money, we would have to stay on in the ERM. I have been trying, deliberately and precisely, in every way I can to get an assurance from the Government that before we opt again for fixed exchange rates, that decision will be subject to a decision in the House of Commons. I even asked the Prime Minister yesterday
  "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;"
  He referred me to a delightful answer given by the Department of Trade and Industry, which simply said that we might have a referendum on a single currency.
  The Leader of the House is a straight guy and he knows what the score is. Basically it does not matter two hoots about a decision on a single currency in comparison with fixed exchange rates. Once we are in such a mechanism all we will have is the equivalent of a Scottish pound note. Before we break for the recess, surely we should decide that before we go back into the ERM, the House of Commons will be asked to decide on that. If we cannot have that assurance, what the blazes is the point of having a democratic Parliament?
  Mr. Marlow: Has my hon. Friend forgotten that the Prime Minister has made a commitment not to join the ERM under any circumstances before the next election?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of that statement. My hon. Friend should recall a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave us similar assurances. He joined the ERM unofficially, which one can do. What is wrong about having a clear statement from the Government—I should be grateful for a similar statement from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—that before any such move is made, the House will vote on it? The ERM is not fun. Our entry last time created half a million extra unemployed. Decent, honourable people of our country were made unemployed because idiots approved of the ERM.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I should just like to put on the record that some of us on the Conservative Benches have no dispute with the principle of entry into the ERM. It is possible that we joined at the wrong level. We were certainly at the wrong level by 1992, when our membership of it so was mismanaged by the then Chancellor, who has since become a hero to my hon. Friend's wing of the party.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not think we can solve the problem by attacking Ministers. It is most unfortunate that when some of us try to deal with a real issue, some of my colleagues simply tried to indulge in party disputes and assault Ministers. We should stop that silly political nonsense of saying, "He's a baddie and she's a baddie." We should look at the issue. My hon. Friend must know that half a million decent people in Britain were put out of work because of the appalling ERM. I am sad to say that the majority of the House voted for our entry into it, although I voted against. All I am saying to the Government is, "Don't do it again without asking us."
  I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that we simply must have a chat about the problems of transport to grammar schools. The Government are aware that those

  1589
  schools are controversial—some people think that they are a good idea, others think that they are bad. My right hon. Friend is also aware that some of those schools operate a 6 per cent. entrance policy, which basically makes them minority schools for up-market people. In some places, such as Southend, however, 25 per cent. of our kids go to them.
  I am sad to say that Essex county council has today abolished free transport for children who go to grammar schools. Some of the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors are decent people. The leader of Essex county council, who is a Liberal Democrat, is one of the nicest people I have ever met. The council has been misled on the basis of a couple of cases where children travel miles and miles and cost the council a fortune. The council has asked why it should pay for them.
  I live in Southend-on-Sea and my kids have all gone to the council schools and done very well. There is no problem where I live, because pupils can walk to the grammar school, as my daughter does. One part of Southend, Shoeburyness, is miles away from the grammar schools. The council's declared policy will simply mean that children from one part of Southend will have to pay for their transport to school. That will be expensive and those children may be deprived of the opportunity to attend a grammar school, unlike children in other areas of Southend. That seems completely wrong. I hope that the Government will take the view that where there are grammar schools—where the local people decide that they want them—every child should have an equal opportunity to attend them. It is not right that some people, like me and my kids, can walk to the grammar schools, while others are prevented from attending them simply because they live too far away and are too poor to afford the necessary transport.
  We should think about poor people. I say to the Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the Essex county council, "Please think about the poor families in our area who are being deprived of a great opportunity. Please remember your duty to them."
  10.40 am
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I want to spend a few minutes suggesting some thoughts, reflections and priorities that should occupy some of the time of our new Secretary of State for Wales during the recess. No one should underestimate the strength of feeling that has been expressed to me, not about the personality of the new Secretary of State, but about the way that he was appointed. People are fed up of being pawns in some internal Conservative party game. It is the most important political appointment made in Wales, but we do not believe that the Prime Minister sat down and asked himself who would be the best person for the job and, indeed, what jobs he would want him to do in Wales. We do not believe that those factors played any part in the appointment of the new Secretary of State.
  Having said that, I must tell the Leader of the House that we have worked with successive Conservative Secretaries of State and, in some respects, harmoniously. I even worked with the previous Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—and although we were ideologically poles apart, we still managed to get on with the business of working together to foster the common good of the communities that I represent.
  1590
  I hope that the new Secretary of State will come to Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—his predecessor did so on more than one occasion—where he will find a curious, enigmatic mixture of our experiences under successive Conservative Secretaries of State. He will see a great deal of development, such as important infrastructure changes and the development of the A470. He will hear our hopes for making the A465 a dual carriageway. He will also see one of the most important and expansive land reclamation schemes in Europe to remove the backlog of 150 years of industrial dereliction.
  The right hon. Gentleman will find a vigorous partnership between local authorities, his Department and other agencies trying their best to remove the locational obstacles to development, which have been such a problem to and a burden on communities such as mine. He will find many good things happening in my constituency—I have always acknowledged that—as a result of the working partnership between the Welsh Office, the local authority and other agencies. He will find a local authority which, because of the persuasive character of myself and other hon. Members, is to enjoy the restoration of Merthyr's proud county borough status. We managed to persuade the previous Secretary of State to be a listening Secretary of State in that important respect.
  Unfortunately, below the appearance and even the actuality of the developments in my community, serious issues are causing problems and they desperately need to be addressed. Quite frankly, the appearance of development conceals the cumulative growing social and economic problems faced by families and by the community as a whole. Far, far too many people are without jobs; far, far too many people—men in particular—are economically inactive. One estimate based on the 1991 census suggests that up to 40 per cent. of men of working age in my constituency are economically inactive. That is not healthy, it is not right and it cannot be ignored.
  Despite all the modest improvements in local employment, there is still a massive problem. We have to live with the fact that far too many people are out of work. I was in the House in 1972—I am not sure whether the Leader of the House was—when a Conservative Government rightly panicked because the unemployment total had hit 1 million. They had to introduce an emergency budget because there were 1 million people out of work. Now, we have to live with the fact that more than 3 million people are out of work.
  My constituency has an especially high unemployment rate, so the first problem that the new Secretary of State will have to deal with is the sense of resignation, even fatalism, now felt not only by young people but by the middle aged, who believe that they will never get a quality job again. The Secretary of State should talk to people in employment in Wales because I am afraid that there is no feel good factor among them. Many of them feel that they are working harder for less money. Low pay in the community is as demoralising as no pay at all. It is a serious issue.
  I was fascinated and, indeed, impressed by a lecture given by the right hon. Gentleman's previous boss, the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said:
  "This widening of earning differentials between the skilled and unskilled does not just affect unemployment. It lies behind, or is intertwined with, many of our social problems. It may play a major

  1591
  part in the break up of families, the growth of lone parenthood, and a growing welfare dependency. It may even play a part in explaining delinquency and crime."
  There are certainly wide earning differentials in my community.
  The Government have said that they want to roll back the state and remove its power from people's lives. I am sad to tell the new Secretary of State that during my political lifetime the state has never been more intrusive than it is now in the lives of people in my constituency. It is one of the saddest and most ironic consequences of economic developments during the past 15 to 20 years. People are now more dependent on the state. The state is more intrusive in their lives because they are dependent upon it for benefit because of redundancy and unemployment. We do not want that. The image that we actually like such dependency is nonsense. Indeed, the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in his previous job to introduce a new incapacity test and remove people from invalidity benefit will have a dramatic effect on purchasing power in my community. He will be able to see the effects of those changes on the people in Wales.
  What should be the new Secretary of State's priority? He must try to break through the resignation and fatalism felt by so many about the chances of getting a decent job. I am glad to say that he succeeds to a Welsh Office that has never really bought Thatcherism. It has done its own thing under successive Secretaries of State. It has the capacity and power to manipulate skilfully. It can use its powers to work with other agencies to create jobs and attract inward investment.
  Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's first priority must be to put the Welsh Development Agency back on track. The Leader of the House will be aware that it has suffered a sad, distracting and debilitating series of problems, which in my opinion arose partly because the agency had taken its eye off the central need, which is to create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. Recent figures show that inward investment has fallen. We do not know whether that is directly associated with the WDA's performance, but it certainly cannot have been any help.
  When people say to me, "Where will the jobs come from? Jobs can't be created any more", I say to them that they are already in south Wales. All along the M4 corridor, from Sony to National Panasonic, are large and major assembly plants. Components pour into those plants; a series of manufacturing services are required to maintain them. It must be a major new priority to change the source of an increasing proportion of that component work and manufacturing services and channel that into neighbouring communities, such as mine, which are adjacent to the great assembly plants that have been attracted by inward investment. In other words, the jobs are already there; we need simply to ensure that a higher proportion of component and manufacturing needs are served by local companies in south Wales. That should be the Secretary of State's priority.
  I have argued with successive Secretaries of State that we should have not only a "Source Wales" but a "Source Valleys" campaign. We need more than words and glossy brochures; we need the Government to use their powers to attract and develop component making and manufacturing services for our great assembly plants. Although there
  1592
  have been many good efforts, the results are rather poor. The new Secretary of State should set himself and us targets for the future development of jobs of that kind which will break through the fatalism and sense of resignation still felt by so many communities.
  10.49 am
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me to speak on what I believe to be an important subject, one that the House should debate before the summer recess. I am referring to the imminent sale of 51 per cent. of the shares in Birmingham airport to Lockheed, the American company. During questions on the business statement last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate or statement on this topic. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to raise the matter before the recess.
  The airport is currently in public ownership and owned jointly by the metropolitan boroughs in the west midlands. My interest is that of a Member of Parliament for one of those boroughs. You, Madam Speaker, also have a constituency interest in the future of the airport. Dudley is one of the boroughs involved, and it is interesting to note that the Labour leader of the council in Dudley is also the chairman of the company that currently owns the airport. One of my constituents also wishes to be given the opportunity to purchase the airport. He is Roy Richardson, a large business man in the black country.
  Following my request last Thursday, I was rather surprised that the chairman of the airport company, Councillor Hunt, should tell me not to interfere in the future of the airport but to look after my constituents. That is exactly what I am doing and what I intend to continue to do. It seems that the Labour council leaders involved enjoy their ownership of it and treat it as a toy that they, like children, refuse to give up.
  I raise this issue at a time when it is accepted that the airport's future financing depends on its being able to attract private sector investment. That has been clearly stated and accepted by the councils involved. The former Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Caithness, advised local Labour councillors how to go about raising more money for future development and told them the Government's view some time ago.
  My first question is why are we selling only 51 per cent. of the shares? Surely it would be for the benefit of the councils and the taxpayers to sell 100 per cent. of the holding currently in the public sector. Many airports are currently run efficiently and successfully in the private sector. They do not need worthy councillors interfering with commercial decisions; they decide on commercial grounds how to run those airports and do so with great success. Whether the sale is of 51 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the holding, it is essential that it is completely above board and not decided over sandwiches in a smoke-filled room. For the benefit of the public purse, the councillors should get the very best price for the assets that they hold.
  I wrote to the Department of Transport asking what the Government's view was. On 11 May, I received a reply from Viscount Goschen who was by then the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. I was advised:
  "It is up to the local authority owners to decide how privatisation should take place, though they will of course be mindful of the need to satisfy their auditors that they have obtained the best price."

  1593
  It is important that the best price is obtained for the public good. I question whether speaking to only two foreign companies, which are presumably offering the councillors an agreement as to how the 49 per cent. holding will be handled, will necessarily obtain the best price.
  In the west midlands, there are three potential purchasers, all with local interests—National Express, West Midland Travel and the Richardson brothers. They have not been given the opportunity to be considered or told exactly for what they should be tendering. I do not wish to make political points although Opposition Members suspect that I may be doing so. However, I shall quote briefly from a newspaper article written, not by a Conservative, but by Graham Findlay in The Birmingham Post on 14 April. The article is headed "Politics leaves bids grounded", and a secondary heading reads,
  "Graham Findlay blames 'old Labour' for the row over Birmingham Airport's sell-off'.
  The article states:
  "There is a sinister political sub-text to the reasons given in public for refusing to consider three Midland bidders for Birmingham International Airport.
  The three who are being left out in the cold are National Express, West Midlands Travel and the property developers the Richardson twins…
  Officially, the councils say they want the 'internationally-recognised and relevant strategic skills' which the Irish and American buyers could provide …
  But behind the plausible reasons for wanting foreign partners at the airport lies what appears to be blatant political prejudice on the part of the seven councils.
  At the end of last year West Midlands Travel and BZW, advisers to the councils, were involved in some preliminary talks over the deal.
  But then it became apparent that the sale of WMT to National Express would make WMT's managers a great deal of money …
  And it is said that once news of the payments became known, several Labour councillors insisted they would have nothing more to do with WMT or National Express as potential partners at the airport …
  Meanwhile, Don and Roy Richardson have also fallen foul of the Labour cabal."
  These are not my words but those of Graham Findlay in The Birmingham Post. The article continues:
  "The Richardsons have had faith in the West Midlands through lean years as well as fat, investing in new projects during the recessions of the early 1980s and the early 1990s.
  Yet they are not wanted at the airport. As Mr. Roy Richardson says: 'They are happy for us to do the dirty jobs but when the juicy ones come up, we are left out.'
  Once again, we see the local Town Halls' avoidance of successful examples of successful local capitalists.
  But for many Labour councillors, the Richardsons face another prejudice. They have been known in the past to lend their support to the Conservative Party.
  That alone would almost certainly prove too much for some Labour councillors to stomach."
  We now know why they are excluded from being considered for future ownership of the airport. The other two potential purchasers are in no way political, but the whole issue needs to be tackled before the recess. It is especially urgent that the matter be discussed now because the local councillors who currently own the airport are likely before the end of the month to accept a bid from Lockheed to become their partner with a 51 per cent. holding.
  1594
  I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what can be done, first, to stop the political fiddling; secondly, to ensure that everyone—especially those actively involved in industry in the west midlands—has a fair opportunity to bid for the airport; and thirdly—this is important for all our constituents—to ensure that we obtain the best price for the sale of this public asset.
  10.58 am
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I take the Leader of the House away from the tribulations of Birmingham airport to the more tranquil setting of the River Tweed in Roxburghshire? Before I do so, I must say that Scottish Members owe him a great debt for enabling the House to go into recess relatively early this year. Scottish Members who might have had difficulties greatly appreciate the additional scope that we now have for taking family holidays before school begins again in August.
  Before we adjourn for the long summer recess, I ask the House to consider the system of allocation of capital borrowing consents which are to be used by the new Scottish unitary authorities after 1 April next year. As the House will know, in April 1996, the number of Scottish authorities—currently nine regional councils plus three islands authorities—will be increased to 32 unitary councils consisting of 29 unitary land-based authorises and three islands councils. One does not have to be an accountant to recognise that, by virtue of that fact, a larger number of authorities with smaller capital budgets will lead to potential difficulties in paying for unusually large capital projects.
  It is a matter of concern across parties that a new system for allocating those important capital borrowing consents has not yet been finalised. A rumour is going around that there will be a system of allocating 75 per cent. of the budgets to the local councils with a residual 25 per cent. being top-sliced and kept in a central pool for allocation on a national basis to larger capital projects.
  Whether or not that is true, the planning processes of a number of larger capital projects are being stymied because of the uncertainty. If the matter is not soon resolved by proper consultation with the local authorities concerned, that inevitable confusion and uncertainty will serve to delay further the start of the larger Scottish capital projects involved. Certainly, to go through the long summer recess without that matter being resolved will cause great concern.
  To illustrate the point, I shall cite the case of my own roads authority—the Borders regional council—which has had a project ready and awaiting capital borrowing consent for more than two years. The local authority in the Borders region sees an urgent need to build a new road bridge across the River Tweed down river of the Rennie-designed road bridge which joins the two halves of the town of Kelso. The Rennie bridge is a grade A listed building. It was built many years ago, it is an exceptional piece of architecture and any sensible system should preserve it on an architectural and heritage basis for the benefit of future generations. It was certainly never designed to cope with the volume of traffic or, indeed, the size of vehicles today, 12,000 of which cross it daily.
  The road platform on the bridge is extremely narrow—it is not up to modern standards—and it is far too narrow for safe pedestrian use. Indeed, a recent tragedy occurred

  1595
  when a fire engine travelling across the bridge went through the parapet wall and fell the long drop into the River Tweed killing one of the fire crew which was responding to an emergency call. That underlines the danger of the Rennie bridge being the only one available to the population and the local community.
  The intolerable traffic congestion which is building up because of the bottle-neck Caused by the bridge is inconvenient to the point of interfering with the normal economic life of the town. The local roads authority has paid careful attention to that factor in identifying the need for a replacement bridge. In addition, the fabric of the environment of the centre of Kelso is being knocked to bits by the through traffic, which is forced—because there is no other route—to go through the town centre to cross the Tweed over the Rennie bridge. If anything happens to cause the bridge to close, as was the case with the fire engine tragedy, the diversions required to get to other bridges which cross the Tweed are totally unacceptable, involving detours of some 20 miles in total. A new road bridge would provide relief on all those fronts and is now long overdue.
  Public initiatives have been sponsored by the people of Kelso to make their anger and frustration known to Ministers. They included a massive petition which I presented to Ministers and a delegation which I led to see the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for roads. However, the people of Kelso now feel dismay bordering on outrage because Scottish Office Ministers refused to sanction the necessary consents for the project for the second year running in April this year.
  The Borders regional roads authority has an annual capital allocation of just over £4 million. The Kelso road bridge replacement will cost around £8 million. One does not have to be an accountant to appreciate how difficult it is to pay for an £8 million project out of a £4 million annual budget. The galling thing is that almost £1 million of capital expenditure had been committed by the Borders regional roads authority to financing public inquiries, initial survey and design work and acquiring the land to enable the new bridge to be built. That money is tied up, serving no useful purpose and it will have no effect until central Government consent is forthcoming to start building the new Kelso bridge.
  In addition, and compounding local anger, Scottish Office Ministers have been unfairly leading on the local authority by appearing to agree the consents necessary for the new bridge in principle when the project appeared in the on-going transport forward planning documents required by statute to be lodged by the local authority. The documents have been submitted and approved by Ministers without demur or comment. The implication is that if the plans are in the three-year rolling programme, they will be given capital consent approval when their time comes. Yet now, although the bridge is ready to be built, Ministers are actively withholding the additional £2 million borrowings needed by the local authority in each of two consecutive years to allow the new road bridge to be built.
  I give due notice to the Government and Scottish Office Ministers in particular that the people of Kelso will persist in raising this issue on a regular and frequent basis until the Scottish Office recognises the urgency of the need for a new bridge at Kelso. In the meantime, I urge the Leader
  1596
  of the House to draw the matter to the attention of the new Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State has a new ministerial team and the chance to look afresh at the merits of this case. I make. two pleas. First, urgent steps should be taken to agree a new system of allocating borrowing consents for all the new councils in Scotland after next April, because it is delaying important planning of unusually big projects.
  Secondly, and particularly, urgent reconsideration should be given to the approval of borrowing consent for the building of a new road bridge for Kelso. I would be much obliged if the Leader of the House could take whatever opportunity he has to raise those matters urgently with his colleagues in the Scottish Office.
  11.7 am
  Mr. David Martin: As we enter the long recess, I want to air a few matters on my mind before summer atrophy sets in to political and parliamentary life. The first matter is Bosnia. It is right to hold an emergency debate this evening on that subject. I asked to speak in this debate before I knew that there would be an emergency debate. So, since a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and having been called, I shall speak on Bosnia in this debate as I cannot guarantee being called in the later debate. I hope that the emergency debate might even prevent us from being recalled during the recess to react to yet another dangerous escalation of activity in that region.
  Whatever happens, however palpable the failure of the central purpose of the United Nations and NATO mission, there seems to be no sticking point at which Her Majesty's Government say, "That is enough, we must change direction." Lately, we appear to be driven by French taunts of appeasement. They are taken more seriously by us because of our relations in the European Union and our efforts at foreign and defence policy co-ordination. Those efforts will be soured if we give the French a dose of realpolitik rather than indulge their spirit of moral crusade, which is frankly indistinguishable from the ravings of Gladstone over a century ago, and as damaging to British interests.
  The comparison by President Chirac concerning appeasement in the 1930s is a ludicrous historical analysis. The threat of Hitler's Germany was wholly different, not least in directly and vitally affecting the peace and security of this country as well as of France.
  Facing the challenge confronting us in the former Yugoslavia, we desperately need a clear and accurate historical perspective. Every now and again during the past century and a half, the eastern question, which is centred on what to do about power struggles and atrocities in the Balkans and the pot-boiling interventions of interested nations, stirs demands for some definite action. Most people are relieved that they are not asked to understand, let alone to unravel, the intricacies of a geographical and historical tangle that is more complex than the Gordian knot. On occasions—now is one of them—matters become deadly serious for our country.
  We are ordering our service men to risk their lives for the present policy of supporting a United Nations operation, ostensibly with the laudable peacekeeping humanitarian objective of saving lives and bloodshed, but increasingly risking the waging of war in furtherance of

  1597
  those aims. The truth is that there is no peace to keep in the war zones of Bosnia and no agreement between the warring factions that is likely to bring it about.
  The British interest and the limits of British power need to be clearly understood and defined. It would be madness for us to attempt, whatever the shadow Foreign Secretary urges us to do, with the French and whoever else joins us, to pick sides and to impose peace. There is no overwhelming public support for fighting such a war. The United States has no intention of committing ground troops to Bosnia for anything but aiding a general withdrawal of United Nations troops once it has seen beyond question that the peacekeeping mission has run its course. Withdrawal, even with full air support, is no easy task and will undoubtedly involve the abandonment of military equipment. It will also mean lifting the arms embargo.
  Withdrawal and lifting the arms embargo would have the catastrophic consequences to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred yesterday. But our objectives must be limited to our power to carry them out and that applies to the whole United Nations and NATO effort. There is no ignominy in withdrawing when we have decided that our humanitarian efforts are no longer sufficiently succeeding. Every moment longer we remain, we shall be held responsible by both sides for what happens. We shall be associated with the bloodshed and we shall face impossible demands from both sides to act or to cease from acting.
  At present, we have a classic example. The Bosnians say that they will use United Nations personnel as human shields unless NATO air strikes are called against the Serbs. The Serbs say that they will kill United Nations personnel if air strikes are used. It reminds me of the dilemma faced by Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Prejudice" over the marriage proposal from Mr. Collins. She was told by her father:
  "From this day forward you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins and I will never see you again if you do."
  Our policy on Bosnia should now be to recognise that direct negotiations between the warring parties will not happen in the foreseeable future. The United States will not get involved with ground troops and without United States involvement in a world crisis of this kind, we certainly cannot make substantial headway. We should direct our diplomatic and military efforts, with the United Nations, to contain the fighting and to prevent it from spreading into peaceful parts of the former Yugoslavia or over the borders into other countries. That has been our traditional historical role in the Balkans and to that role we should return as soon as possible.
  I turn briefly to more domestic politics and I shall look well beyond recent troubles and the unnecessary bloodletting of the recent leadership election. The Government now require a coherent strategy based on clear policy and decisive, competent action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must capitalise—a good Conservative word which I hope is back in fashion—on his victory in the recent leadership election by delivering decisive and competent action. Our constituents must be able to recognise it.
  In recent days, the words of Southey about the battle of Blenheim have been running through my mind and I want to share them with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  1598
  He wrote:
  "Everybody praised the Duke
  Who this great fight did win.
  'But what good came of it at last?
  Quoth little Peterkin.
  'Why that I cannot say' said he
  'But 'twas a famous victory.'"
  Good must indeed be seen to come at last to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to the fortunes of this Government, and the electorate must be able to identify with it and to feel it.
  We have a reshuffled Government in place, the most noteworthy creation being the new post of First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister, with a flexible job description to give ample scope to the energies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In speculating on the likely success of such a creation, it is interesting to note the words of Rab Butler in his excellent autobiography, "The Art of the Possible". In referring to the relaunch of the Conservative Government after the night of the long knives in July 1962, he wrote:
  "I was named First Secretary of State and invited to act as Deputy Prime Minister, a title which can constitutionally imply no right to the succession and should (I would advise with the benefit of hindsight) be neither conferred nor accepted."
  We must wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley—and ourselves—every good fortune with that job. My right hon. Friend certainly has work to do in it.
  I do not detect in my constituency any hunger for a Labour Government. Frankly, that is so whatever the notoriously unreliable and ephemeral opinion polls and local election reversals might suggest. It is not difficult to identify the policies on which our political recovery will be based. They are not complicated, they are traditional Conservative ones and they have been aired most notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in recent weeks. Those policies include lower taxation, support for the prudent pensioner, especially those, mainly women, now in their 70s and 80s, support for small businesses through tax and rate changes, a reduction in public expenditure and the bureaucracy that underpins it, strong defence and the maintenance of our traditions.
  We should not, for instance, be proposing to cease Royal Navy mast manning and field gun exercises which continue to have real relevance to training, fitness and morale, and which cost peanuts compared with the expenditure on desk jobs in the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments, which inspire no one in Portsmouth or anywhere else with a sense of the glory of our military traditions. What Conservative Minister with any pretensions to a soul could consider signing such a demolition order and consigning such useful traditions to untimely collapse? Instinct alone should stay his hand. We must stop doing such things if we are to regain the respect and trust of the electorate.
  The same goes for agreeing to shut or amalgamate successful and popular small schools or hospitals. To those who believe that it is impossible to cut public expenditure by significant amounts, I refer the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) in last Tuesday's economic debate. If I had time, I could add to it and I will certainly do so in due course. I refer those who scoff and who say that it is impossible to cut taxation—certainly not to the extent of £5 billion—to the statements by my right hon. Friend the

  1599
  Prime Minister and by Government sources to the press about the abolition of inheritance and capital gains tax and the possible introduction of transferable tax allowances. Those changes together amount to well in excess of a mere £5 billion.
  Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend not encouraged by the fact that the Prime Minister is already making headway in his commitment to do away with capital gains tax with regard to share options? Tax on those has now been transferred to income tax.
  Mr. Martin: I am very encouraged by what the Prime Minister is saying at present about taxes and I hope very much to see action resulting from it in addition to that to which my hon. Friend refers. Of course we can and we should cut taxes and of course it takes the will to do so. The Government must demonstrate that will and restore their credibility with the electorate with low taxation, which is a crucial difference between us and the high-spending, high-taxing Labour party.
  I repeat that there is no appetite for Labour, new or old, or for what passes as its policies. Nor is there appetite for the Liberal Democrats, the ultimate beneficiaries of disillusion, protest and abstention. The vacuum is on the Opposition Benches. We do not need further lengthy consultation exercises on every policy under the sun. I hear that the latest is contained in a 10-page document sent by central office to my constituency, with no copy to me. I merely represent my constituents in this place and could certainly let the Government know, to the best of my ability, of some of the ideas that would represent my constituents.
  The new Government, even fresher than new Labour, have the initiative at present and right up to the general election. They must keep that initiative. We must all use the time left in this Parliament to secure the best for our constituents and the best for our nation.
  11.19 am
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I will not be tempted to follow the route taken by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). I do not wish to intervene on the internal grief of the Conservative party. That grief has been displayed openly in recent weeks, and it is not worthy of any further discussion on this occasion.
  I wish to take the opportunity briefly to talk about certain events in my constituency and to raise a more general issue that relates not just to inner cities, but to our political system as a whole. Last week in the Hyde park area of Leeds, there were two nights of what the media referred to as rioting. The Hyde park area is partly in my constituency, and partly in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
  The problems in the area are typical of those of an inner city; high unemployment—particularly among young people—housing stress, changes in the traditional family and family breakdown. The problems are more acutely felt in a city such as Leeds which has done extremely well economically in recent years. There is a real social and political problem when pockets of deprivation lie alongside noticeable pockets of affluence, as people feel that they are missing out on what they consider to be their rightful stake in society.
  1600
  There is a problem in the way in which our political system discusses inner-city issues. There is a great danger in the House that although we talk about the problems and exchange statistics, we are simply failing to relate to the key players. For many of my constituents—this may be a result of my own failures—the political debate is totally alien to the immediate day-to-day problems that they face. If we in this House do not get a grip on those problems, there is a real danger that we will allow an underclass to fall outside our political system. Those people will not be represented, and may become extremely dangerous to our long-term political stability.
  Let me give one fact about last week's events that struck me as one of the most frightening statistics that I have come across for some time. When I talked to the various agencies directly involved in the events—the police, the local authorities and others—it was suggested to me that, on the first night, somewhere between 100 and 150 young people were involved in the activities on the street. They were not organised, nor were they bussed in from other cities. It happened spontaneously, and they were in direct and open conflict with the police. They threw stones and razed a pub to the ground. Cars were burned and other activities took place in which some 100 to 150 young people were directly involved.
  Hyde park is an area where there has been a good working relationship between the police, the voluntary agencies, the local authority and the local community. If one wants to look for an inner-city area which has achieved many of the things talked about in the House and elsewhere, Hyde park is one. Yet we still have a large number of wholly disaffected young people.
  I do not believe that we can simply attribute to those young people some innate evil that makes them behave in that way. I suspect that a relatively small number of those 100 to 150 young people are involved in organised or regular crime. But we cannot simply say that the majority of those young people are evil or naturally criminal, and that they must be written off.
  We have a problem, because it is too easy just to write this off as a law and order issue. It is a much more difficult problem than that. I fear that in my constituency—I suspect this can be replicated up and down the country—we have a generation of young people who are lost to and lost in our society. Unless we relate to those young people, we will have deep and long-running sores in our society.
  What can we do? First, we as politicians must recognise that there is no magic formula or panacea. While there is no answer that we can give from on high, there are things that we can do. It might sound economically deterministic, but I think that jobs are crucial. If we do not provide jobs for young people, they will have no hope or no expectation of a stake in society. We must think radically about how we provide jobs.
  There is a worrying culture developing in our inner cities in which work no longer has a central part. In many parts of my constituency, people simply do not have a disciplined structure to their lives because they have no role in the labour market. Jobs are crucial. I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or other Members have been following an excellent series of articles on the subject in The Guardian. What came through from one of those articles was a sense that our young people—

  1601
  including those in our school system and primary schools—are saying that they have no hope, no ambition and no expectations.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has touched on a most profound point for this country and for the House. There is no expectation among our young people not only for themselves, but for their friends and for the future of their families and our society. Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary duty for all parties in this House and those outside is to try to get an economic policy—wherever it may come from—which centres on the need to distribute employment in society so that the sense of expectation can be revived and maintained?
  Mr. Fatchett: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall digress briefly by relating some personal and anecdotal evidence of some problems in the inner cities. I visited one of the secondary schools in my constituency a few years ago. I may have been full of the middle-class work ethic, a sense of achievement and a belief in our educational system. I remember saying to one streetwise 13-year-old that I hoped that he was working hard and doing all that was necessary to get good GCSE results to enable him to go on from there. He looked at me as if I came from a totally different world and said, "If I work hard, I finish up on a scheme. If I do not work hard, I finish up on a scheme." He had worked out that equation, and decided that he might as well enjoy himself at that stage because—whatever happened to him—he would finish up on a training scheme. My fear is that, in a few years, he might not even have the ambition to finish up on a training scheme.
  We must seriously relate to these issues across the political parties. Jobs are important, but a change in our style as politicians is also needed. We must listen more. All of the institutions and agencies operate from the top down and are too top-heavy in terms of solutions. The ideas move from us to them, whereas we should be allowing them to come up with their own solutions. I recognise that if we allow young people much greater control of their own lives, we take risks. But if we do not allow young people that responsibility, there is a real danger that they will simply fall outside our structures.
  Following the events in Hyde park, people said to me that what was needed was a new youth club in the area. That suggestion was made with all the best intentions in the world, but those who made it have failed to understand where we are. We must find flexible, informal and creative ways of relating to young people. It is not just about jobs. We must also tap into their culture and give young people a sense of hope.
  I should also like to raise the issue of drugs, a subject that is difficult for us as politicians to deal with. Hon. Members who represent inner cities—the problem may be more broadly spread now—will share my concern and fear about the explosion of criminal activity and violence surrounding the developing drug culture. It is difficult for my generation to understand and relate to the drugs problem; it is easy enough to be frightened by it, and to feel that it is alien.
  Time after time, experienced, level-headed and sensible senior police officers in the Leeds and west Yorkshire area have told me that some 80 per cent. of crime in the area is drug-related. There is the problem of trafficking, which can be serious; much more relevant to us as citizens, however, is the fact that a large amount of crime
  1602
  is committed to pay for the addiction that exists in the inner cities. I could take hon. Members to any part of my constituency tonight, and they could see young people using drugs. It is frightening.
  How should we respond to the problem? It is difficult for us, as politicians, to produce a response. We are in danger of scoring cheap political points at a time when important issues surround young people. If we do not respond, however, the criminal spin-off from drugs will change not just the lives of the individuals directly concerned, but all our lives. Any hon. Member representing an inner-city constituency will have tales of crimes committed against innocent constituents simply because people have been under the influence of drugs, or need money to pay for them.
  I can offer no easy solutions, although I have no hesitation in saying that the hard core of drug traffickers should be locked up for a long time, and I am sure that all hon. Members agree. The majority of decent young people, however, pose a different problem: for them the gratification side of the drugs equation is known and experienced, but the risks are ignored or unknown. We must talk to those decent, ordinary youngsters who have been pulled into the drugs net.
  This may be partly based on hope, but I think that we could do more. We could listen more to young people; we could condemn less, and devote more time and effort to conveying the message that drugs pose too great a risk for people to become involved with them. Let me issue a plea to the Leader of the House: we need to adopt creative, radical methods to put that message across. If we do not tackle the problem, much of what we know as life in the inner city today—with all its problems and brutality—will continue to deteriorate. I am sure that the Leader of the House is sympathetic; I hope that the Government, with the support of all political parties, will provide more education about drugs and so promote greater awareness.
  We need more resources to provide drugs education, jobs and housing. That plea is heard in many debates on the inner city; let me add that we, as politicians, should relate more to the problems of the percentage of society who are increasingly disaffected and falling through the net. We must understand the depth of the change that has taken place in our inner cities. We cannot afford not to allow our fellow citizens to be part of our political debate, and to gain from it.
  If we do not relate to the problem, there will be political, economic and moral costs for us all. There will be economic costs because we are wasting the talents and resources of many of our fellow citizens, especially members of the next generation. There will be political costs because, if we do not relate to the problem as politicians, our system will be weakened and grounds will be provided for extremism of all kinds, which will be very damaging in the long term. Finally, as an affluent society we cannot morally justify the fact that a percentage of our fellow citizens have no right to a stake in that affluence. All hon. Members enjoy that affluence, and I feel that we have a moral responsibility—whatever we say in politics—to try to ensure that our fellow citizens enjoy the same affluence and personal well-being.
  11.34 am
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am sure that my constituents would not want the House to adjourn without

  1603
  my having the opportunity to raise an issue that I have raised numerous times over the years: the state of the water industry in the west country.
  The facts are reasonably well known by now. We in the west country are responsible for cleaning up about a third of the beaches that were found to be deficient under a European directive. Local resources have had to be used to clean some 130 out of 455 beaches. It is easy to say, with 20–20 hindsight—a piece of equipment that I, as a politician, will always use when it is to my advantage—that the Government should not have privatised the water industry in the way that they did, given that we now know that the beaches had to be cleaned up. We did not know it then, however. The fact is that 1.5 million people—or, more probably, about 900,000, given the number who actually pay water charges—are responsible for cleaning up a third of the nation's beaches.
  The pressure on prices in the west country is stunning. It has been said that the average annual water charge is about £300 per household because of the high rateable values in the area. It is by no means uncommon for an elderly single person in relatively modest accommodation to pay well over £400 a year, and before long what could be described as an affluent household in the suburbs may be paying well over £1,000—in some instances, as much as £1,800 or £1,900.
  It is all very well for those who can afford such charges to say, "It is just one of those things; we must cope with it." For many people in the west country, however, the situation is frightening. In the not too distant past, residents have seen their water bills rise by up to 20 per cent. per annum. They are paying for the one staple of life the use of which they cannot possibly control.
  I hope that I can say, without sounding unduly and uncharacteristically flippant, that it is not much consolation for an 80-year-old widow with a zimmer frame to know that surfers in the west country are able to enjoy amazingly clean water. Such people have rather more pressing concerns, and they are having to pay massive bills.
  What can be done? A great deal has already been done over the years. At long last, as a result of hon. Members' efforts, Ofwat has been prepared to recommend that the huge year-on-year increases in the west country should not continue, and that increases should be pegged to the rate of inflation. Some say that we should consider reductions in charges; that is a nice idea, but it was never going to happen.
  It would have been something if charges could have been pegged so that people at least knew what they were having to budget for. That was a definite prospect last year, when Ofwat made its recommendation. South West Water has appealed to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, saying that it has not enough money to perform its statutory functions; apparently, however, it had nearly £1 million to devote to the effort to overturn Ofwat's judgment. I do not know whether that figure is accurate, but when I put it to South West Water it was not contradicted. I dare say that South West Water has better things to do.
  As I have said, people are paying massive charges for a staple that they cannot control, and seeing no end in sight. That is the general background; I have gone into much more detail in the past. An interesting fact that I
  1604
  have discovered during a life in politics is that things can always get worse—and if they can get worse, they probably will.
  One weekend recently, people in the higher-lying parts of the west country found that, when they turned on their tap, nothing happened—no water came through. In certain parts of Cornwall, people found that what came through the tap was obviously unfit to drink. Having paid the highest water charges in the country, they suddenly found that the process of turning on a tap did not produce the water that they were paying for.
  Not everyone connected with the south-west and the consumption of water on that weekend suffered the glum reality of water not coming through. One person who was able to consider that in a rosier way was none other than the managing director of South West Water, Mr. Fraser. He was revealed in the Sunday Times to be watering his garden—a marvellous occupation, if you have the water to do it. Doubtless, while watering his garden, he was contemplating what he would do with his latest pay rise—a pay rise of £67,000 per year—a remuneration package. Mr. Fraser subsequently wrote to me, saying that that was not a pay rise as such—it was not him but one of his minions; obviously he would not write to a Member of Parliament about that sort of thing—but a total package of about £67,000. He was quizzed about that by a journalist—it is interesting to meet someone who is paid even more than a journalist—and he said:
  "My salary has been frozen for some time. This was a modest rise."
  Let me make one thing clear. I am not some latter-day Leveller and I have no difficulty with the payment of high salaries. I would have no difficulty in conveying a message to my constituents that, to retain the best people for a difficult job in a competitive world, it is necessary to pay the rate for that job. I understand that, and I understand the language that says that an organisation must pay whatever is necessary to recruit, retain and motivate.
  However, the problem is that, often in the water industry, it is not an issue of bringing people in who bring their great expertise to bear because of the salaries available; they are the same old shower who were there in the first place.
  To be fair to Mr. Fraser, he was actually brought in from outside, but a great many people would have asked themselves, that weekend when they had no water in their taps and they saw the spectacle of that gentleman in Surrey watering his garden, contemplating what to do with his extra £67,000, why it was necessary to pay that money. I do not know.
  Perhaps, for the rest of the year, head hunters were beating their way up the path, past those lovely, well-watered flower gardens, to present themselves at Mr. Fraser's mansion, saying: "You are such a successful person that we shall offer you plenty of money to leave South West Water." That may have happened, but a cynicism born of many years in politics suggests to me that that may not be true. I have asked, but I have not yet been able to discover any head hunters for Mr. Fraser—scalp hunters, yes, about 1.5 million of them, but no head hunters.
  I could be wrong. Perhaps it is necessary to pay a massive sum to retain Mr. Fraser's services, but I should be interested to know what the going rate is. What is the going rate for a pay rise for a managing director of a water

  1605
  company that is incapable of delivering water? I may be displaying the naivety of a politician. Perhaps one really does have to pay an extra £67,000 to someone to do a job that he is proving incapable of doing, but I doubt it, and so do a great many of my constituents.
  It was an increase of £67,000 and a total remuneration of £200,000. If we were here with Mr. Court, the chairman of South West Water, today, perhaps round at his place enjoying a pleasant glass of 1983 Chassagne-Montrachet, he would probably say, as we sip that wine in his well-watered garden, "It is a drop in the ocean compared with what South West Water is actually paying", and he is right—it is. However, a sense of fairness matters, and it is the last straw for people in the west country when they find that the directors of that rapacious water authority, paying themselves mega-salaries, are not even able to deliver the service that they are paid that money to provide.
  What can we do about that? Obviously, something must be done. It is not sufficient to say, if anyone were to say it, "It is all very difficult, but in the end, in free commerce, the market must decide."
  Mr. David Nicholson: It is a monopoly.
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, if he wants, in a moment.
  There is no market in water. It is all about the magical ingredient H2O. One cannot do without it. The same criteria do not apply to Marks and Spencer, to any grocer or to any other firm in a competitive industry. It is completely and utterly different. The language of the marketplace, which, in my opinion, justifies to the hilt salaries of, in some cases, £200,000—or £2 million, for that matter—cannot possibly apply to the monopoly utility.
  I shall say in a few moments, when I have given way to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I shall not give way.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I made my point.
  Mr. Nicholls: One aims to please.
  What shall we do about it? It is always easy, yet it is always difficult, to draft legislation on one's feet. The shape of what must be done is obvious.
  When the chief executive or managing director or senior board members of a company such as South West Water are recruited externally, the company should be required to file with Ofwat a statement of what salary it intends to offer and its grounds for saying that that salary is necessary to attract people of a sufficient calibre. As far as internal reward is concerned, documents should be filed with Ofwat, showing why it is necessary—let us take the case in hand—to pay Mr. Fraser £67,000 a year more than previously. The documents should say who has tried to poach him, who has beaten a path to his door—why it is necessary to pay that sum of money. Then the public can be satisfied.
  If it turns out that it is necessary to pay that sum of money to ensure that water does not come through people's taps in the west country, I am sure that the British people, who are fair, will consider the evidence and say that that must be entirely right. Until that is done, however, they will be extremely upset.
  Is it a trivial matter? I do not believe so. Every now and again, one comes across a defining issue—an issue that drives people round the bend, an issue that infuriates people almost beyond reason. In the west country, the
  1606
  salaries that the senior personnel of South West Water pay themselves are that defining issue. It goes against every single canon of fairness.
  When someone as naturally right-wing and acquisitive as me is compelled to say that figures such as that are an outrage, the matter needs to be tackled. I hope that, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has the opportunity to say a few words about my contribution today, even if he cannot offer any direct solution, he will at least acknowledge that, yet again, a west country Member is bringing on to the Floor of the House of Commons the pre-eminent issue in the west country today. I should also like to think, because I have a great deal of confidence in him, that he might be able to say something that will give people some cheer that that sort of outrage will one day cease.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I shall briefly comment on the speech that we have just heard. I am sure that all of us, whatever part of the country we represent, will fully agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said. He spoke about the west country, and obviously the problems that he and people who live in that part of the country experience, but the problem exists throughout the country. It is not only water charges, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, cause people to drive themselves round the bend with hopelessness, but the size of salaries. I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members of the House might tell similar stories to the one that the hon. Gentleman related.
  This is a matter for the Government, because I do not believe that it should be a political issue, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. Water is one of the essential commodities that everyone needs, and the Government must urgently consider the matter.
  The subject that I would like to speak on for a few moments concerns the Latham committee report on the construction industry. That was published a year ago and the report was commissioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment and prepared by Sir Michael Latham, the former distinguished Member of the House whom I am sure that many of us recall.
  The report was well received by all with interests in the construction industry. It was welcomed by companies working in the industry. There are thousands of them, large and small; indeed, about 10 per cent. of the country's gross national product comes from the construction industry. The report was also warmly welcomed by trade unions who have members employed in the industry. I must declare an interest, as the trade union that sponsors me, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—which has thousands of members working in the industry—also fully supports the Latham committee report.
  The construction industry is vital to this country, but it has faced many problems over the years. They included the late payment of money, the abuse of payment after work had been completed, and arguments about cost and the kind of work that companies had done. Those problems often led to drawn-out and expensive disputes and, in the end, the companies and their workers invariably lost out.
  The Latham committee report considered all those issues. It recommended measures to improve relations between clients, contractors and subcontractors which

  1607
  would lead to improved efficiency within the industry. As I have said, the report was received very warmly. Early-day motion 557, which appears on the Order Paper, deals with the need for a construction contracts Bill. It has been signed by more than 200 Members from all political parties, including some very senior Members and those who do not often sign early-day motions in this place. I think that that illustrates the support that the proposal for contracts legislation has within the House.
  In all constituencies there are construction companies that employ local people, so I believe that the entire country would benefit from such legislation. I impress upon the Leader of the House that it is not a political issue. Sir Michael Latham's proposals are warmly supported by all political parties throughout the country. Members of Parliament and the representatives of the construction industry and companies in our constituencies want to see such legislation introduced in the next parliamentary Session.
  The House goes into recess this week and those of us who have been in this place for some time and those who have held positions in Government know that in the next few weeks Ministers and their Departments will be finalising the legislation that they would like included in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. Sir Michael Latham and those involved in the industry—be it the contractors or the trade unions—hope that such legislation will be included in the Queen's Speech.
  Tomorrow a major conference will be held at the Queen Elizabeth conference centre. The topic of discussion at that conference will be "Latham: One Year On". We know the nature of the discussions that will take place as there have been many such meetings in the past year. I have with me this morning publications from the Department of the Environment reporting on Latham and his proposals and I have also received similar correspondence and publications from the Construction Industry Training Board.
  The early-day motion to which I have referred will obviously be discussed at tomorrow's conference, as will the parliamentary questions that have been asked in the past year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked about the Government's intentions in that regard and I am sure that those questions will figure in tomorrow's discussions. I am sure that the overriding concern, to which speaker after speaker will refer, is when a construction contracts Bill will be presented to Parliament.
  One year has passed since the publication of the Latham committee report and, to the Government's credit, it has not been pigeon-holed and forgotten. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment for the active role that he has played in the discussions that have taken place about the report. We have a right to look to the Government to make an early announcement about legislation.
  When the report was published a year ago, I spoke in a debate similar to this one. Even in those early days, I supported the report, and it was clear from the response of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Latham proposals enjoyed widespread support and that they believed that legislation should follow. In the past few days, the construction industry has also agreed to the Latham proposals. I understand that the Secretary of State
  1608
  was waiting for that expression of support from the industry. His attitude was: "I am not unsympathetic; but does the industry agree to the proposals?" I have been informed that that is certainly the case.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Leader of the House will convey to his right hon. Friend the urgency of the matter. A statement must be made as soon as possible. Many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Teignbridge, who has just spoken, is one of the sponsors of the early-day motion to which I referred—seek the introduction of very clear legislation based upon the Latham proposals.
  The industry and its trade unions do not want to see those proposals incorporated in other legislation. The Government of the day often say that, although they are not unsympathetic to a particular case, they cannot introduce a separate Bill to deal with the matter. Therefore, they incorporate the proposals in another piece of legislation from the relevant Department. We want the Government to reach an early decision about introducing a Bill to deal specifically with the construction industry. The proposal has the support of many hon. Members as well as the construction industry and the trade union movement. Therefore, I earnestly request the Leader of the House to convey my comments to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that we may know as soon as possible whether contracts legislation will be included in the forthcoming Queen's Speech.
  11.58 am
  Mr. David Nicholson: I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and refer briefly to Bosnia before I return to issues of domestic politics.
  This year we commemorate, among other things, the discovery of the full extent of the Nazi holocaust. This generation will censure those who carried out those atrocities and those who collaborated with them. The President of France recently recognised the tragic and awful contribution of French people to the holocaust and we are aware that other things could have been done to avert it. We must resolve to do what we can to prevent any repetition of that tragedy, wherever it may occur in the world. One thinks of what happened some 15 years ago in Cambodia, only recently in Rwanda and particularly of events in Bosnia, which is on our continent and only a few hundred miles from the borders of the European Union, with some many consequences for general peace in the area. We heard the difficulties described by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South and later we shall hear further of the considerable practical difficulties that lie ahead in Bosnia. If the United Nations—which I fear is rather like the Holy Roman empire in the 18th century—scuttles from Bosnia and leaves people there to an awful and tragic fate, history will say harsh things about us.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others have made useful points in recent weeks. That internal debate has helped in certain respects, and the Government can pursue various proposals. As to the way in which the national press handled that matter, I intervened in a moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) last week, when he spoke about the concerns of inner cities and difficulties in our society—similar to the

  1609
  speech made this morning by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). In my intervention, I said none of my hon. Friend's points—any more than the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—were debated in the national press during the important political contest of a couple of weeks ago. Instead, many newspapers subjected us to a catalogue of lies, half-truths, distortion and crude propaganda. It is not sufficient for most hon. Members to ignore such stuff or that many of our constituents appear to have become immune to it. Indeed, some of my constituents have changed their newspaper orders as a result, although I am sorry that the remaining choice is hardly immense. Damage is done to our political system, the Government and the Conservative party's standing if such half-truths and propaganda are believed.
  Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon was director of the Conservative party research department. Both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have worked in that distinguished and honourable department at various times in our careers. I refer to an article by Dr. Robin Harris that appeared in The Sunday Times on 9 July, so it is hardly ancient history. That article was not written by an 18-year old scribbler or someone who has just returned from Patagonia. Dr. Harris is also a former director of the Conservative research department and made a considerable contribution to winning the 1987 general election—although Lord Tebbit or Michael Dobbs may contest that claim—and was a member of the Downing street policy unit. His remarks in The Sunday Times will have been read by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, so I make no apology for quoting them now—and they were outrageous. The headline, which was probably the contribution of The Sunday Times, stated:
  "The sooner defeat comes, the sooner the right will inherit the Tory party, says Robin Harris".
  I am sorry not to hear cheering by Opposition Members because if that comes about, they can extend their mortgages and take their managers to champagne lunches. If those two events occurred, Labour would enjoy the fruits of office for years to come. Dr. Harris then wrote:
  "Kenneth Clarke is safe to promote the European single currency. Malcolm Rifkind is free to place Britain's foreign and security policies further under European Community control."
  That assertion is absolute rubbish. It ignores our Cabinet and parliamentary procedures.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is true.
  Mr. Nicholson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend disagrees, but I hope that he will allow me to proceed because he might actually agree with something that I will say later.
  Dr. Harris continues:
  "And the Prime Minister, able at last to express his guilt-ridden loathing of his predecessor and all her works, has the pleasurable prospect of showing his true colours as a big-spending social democrat."
  What extraordinary rubbish, and I take the opportunity to repudiate it. As to Dr. Harris's remark about public expenditure, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) contained useful proposals about illegal immigrants and areas of public expenditure that might be curbed. But most of the specific proposals made in recent weeks, if they stand up to examination, would probably not save large sums of money.
  1610
  The past year has seen considerable debate on education spending. If it had not been for careful management, a degree of patience and various commitments for the future, that debate might have created difficulties for the Government on the Floor of the House. I do not think that there is any possibility of a similar education spending settlement passing through the House next year, so there will almost inevitably be an increase in education spending. We know of concerns about the battle for law and order. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) celebrated the Government's success in that struggle in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. If that success is to continue, there must be further spending on the police and associated areas. Difficulties will arise in cutting spending in other areas, such as health, community care and defence.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: And agriculture.
  Mr. Nicholson: I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that I would make a point about Europe. Of importance in the Conservative party debate about the European Union is that nothing is predictable. There are no hard lines between right and left or between Eurosceptics and positive Europeans. Despite my earlier intervention, I believe that my party's Eurosceptic wing has made and can continue to make an important contribution. A number of my hon. Friend's points deserve replies, because it is a basic right of hon. Members to receive accurate and effective responses to requests for information. Sometimes, the Eurosceptics aim at the wrong target, because the single currency—which may or may not come about—could bring particular benefits. But I support the Eurosceptics in concentrating their fire on some of the legal and constitutional invasions of our country's affairs. It is not satisfactory that the European Court is able to overturn specific decisions of the British Parliament.
  I received in this morning's post a letter from a constituent, Mr. Keith Ross, proprietor of The Tantivy in my nearest town of Dulverton, expressing concern about a report in Asian Trader headlined:
  "Brussels sets scene for newspaper VAT".
  The leader in the same issue comments:
  "European Commission President Jacques Santer has made it clear that at next year's Maastricht conference"—
  although I am not sure that the intergovernmental conference will be held again in Maastricht—
  "the EU will push hard for Britain to give up its right to set its own indirect taxation in order to harmonise levels across Europe."
  That will mean VAT on newspapers, perhaps on water services and even on food. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware that there is not a shadow of doubt that such a proposal would not get through the House. It would be resisted by Conservative Members whether they are positive Europeans, Eurosceptics or anything else. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make that clear. I hope also that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will make the matter clear in succeeding weeks. Further, I hope that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in making that point.

  1611
  I shall bring my remarks to a close. I am sure that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). No recent appointment to the Government gave me more pleasure than his elevation to the Whips' Office. He is enough of a countryman to know the saying about setting a poacher to operate as a gamekeeper. I am sure that he will be successful in the Whips' Office. I am sure also that if he and other members of the Government take note of my concerns—I try to be positive in the struggle about Europe—we shall be a more unified, effective and successful party in the next 18 months.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: This three-hour debate is a substitute for a form of procedure that produced a formal motion for the adjournment of the House. Under that motion, many of us could argue that the House should not adjourn before certain matters had been debated.
  The Jopling proposals, comments on which were received at 11 o'clock from the Select Committee on Procedure, confuse sitting hours, which we all wish to be reasonable, with sitting powers. For example, we cannot extend today's sitting because a decision was taken forthwith yesterday. Reductions in the powers of Back-Bench Members are being recommended—in my view wrongly—by the Procedure Committee. They include the elimination of an amendable motion on the sitting of the House. The House should control how long it sits after receiving Government proposals that are amendable and on which we can vote. It is proposed also to eliminate second Adjournment debates and speeches on Ways and Means resolutions, which relate to the fundamental powers of expenditure and taxation. As I understand it, it is proposed also to eliminate private Member's motions. There would be a major reduction in Member's powers and of those of the public who send us here.
  I challenge any member of the Procedure Committee, including its Chairman, to debate the recommendation that the entire Jopling package, as adopted, continue to be considered in the next Session.
  If a motion had been before us, I would have tabled an amendment to the effect that we should not adjourn unless and until two topics had been debated. The Government have put these topics high on the list of publicity over the past few days. They will be debated and reported upon in the press accurately or inaccurately, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said, for the next two-and-a-half months. These topics are the Government's plans for sport and for nursery education and/or education of the pre-school type.
  Until yesterday's announcement, we were due to have a debate on the Prime Minister's proposals for sport, which do not necessarily involve public expenditure. It is a bit rich because, since 1979, the Government, through their powers and legislation, have closed 5,000 playing fields. Physical education colleges have been closed. Extra-curricular sport has plummeted as teachers struggle with the administrative burdens of the national curriculum. The Government have done more to reduce opportunities for healthy sport and recreation at schools and elsewhere than any previous Government. Having
  1612
  been involved with sport for 14 years before coming to this place, I looked forward to participating in the debate about the Prime Minister's proposals, but we have been denied that debate.
  I am sorry that the Lord President gave a rather misleading reply to my question yesterday. It would have been possible to suspend the sitting rule tonight to have a two or three-hour debate on sport, perhaps concluding it at 1 am. There would have been no vote because it would have been on the Adjournment. As things stand, we are not able to have that debate. That is in tune with the Government's approach of having publicity outside the House on issue after issue and restricting debate in the Chamber. No wonder the public do not think very much of us if there is media comment on the Radio 4 programme "Today" and on television shows and a lack of debate in this place. The decline in the reputation of Parliament may be something to do with that. The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who will obviously play an important part in Government information and propaganda services over the next four months, will have to be watched in that context.
  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on his remarks about drugs and recreation. On Sunday, I was on the Victoria dock in my constituency. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in his place. There were young people on the dock. Twelve or 13-year-old boys were pushing out a boat, asking permission to row it. They were not able to do so. They may be able to row in future, but thanks to the lottery, not the Government. What satisfaction can those boys get from life? I am talking of a life that produces a sense of well-being within society and a sense of achievement. Many young people who look naturally for well-being and achievement will get them only from the artificial stimulation that is produced by drugs. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.
  On 6 July, when the Prime Minister replied to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
  "I confirm that, on a phased basis, I look for the introduction of nursery education for all four-year-olds and my right hon. Friend"—
  the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—
  "will announce this afternoon our plans and the phasing."
  The Secretary of State made a statement a few moments later. She opened her statement by saying:
  "With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about pre-school education."—[Official Report, 6 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 512–17]
  We have not had a debate on that subject, although there has been comment in the press and throughout the country. It seems that there is confusion about, and non-recognition of, the major difference between nursery education as we know it and pre-school education. Apparently, the Prime Minister does not understand the distinction between the two. He talked about nursery education for all four-year-olds. The Secretary of State's statement was not about that. The plans are not about that. There are plans for vouchers for pre-school education, of which nursery education is a part.
  Did the Prime Minister say what he did knowingly? I use "knowingly" with point because we shall later debate the Nolan report and the responsibility of Ministers. Did the Prime Minister knowingly say what he did when it is not true or was he misled by officials? I cannot believe

  1613
  that he was misled. I cannot believe either that the Prime Minister did not know the difference between nursery education, as defined in current statute, and pre-school education, which includes play groups. I acknowledge that some play groups are extremely good, but the range of pre-school education is different from nursery education. Relatively few people throughout the country understand the difference.
  I shall put on record one or two questions and answers, which I have tabled and obtained. They show that the Government are on a collision course with the public and themselves. I do not believe that they have thought out their plans. It is clear that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is not keen. Some time ago, the Prime Minister poured cold water on the proposal for nursery education for all three and four-year-olds because of expense. I presented a petition on the issue on 19 November on behalf of 106,000 petitioners. They asked for nursery education to meet demand. I introduced a Bill on the subject on 18 September 1994. It was talked out by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who later claimed that she did not know that she was destroying the Bill. All that it would have done was place a duty on local authorities to ascertain need.
  Administration will be extremely difficult. Questions have been tabled to try to ascertain exactly what will happen. I received some answers yesterday. They are not yet in Hansard so I cannot provide a reference. I asked in what manner the Secretary of State for Education and Employment expects to advertise the terms of the contract for the firm that will run the vouchers. The answer was:
  "I will reply as soon as possible".
  It is clear that the Department does not know, or if it does know, it is not saying, despite having announced the scheme.
  I also asked what steps the Secretary of State for Education and Employment
  "expects to take to ensure that levels of staffing in existing local authority nursery schools will not be prejudiced by the establishment of new nursery schools by a provider offering improved remuneration".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 978.]
  Clearly, there will be none.
  Areas such as Newham, where 60 per cent. of young children go to nursery schools, will be prejudiced by the free market in qualified nursery teachers. Nursery schools in suburban areas will probably be able to offer more by virtue of the £1,000 which some people will be able to expect. A free or semi-free market in nursery education is being opened up which may prejudice areas of greatest need, such as the London borough of Newham.
  I asked what number of the 74 bodies listed in a written answer some time ago had been consulted on the Government's plan. I was told:
  "The … task force on under-fives wrote to the majority of the bodies listed on the day of the announcement requesting their views."
  So, there is to be consultation, but it will not be very good because the proposals have been only half announced.
  I asked what was to be the cost of administration of the voucher scheme in the next two years. The answer was:
  "I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible".
  I asked
  "if there will be changes in the statutory instruments defining the qualifications of teachers in nursery schools and those relating to their premises."
  1614
  One of the problems is how the Government will carry out their plans with the limited number of qualified teachers and premises which are statutorily defined as being capable of supporting genuine nursery education. I shall not read the whole answer but it is a classic for, "Yes, Minister". The reply stated:
  "My right hon. Friend has no plans at this stage to impose any new qualification requirements for staff in any institutions which register to exchange vouchers for pre-school education."
  A casual reading of that might suggest that there will be no change, but I emphasise the words
  "has no plans at this stage to impose".
  That does not mean to say that the requirements will not be relaxed, and I suspect that that is what will have to be done in order to achieve their objectives.
  My last point on the matter, which will cause a great deal of trouble, relates to a series of three questions that were answered yesterday, after a fashion, about the logistics of premises. I have particular views about the regulations of the Department for Education and Employment relating to school premises. They are wholly inadequate, although I do not have time now to give examples to show why that is the case. It appears that there will be a review of all regulations relating to premises and equipment of schools registered to exchange vouchers for pre-school education. The reply says:
  "In addition, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 14 July their intention to consult on a new set of school premises regulations. These regulations apply to all maintained schools, including maintained nursery schools. They will continue to do so."—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 977.]
  It did not have the honesty to point out that a written answer of 14 July sets out a change in all school regulations relating to premises. It is too long to read it all, but it says that it has been concluded that
  "the regulatory burden placed on schools by the Education (School Premises) Regulations should be significantly reduced."—[Official Report, 14 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 829.]
  So there will be a change not just in the regulations relating to nursery schools, which it is important should be maintained in order to provide the necessary environment in this prized and highly regarded area, but in the already inadequate regulations for schools. That was not made clear by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. She referred in her statement last week to a change in the regulations, but she did not make it clear that that was what she had in mind.
  At the moment, the Government are using the House of Commons less as a means of announcing their proposals and using the Order Paper and the procedure of the House and more as a means of ensuring that matters are not debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) mentioned the future generations—children in nursery schools and youngsters wanting sporting facilities. Why is it that we are now to adjourn for two and a half months before both those crucial matters can be debated? It has been impossible to do so, an omission for which the Government are responsible.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: We have had a great deal of debate and discussion on European policy within the Conservative party, but it would be wrong for the House to go into recess without the

  1615
  Government, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in particular, pointing out the appalling implications for the United Kingdom of the Labour party's European policy.
  After all, as we know, the matter has been resolved in the Conservative party. We now have a policy with which we in the party and the country can be totally at ease. We are winning the arguments in Europe. We will be able to maintain, because the Prime Minister said so, our immigration controls. We will not agree to any further increase in qualified majority voting as the intergovernmental conference progresses. The United Kingdom will not agree to any deepening in Europe. As we are winning the arguments, we will be gaining more control over our affairs through subsidiarity. Things are moving our way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) looks a little concerned, but I can promise him that in an election within the Conservative party a fortnight ago, 89 of our colleagues, including, no doubt, my hon. Friend and I, voted for a programme and a platform which said that Britain will not have a single currency and for the fact that we will not bring before the House any measures to give more powers to any European institutions.
  Mr. Tony Banks: You lost.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that we lost the vote, but 89 people voted for that platform. It is inconceivable that this Conservative Government, let alone the next Conservative Government, when many of the positive Europeans will have retired and the people coming in will have come in on a Thatcherite bandwagon, will bring any of these measure before the House. That is fact. That is given. We are secure. No Conservative Government will deepen Europe or introduce any measures to bring about a single currency. They would not do it. It would not work. It would not succeed. They would not have a majority.
  The first thing that the Labour party would do would be to embrace the social chapter. What does that mean? Any good employer will want to ensure that his people are well looked after, but to do that he needs a succesful and thriving business. He must be competitive. Anyone who embraces the social chapter will have to embrace the on-costs, the paraphernalia of all the other European countries who will want to stuff it down the throats of our industries to make our industries as uncompetitive as theirs are becoming. Not only will we have bad employment practices and bad employers, but we will lose a great many jobs.
  Mr. Banks: Like the Germans.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman cannot resist his asides. Germany is yesterday's story. It is the United Kingdom that will be today's and tomorrow's story.
  The next point that the Opposition want to embrace is the single currency—a single currency in Europe with all those diverse economies, with the same interest rates, with the same inevitable levels of taxation, socialist bureaucratic levels of taxation, high levels of taxation. The people who motivate European policy are motivated by schemes and plans and by building up their own
  1616
  empire. We cannot afford that. Let the rest of Europe crucify itself with a single currency and with high levels of public expenditure. Let us be clean and distinct and apart. Let us have the strong currency of Europe while others have the weak one. Let us have the Japanese—Nikko Europe and others—investing in Britain rather than in the rest of Europe because they feel that Britain will be more competitive outside the single currency.
  I should like to make one further point about the desperate implications of the Labour party's European policy. Agriculture is controlled by Europe; trade is controlled by Europe; little things, like the quality of our water, are controlled by Europe; our weights and measures are controlled by Europe. The Labour party wants our money to be controlled by Europe. Everything will be controlled by Europe.
  The Opposition want a policy for devolution, with more powers going to Scotland and Wales. They have power, if they are given more power, they will seek more power and the remainder of the power will lie with Europe. What is the point of Westminster? Do the Opposition want to break up the United Kingdom? That is what they will do.
  I should be grateful if, before the recess, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained loud and clear the devastating implications of the Labour party's policy on Europe for the United Kingdom.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: There are two subjects that the House should consider before the recess. I understand hon. Members' concerns about Bosnia, but one of my constituents, a student called Paul Wells, is currently one of the hostages in Kashmir. I should have thought that it was inappropriate for the House to depart for the summer recess without even a statement about the current state of negotiations on the release of those hostages.
  The main issue that I want to raise today, however, is Motability. It is a remarkable organisation, for which I have nothing but praise. It is a registered charity that brings mobility to disabled people. The Queen was recently able to hand over the 500,000th vehicle to a disabled person, due to funding for this scheme through the Department of Social Security. Motability is a truly wonderful charity.
  I cannot say the same about the system of financing that exists behind the scenes at Motability. There is an important distinction to be drawn between Motability the charity and Motability Finance Ltd. I am greatly concerned about a series of reports that have been percolating out to the public and press of late about serious wrongdoings in the structure of financing through which Motability Finance Ltd. delivers vehicles to disabled people.
  I shall put the matter in context. The charity Motability has a turnover of about £3 million a year. But the supplier of finance, Motability Finance Ltd., has a turnover of £375 million a year. Motability Finance Ltd. is not a charity; it is a private company. It is set up as a partnership of six main banks. It is a profit-making business, which now has assets in excess of £1 billion. It also has access to £1.5 billion-worth of credit each year from the six banks which are the partners in MFL.
  On 15 June this year, in the other place, Lord Carter raised a number of his concerns about what was happening in Motability Finance Ltd. He said:

  1617
  "the Government pay Motability Finance Ltd … £360 million of disabled people's social security benefits. Motability Finance Ltd. is the only lender in the world to have no bad debts. The money is guaranteed by the Government because it is a social security benefit which is paid over. Yet the rates of interest it charges disabled people and its car leasing arrangements are not that advantageous."
  That is my first concern.
  Lord Carter illustrated some of the concerns that had been raised with him. He said:
  "I understand that over the years a number of officials"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1931.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a rule in this place against quoting from a Member speaking in the other place, unless he or she is a Minister in the current Session.
  Mr. Simpson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Lord Carter referred to a number of acts of minor fraud that worried him, and should also worry the House. The essence of the matter is the returns required by the major banks that are participants and partners in the Motability Finance scheme.
  The simplest thing is for me to quote from a report drawn up by accountants KPMG on the financing of MFL. The concluding paragraph states:
  "We have carried out a comparison with the Return on Capital … which would be earned in a typical lease to that which is earned in practice by the partners and other leasing companies … The typical lease scenario envisages a ROC of 14.6 per cent. The average ROC of a number of leasing companies for 1992 was 13.1 per cent. However a Motability lease gives a ROC of 30.9 per cent., substantially higher than that generated by a typical lease or that earned by other companies."
  We are talking, then, about a private cartel of six major banks, headed by someone who is also involved as the chairman of Motability. The cartel is mackerel fishing for money from public funds that properly belongs to disabled people. The rate of return required for no-risk access to that finance is almost twice that in the private market.
  A report was also commissioned by the DSS about the goings-on inside Motability Finance Ltd. The catalogue of events that have taken place have seen a large number of Motability staff leave in recent years. Last October, the assistant director, Mr. Robin Taylor, left. The following January, the then director, Mr. Simon Willis, who had been seconded from the DSS, had his services withdrawn at two weeks' notice. The following March, the finance director, Mr. Graham Moss, left, and now the fund-raising director has decided to leave.
  Many of the departures revolved around conflicts with the chairman of Motability, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, who is perhaps better known, not only as the chairman of P and O, but as a generous benefactor to the party in government.
  The most damning matter that the House needs to address urgently concerns a report commissioned by, I think, the DSS, called the Bircham report. It details the serious improprieties that exist within MFL. I shall give two quotations from the report, which should form the basis on which the House should take urgent action.
  Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report state:
  "KPMG, of which Mr. Acher is the senior audit partner, are auditors to the National Westminster Bank Group, including Lombard Finance, which participates in the Motability scheme, the Midland Group, including Forward Trust, which similarly
  1618
  participates in the scheme and P and O, of which the Chairman of Motability, Lord Sterling, is also Chairman. At the same time the Chairman of MFL (Mr. Brian Carte) is … both a governor of Motability and a director of Lombard Finance.
  Save for out-of-pocket expenses, Motability's Royal Charter of Incorporation prohibits the payment of salary, fees or other remuneration to any governor under clause 4. Mr. Gerald Acher is both governor and Vice-Chairman of Motability on the one hand and a senior equity partner in KPMG on the other. Since he became a governor, KPMG have been paid substantial fees by Motability for professional services rendered, a share of which must pass to or otherwise benefit Mr. Acher in some form. In these circumstances Mr. Acher must account to Motability as a constructive trustee of the gross fees paid to KPMG under the self dealing rule."
  The Bircham report details conflicts of interest, improprieties of action and a serious overcharging of the disabled by a banking cartel that is simply fishing money at no risk out of the pockets of disabled people, out of the purse specifically provided by the House to allow disabled people to be mobile around the country.
  The House must demand a public examination of the financial structure of Motability Finance Ltd. We need to have a debate on the Bircham report in its entirety. I shall place a full copy of the Bircham report in the Library after the debate. We must demand that the DSS conducts its own root-and-branch overhaul of MFL to ensure that disabled people receive the fairest deal for their, or our, money that goes into the scheme. We must not allow a sleazy bunch of bankers and benefactors to make themselves a fast buck through a no-risk, monopolistic scam, perpetrated on the backs of the public and the disabled—and we need to do that overhaul urgently.
  12.39 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: It is useful to have debates of this kind. The changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred have not been unanimously welcomed in the House. However, they have been helpful overall, especially for Back Benchers, as this morning's debate demonstrates.
  I am always reluctant to disagree with my hon. Friend on matters of procedure, but I must say that some of the procedures which were changed by Jopling and about which he complained have fallen into disuse and become difficult to defend. They fell into disuse not least because newer Members had not been as assiduous in mastering the procedures as my hon. Friend. The Jopling changes of which he complained have been helpful to the majority of hon. Members.
  It is not always possible for every hon. Member to attend on Wednesday mornings. Rather unusually, I should like to mention to the Leader of the House one colleague who could not be here—my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). He lost an Adjournment debate on Monday through no fault of his own, but he had told the Minister exactly what issues he wanted to raise. I think that he gave the Minister a copy of his speech, which was on European co-operation. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept my hon. Friend's apology for not being here this morning, and will be able to arrange for the Minister to give my hon. Friend the reply that he would have had if he had been here.
  Obviously, we cannot deal in detail with all the issues that have been raised, some of which will be the subjects for the debate later today on Bosnia. This morning's debates were unusual because so many Conservative Members spoke about internal Conservative party matters.

  1619
  Perhaps, in view of what has happened in recent months, that should not surprise us. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) invited us to sympathise with his comments about how the press has treated his party in recent weeks. At last he now knows how it feels, because we have been subjected to that kind of treatment for many years. It was interesting to see the tables turned.
  These debates are always useful for hon. Members who wish to raise constituency matters, as did the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), and not for the first time, as he pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) raised some serious matters about his constituents, who must feel very insecure because the basic services provided by general practitioners are threatened in the way that my hon. Friend described. I hope that Ministers have taken his concerns on board, and that the Leader of the House will make sure that they are followed up.
  The hon. Member for Teignmouth (Mr. Nicholls) spoke about the concerns of his constituents following water privatisation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. When the Bill for water privatisation was going through the House, many of us suggested that prices would go through the roof and that the salaries of directors would be increased to ridiculous levels. The hon. Gentleman complained that a monopoly utility was allowing one of its executives to have a salary increase of £67,000, but such suggestions were described as scaremongering when we complained about water privatisation.
  In such debates, some matters are raised which could be described as regular. Not for the first time hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised the issue of European Union policy, and especially the common agricultural policy. I agree with many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East about the CAP. The slowness in moving to reform must concern hon. Members in all parts of the House. The speech by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was somewhat unusual, in that the hon. Gentleman attacked Labour party policy on the EU rather than that of his own party. Perhaps we should put that aside this morning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) again spoke about the Latham report. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be able to respond to my hon. Friend's information about the construction industry's agreement to the proposals.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke about local government settlements, a topic that has been mentioned on other occasions. He was right to acknowledge the need to take account of such vital issues as family holidays when the Procedure Committee considers when the House should sit. Perhaps I will not be popular with all my colleagues when I say that I told the Procedure Committee a few days ago that there was scope for considering whether the House should sit for some weeks in September as a means of keeping us in touch with what is happening and avoiding such long gaps between our activities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South raised some topical issues about the need for a debate on sport. I raised that with the Leader of the House during business questions yesterday, and I hope that the right hon.
  1620
  Gentleman will be able to tell us when it might be possible to have such a debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's every word about nursery education. When he was speaking about that, I thought of the earlier speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), whose constituency I have visited.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about jobs and development. People in his area are working hard to attract development, and perhaps some of them feel that they are running hard just to stand still, because of all the factors that are stacked against them. My hon. Friend's remarks coincided with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said. He highlighted one of the main concerns of all of us about the future of young people and what is happening in our constituencies. It was in my hon. Friend's constituency that riots took place, but we are all aware that they could have taken place in many other areas.
  The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central about the problems of young people and those of unemployment, deprivation generally and deprivation being side by side with affluence, and many young people feeling that they have no stake in society, must be extremely worrying to us all. If young people have no hope, no expectations and no aspirations, the future is bleak, not just for them and their families, but for society as a whole. That is because we are all threatened by such lack of hope, and by youngsters who can turn to crime. As my hon. Friend said, unfortunately they often turn to drugs. In political terms, if they turned to anything, they would probably turn to some form of extremism. My hon. Friend was right to remind the House and the Government of those dangers.
  I was reminded of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, because there is clearly a link between nursery education and aspirations and achievements later in life. There is overwhelming evidence that the best action we can take for our young people is to give them the best possible start by investing in nursery education.
  The evidence shows that, if we spend more on nursery education, we shall get a return for the money, because there will be less crime, young people will grow up with more opportunities, and there will be fewer teenage pregnancies. Those are all direct benefits.
  I wish I could say that the recent Government initiative on nursery education will provide, as the Prime Minister has promised, nursery education for all four-year-olds. In itself, that is not good enough, because our three-year-olds should also be entitled to it. I fear that the voucher scheme will be a third-rate imitation of a proper comprehensive policy for nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want them to have it.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to respond in detail to some of the important points that have been raised. It is useful to have such debates, and I hope that we will continue to provide opportunities for hon. Members to raise issues in this way, because that is valuable to our constituents and to the House.
  12.50 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I note that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) expressed

  1621
  the hope that I would be able to respond in detail, in 10 minutes, to 14 speeches—15, including her own—on a wide range of matters. I must tell her that that would be a triumph of hope over experience, and over practicality. I shall do my best. I shall, of course, consider what the hon. Lady said about her hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). Given the circumstances that she described, I shall see whether I can get him a written reply from a Minister.
  Although I cannot speak for the hon. Lady, I suspect that she would agree with me that this debate is one of the pleasures of the job of Leader of the House. I learn an enormous amount in a short time. I am provided with endless briefing notes, which I digest, I hope, at least to some degree, in the relatively short time available. I am offered a guided tour around the United Kingdom.
  As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said to me informally outside the Chamber—I hope that he will not mind me repeating it—today we travelled from Liskeard, to Kelso, by way of Merthyr Tydfil. That is surely a testament to the flexibility and efficiency of the Government's transport policies.
  We have heard wide-ranging and entertaining speeches from everyone, but some speeches have been wider ranging than others, in particular those of my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). I am sure that they would not expect me to range as widely as they did over the policies of the Government towards the world in general and Europe in particular.
  I particularly agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South about the current policy vacuum in the Labour party, which certainly was not filled this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made an impressive speech about one definite part of the Opposition's current policy. I think that I would be right to say that it was probably his most helpful speech in many years. He drew attention to the dangers of the Labour party policies towards the European Union, and I wholeheartedly agreed with his every word.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Give him a job.
  Mr. Newton: My powers do not extend that far, but they extend to giving him the encouragement to make frequent speeches along those lines.
  I shall make necessarily brief comments on some of the specific points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) raised important points about Liskeard junior school in his constituency. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend also asked me to encourage one of my hon. Friends, who has been most recently appointed to the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), to visit that school at some stage this year. I have received a characteristically cautious briefing note from the Department of Education, which states:
  "Ministers of course do receive a very large number of invitations to visit schools and simply cannot accept them all. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend would be willing to consider a visit if that could be fitted into a wider programme."
  1622
  I hope that that gives at least some modest encouragement to my hon. Friend. I shall also have a more informal word with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to draw her attention to what he said.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) raised a important and difficult problem, which he would not expect me to answer in detail, about family practitioner services in part of his constituency. He acknowledged, as I have been told, that County Durham health commission is taking urgent steps to help residents in the Coxhoe area to identify alternative doctors, and has set up two help-lines for patients to ring. The hon. Gentleman also made it clear, however, that the problem required further examination. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East made a wide-ranging speech, but he also referred to a matter of considerable importance to my constituency and subject to many protests from my constituents—the policies of Essex county council, under Labour-Liberal control, towards transport to selective schools that still exist in Essex. My hon. Friend said that his children went to those schools, so perhaps I should declare a past interest in that both my daughters went to Chelmsford county high school for girls, which will subject to the same problem.
  I share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about the effect on less well-off able children in the county. I hope that the people of Shoeburyness, to whom he referred, will make their views clear in the by-election that will take place, tomorrow, 20 July, for a county council seat.
  The hon. Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made impressive speeches about their areas. The speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was one of the best that I have heard in Adjournment debates for a long time. He will know that I, too, am concerned about drugs. I have worked with the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Keith Hellawell, on producing a new Government strategy on drugs, "Tackling Drugs Together". That places greater emphasis than in the past on prevention and education. I certainly hope that it reflects some of the thoughts that the hon. Gentleman expressed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) gave me notice that he intended to raise a complex problem. He made some important points. I understand that, alongside the correspondence he has had with previous Transport Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has written to him this week on that very subject. I understand that my hon. Friend has not yet received that letter, but I assure him that it is on its way, and I hope that it will be helpful to him.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke about a problem in a pleasing town in his constituency, Kelso, where I had the pleasure to holiday a few years ago. On that occasion, I ran into the former leader of the Liberal Democrats. I note the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I am sure that he would not expect an off-the-cuff answer from me. I shall make sure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of Scottish Office Ministers.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends the fact that a west country

  1623
  Member has yet again raised the water industry, which is significant and important to his constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend was encouraged by the Government's response to the Greenbury report.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the Director General of Water Services has set new and tighter price limits for South West Water, which have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission at the company's request. We have to await the outcome of the commission's determination of price limits for South West Water. The problems to which my hon. Friend referred are being considered.
  I may have inadvertently encouraged the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) to take part in the debate, because I reminded him of it when I bumped into him in the Corridor yesterday. He duly took up that invitation, and spoke about the Latham report. He will be aware that, in the past few weeks, I have regularly made what I have described as sympathetic noises from the Dispatch Box about relevant legislation. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but, as I said to someone last Thursday, the hon. Gentleman can take my comments as a sympathetic noise.
  I think that I have come close to running out of time, so I dare not embark on commenting on any other speech. I have noted the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If any other speech remains unmentioned, or if any hon. Member is dissatisfied, I shall make efforts to remedy that in some way.
  Meanwhile, I hope that I have given universal pleasure and have caused universal enthusiasm by creating a position in which, later today or early tomorrow, all being well, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to enjoy a short break from the duties that they have so assiduously pursued on behalf of their constituents this morning.

  French Nuclear Testing
  1 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: A week last Monday, Madam Speaker was in the Chair when a few hon. Members raised points of order about the French nuclear testing proposed for September and about the seizure of the Greenpeace ship, which had happened the previous day. Madam Speaker was kind enough to say that, if Lady Luck smiled on me or perhaps another of those hon. Members, we might have an Adjournment debate. Had it not been this particular Wednesday, when three hours have been devoted to discussing the summer Adjournment, we might have had an hour-and-a-half debate, and many of my colleagues would have been able to speak.
  I hesitated before applying for this debate, because I was not that sure that it was the sort of subject with which I could deal. I used to be a big mate of Bob Cryer, and I realised that if he had been here, he would have got to the Chair faster than me. It was his subject—he knew about nuclear weapons and nuclear testing better than anyone else in the House. He had spent 20 or 30 years of his life travelling around Britain speaking to thousands of people. I hope that my comments will accord with his beliefs, although I shall not be able to give them quite the same treatment.
  On the day that I asked for this debate, I and some of my hon. Friends had been to a hastily arranged wreath-laying ceremony at the French embassy. Apart from the fact that all Labour Members are hostile to French nuclear testing and the seizure of the Greenpeace ship, I detected among the demonstrators the feeling that the vast majority of British people abhor the idea of the French going to the south Pacific, doing as they like and attacking a Greenpeace ship—which, in many ways, was standing up not just for the people of New Zealand, Australia and other parts of the south Pacific, but for the people of Britain.
  I am staggered by the fact that this House has not debated the French decision to resume nuclear testing. A mere half hour is hardly adequate to deal with the issue. I can only assume that, when the Prime Minister met Mr. Chirac at Cannes—a summit meeting that he reported on to the House—he gave Chirac the nod and the wink to do as he liked. Indeed, he confirmed that in an answer to a parliamentary question last week, when he was asked, deliberately and directly, why he would not join those protesting against French nuclear testing. He said that under no circumstances would he do that.
  That does not excuse the fact that we have not had a debate—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his Front Bench why not.
  Mr. Skinner: I accept that. There should have been a debate.
  There was a debate on a similar occasion—although not as dramatic as this—on 2 July 1973. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who might get two minutes in this debate if I hurry—spoke from the Front Bench.
  Can anybody believe the change that has taken place since then? My hon. Friend was actually on the Labour Front Bench when 266 Labour Members of Parliament

  1625
  went into the Lobby on a three-line whip. My hon. Friend forced Jeffrey Archer, as he then was, to say that, if there was a vote on the Labour motion, he would join us. In fact, he did not, but that is another story. I read his speech, which was very clever and typical Jeffrey—now Lord—Archer.
  The important point was that we had a debate, and we protested to the French. We cannot have a proper debate before the recess, so I call upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, together with other members of the shadow Cabinet, to send a letter of protest to Chirac, making it plain where we stand. I would have said that at the parliamentary Labour party meeting if I had had the chance.
  I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I shall try to accommodate them, but it will not be easy.
  The problem is the colonialist mentality. When I went to school, Britain used to have lots of pink pieces on the map. The French had some, but not as many as us. There was an idea that the south Pacific could be picked out, as it was by Britain and then by France, and that we could do our bit among the Polynesians. It is all about old-fashioned imperialism and the colonialist mentality. The French cannot do it in their own backyard.
  During that debate in July 1973, some of my colleagues—who are still Members—said, "Why can't they drop it in the bay of Biscay?" Charles Loughlin said, "What about the English channel?" I thought that that was getting a bit too close. What I am trying to show is that, 22 years ago, people were determined—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is only 10 years since French Government agents murdered members of the Rainbow Warrior crew? It is a disgrace that, when they returned to France, those agents were given orders of merit by the French Government. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling for the maximum protest possible outside every French embassy between now and September, and for a boycott of all French products, to force the French to stop these monstrous tests?
  Mr. Skinner: I am absolutely in favour of doing so; indeed, it is what I was doing last Monday. I said then that, had it not been for what the mining industry calls a basket Monday, just before a holiday, some other Members of Parliament would have been at the demonstration. Had it been a Tuesday, another 20 or 30 of them would have been there. Many hon. Members travel to the House on a Monday.
  When we debated the issue of the common market in 1971, we were told, "Don't worry, we'll look after the Commonwealth. New Zealand, Canada and Australia will be looked after. The common market will not affect that." It has.
  When the Prime Minister gave the nod and the wink to Chirac and turned his back on New Zealand, Australia and the other areas in the south Pacific, he was showing that despite the protests from the Tory Government, he has more in common with Chirac, the right-wing President of France, and with the Common Market than he has with the old-fashioned Commonwealth. I have reason to believe that Jim Bolger—not a friend of mine, but the Prime Minister of New Zealand—has written to our Prime Minister in protest. The Minister has a duty to tell us the Prime Minister's answer.
  1626
  Nuclear proliferation is a problem. For a long time, certainly since the- collapse of the Berlin wall, many people have said that we can all live happily ever after. I have never accepted that naive, innocent view of life. The net result is that countries such as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and China are developing nuclear weapons.
  We in the Labour party, and many others across the world, have been telling them not to develop nuclear weapons because we are moving into a new era and trying to stop nuclear proliferation. As part of that, we said, Britain and America were not going to carry out tests. That was our argument, but it will break down.
  Iraq and the other countries will be emboldened by the fact that nobody cares tuppence what the French are doing down in the south Pacific, and will say, "Anything goes; we can have some, too." The world will become a lot more dangerous. Someone said to me—I had better be careful how I choose my words—that there could be an Islamic fundamentalist nuclear bomb. It certainly makes one wonder.
  The French argue that they are not doing much, anyway. They say that they are merely engaged in a bit of extra testing, but nothing new. The information that some of us have received—it might be revealed a little later by one or two colleagues—is that the French are up to something else. It is said that they are going to develop a new type of nuclear warhead, and that at least one of the proposed tests is dedicated to that. I was going to read out some comments about that, but I do not have the time.
  We were all very worried about Chernobyl and the radiation that spread for several hundred miles across many countries. How do we know that the ocean currents are not roughly the same as the air currents? Will the results of the nuclear tests be as dramatic as the effects of Chernobyl? I do not know, but it crosses my mind that it is quite feasible that the radiation in the south Pacific will in some way affect the food chain and contaminate some species. It is a major problem for all of us.
  Many years ago, when Mrs. Thatcher came back from an environmental conference in Rio, I explained to her that the environment was a socialist issue. Not all green issues can be dealt with by market forces, and no individual can resolve the problem. The solution must be collective action, not only in the common market but throughout the world. It is a world problem, which means people banding together to solve it. When she went on about the hole in the ozone layer, I told her that she would not patch it up with a man, a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance, but that the solution had to involve the will of literally millions of people banding together.
  It is therefore a matter for us; it will be a matter for new Labour, with all the added ingredients. It will have to deal with the problem, so it might as well get used to it. I hope that, at the conference on Hayman Island, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition listened to the people of Australia and New Zealand, and took note of what they said. I hope that many people bent his ear as they said, "G'day, Blue." What should we do now? I have suggested what the Labour party and the Labour leader should do, and I do so in all friendliness.
  Millions of people in Britain who are not necessarily Labour supporters agree with us. All the people in the animal lobby are not protesting only on behalf little furry creatures. The fact is that there is now a new level of understanding about the food chain, the environment and

  1627
  animal life in general; people's interest goes beyond simply saving a few creatures. They can see what is happening. I call on the Government, even at this late stage, to protest before 1 September, and to have the guts to tell Chirac what the British people really feel.
  There should be an independent health inquiry into the population in the south Pacific. The least we can do is ensure that such an inquiry is held to monitor the effects of the proposed tests and those that have taken place, because the people we met in a Committee Room upstairs feel that they are on their own.
  I support Greenpeace and what it did in trying to sail its ship into the area. The members of Greenpeace were brave. We saw some similarly brave people last Friday—disabled people in wheelchairs, who parked themselves in front of moving buses. Greenpeace did the same sort of thing.
  There are some things that we remember for ever. I can still hear the voice of Stephanie Mills, the lass from New Zealand, on the Greenpeace ship a week last Sunday, squealing in passion, hoping that someone could hear her as the French moved in with tear gas and commandeered the Rainbow Warrior. That powerful voice should have registered with everyone in the Labour party. It is high time the Government understood what is needed. Let us stop the tests now, and take steps to save the planet, not destroy it.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for allowing me to ask three technical questions of which I have given notice to the Foreign Office.
  The first concerns coral reefs. The French spokesman said that not one fish would be harmed by the tests. That is not true—one coral reef at least will be destroyed. Has the Foreign Office been in touch with Ghillean Prance of Kew, who has substantial evidence that it is the nature of coral reefs to fertilise one another at a distance of 200 miles or more? Are we not creating mayhem in a specific part of the south Pacific? The effect of the destruction of coral reefs on fish stocks is important and must be borne in mind. Has the Foreign Office a technical opinion on what could happen?
  Secondly, may I repeat a question that I asked on 2 July 1973 on behalf of the official Opposition. I said:
  "Does the right hon. Gentleman"—
  I was speaking to Julian Amery—
  "deny the presence of strontium 90, and does he further deny the connection between strontium 90 and bone cancer and leukaemia? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the presence of caesium 137, which has a longish half-life of 30 years, and does he further deny the connection between caesium 137 and many forms of cancer, a connection which has been proved by work which has been undertaken by scientists in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does he deny the presence of iodine 131 and its attendant dangers to the thyroid gland? "—[Official Report, 2 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 48.]
  My final question relates to an assertion made in The Guardian on 11 July under the byline of Tim Radford and David Fairhall. They said:
  "In one notorious episode, a nuclear device jammed halfway down the shaft, and had to be detonated prematurely. This is believed to have opened up fissures in the basalt, and caused submarine landslides. In another episode, a typhoon tore across the
  1628
  atoll and ripped away a bituminous seal that had been covering irradiated spoil. A large area was contaminated with plutonium and other radionuclides."
  Is that true? If so, things could go tragically wrong again, with disastrous ecological effects.
  1.19 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not only on securing the debate but on the manner in which he opened it.
  I want to report to the House that, when he was requesting the debate, I was representing the House in Ottawa at the plenary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At the end of the week, the plenary session considered its declaration. It goes through it paragraph by paragraph to ensure that it has got it right. When it got to the paragraph that had been hard fought in the security committee and which condemned the French decision to resume nuclear testing and the French reaction to the Rainbow Warrior, the French naturally opposed it.
  The OSCE parliamentary assembly is made up of 52 nations, plus the Holy See. There were almost 1,000 delegates there. The only delegates who supported the French in the objection were some of the UK delegation. Yet when the full declaration was put to the full assembly, the UK declaration voted to a man along with it to condemn the action, and it was carried nem. con.
  If the Government need some backbone, all they need to do is look to their colleagues in the OSCE, including America, Canada—indeed, every nation there—which condemned the French decision and action in relation to the Rainbow Warrior. I hope that the Government, and our Opposition in response to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, show the same backbone.
  The French in the past have been very dismissive of health effects. Their memorable line is:
  "You do not consult the frogs when you are draining the swamp."
  If anybody were as dismissive as that and agreed with such dismissiveness, I would point them in the direction of the work done by Dr. Sister Rosalie Bertell, who conducted a major health survey, very much in line with that called for by my hon. Friend, which proved beyond all doubt that a serious genetic impairment resulted not only from the previous tests of the French, but from our previous tests and America's previous tests. Such impairment goes on for generation after generation, it affects the seed stock of the whole of humankind, and it can never be put right.
  If we believe anything at all, we should do our utmost to bear properly the responsibility that God has given us. The world has been entrusted to us. In their decision, the French are betraying that trust.
  1.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on obtaining this debate. His new-found interest in defence matters is welcome. He is no doubt responding to Bob Cryer's interest in it in the past. I welcome, too, the apparent broadening of his horizons to such distant climes as the south Pacific. Unfortunately, I do not welcome the thrust of his speech. It was remarkable, if unsurprising, for three

  1629
  reasons. Where we needed logic, we got populism; where we needed analysis, we got invective; and where we needed facts, we got hyperbole.
  I shall deal first with the incident that the hon. Gentleman led on, in which the French forces boarded the Greenpeace ship the Rainbow Warrior II on 9 July. With respect, the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, missed several points. First and foremost, he referred in his familiarly colourful manner to an incident in which the French Government acted entirely within their rights in French territorial waters. The hon. Gentleman too, of course, is within his rights in raising the matter, but it is another matter to suggest that the British Government are somehow guilty of some outrageous crime just because we have refused to join the Greenpeace-led chorus of disapproval.
  I make the point again quite clearly: we support the French Government in their right to defend sites of national security importance in their territorial waters. I think that the House would prefer me to enunciate a policy which is rather more responsible than the arguments that we have just heard, and I shall talk about that in some detail.
  I remind the House of the facts of the incident, as we understand them. The boarding took place not only in French territorial waters, but in a 12-mile exclusion zone which the French Government had declared, as is their right under international law. The captain and crew of Rainbow Warrior II had been warned not to enter the exclusion zone, and that the French authorities would if necessary enforce the exclusion zone. Rainbow Warrior II none the less entered the exclusion zone in defiance of that order. The French authorities then took action to enforce the exclusion zone.
  We have seen no evidence to suggest that the French actions were illegal. The press and the hon. Gentleman have made much of the alleged French heavy-handedness. He must address any detail questions on that to the French authorities; it is not for me to answer. However, so that the House is not misled and hon. Members do not think that the French authorities committed great atrocities on 9 July, I should make quite clear what happened and what did not happen.
  From the information that I have, I understand that no injuries resulted from the boarding of the Rainbow Warrior II, and there were no injuries to the British people present on the ship. The ship and her crew have now left the Mururoa atoll. I, for one, certainly hope that they do not seek to return.
  I turn to the difficult and very real issue that we have to face up to: nuclear testing. We have not criticised the French decision, and I do not intend to start now, but I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman, and any others of his persuasion, the position that we have taken and why we believe that it was right to take it. In doing so, I shall deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  It might be helpful first to remind hon. Members of some further facts, particularly what President Chirac said when he announced France's decision to resume testing. On 13 June, President Chirac stated that France would undertake a final series of no more than eight nuclear tests at Mururoa, between September 1995 and May 1996 at the latest.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: I am afraid not. I do not have much time to conclude my remarks.
  Importantly, President Chirac confirmed France's commitment to the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by the autumn of 1996—[Laughter.]—and France's intention to sign such a treaty once concluded. The laughter from the Labour Members sitting below the Gangway shows how seriously they are taking this matter, as against their rhetoric on it.
  First and foremost, President Chirac made it clear that he took the decision because he considered that France's national security needs could not be met in any other way. I do not believe that it is for us to seek to second-guess his judgment on this. National security—our own and that of our allies—means something to Conservative Members. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover seems to dismiss it so lightly.
  Hon. Members heard a characteristically detailed speech from the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who has a long and honourable interest in this area and has some expertise in it, so in a second I shall come to the points that he raised. But in first addressing it, I reiterate that President Chirac has offered a clear assurance that a testing programme will not harm the environment. Indeed, we are told by the French Government that, despite the fact that more than 150 tests have been conducted at Mururoa, the level of radiation in the south Pacific is lower than natural levels in some parts of mainland France. The French Government have made it clear that all the tests will take place underground.
  The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point about atolls. I assume that he means that the atolls are linked biologically rather than physically. In fact, he talked to me earlier about seeding. Even so, from the scientific evidence at our disposal, I do not believe that there is the kind of problem that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  If I understand his argument correctly, the risk would reflect two things: the product of the differential in radiation at the source point, and the mass transfer between the points that he is discussing. Both those numbers will be very low. However, I will look into it in some detail, since he has raised it rather too late for me to study the matter further.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister ask Foreign Office officials to view the television programme "Coral Grief", which gives pictorial evidence of inter-reef fertilisation?
  Mr. Davis: I shall make sure that we write to the hon. Gentleman, because I take his concerns seriously. I think that they are ill founded in this case, but I take them seriously.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about caesium 137 and strontium 90 in a debate in July 1973 about atmospheric testing. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, all the French tests will take place underground on this occasion, and there is no reason why such elements should be released from those tests. On that occasion in 1973, he received a response from the Attorney-General, which I think stands.
  President Chirac has issued an invitation to experts to visit the area—we have had a call for an independent study—to check his assurance on the effect on the environment.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: I ask the House to consider whether President Chirac would have been prepared to give such an assurance if he was not fully confident that it would be proved justified. I leave it to the House to draw its own conclusions, but the matter seems fairly clear to me.
  President Chirac has explained that the limited programme of tests will be designed to enable France to take advantage of computer simulation techniques to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear deterrent, once a comprehensive test ban treaty comes into force. If the hon. Member for Bolsover reflects on this, he will see that the latter point is good news.
  We wholeheartedly share the desire for the comprehensive test ban treaty to be concluded at the conference on disarmament. The French decision and their reiterated commitment to a CTBT are a constructive contribution towards achieving that goal. The French are saying that they want to work for a comprehensive test ban treaty, that they want to sign one and that they are prepared to work to put themselves in a position to do so in a—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

  Mr. Stephen Spayne
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I know that it is highly unusual to raise the case of an individual in the House of Commons, but there appears to be little alternative. I have already raised the case with the leader of Cleveland county council and it has become clear that an investigation must come from outside the council. I also raise this matter because people should be told what goes on in their local municipal buildings and how their money is being spent. No one at the county council seems to be interested in tackling the issue properly, although I understand that this morning, an extensive press statement has been issued which attempts to explain the position.
  I shall run through the situation. This case relates to my constituent, Stephen Spayne, who works as a shift supervisor in the computer department at Cleveland county council; he has been working there for 21 years. In 1988, Mr. Spayne discovered a rather suspicious document purporting to be an invoice from KN Consultants to a man called Ted Stafford at Rank Xerox. For ease of reference, I have the document here. It is dated 16 May 1988 and it is for £350 for two days' consultancy, travel, subsistence and incidental expenses.
  Mr. Spayne noticed that KN Consultants happened to have the same address as his immediate superior, Mr. Kevin Narey, in the computer department. Mr. Spayne recalled the wording of the code of conduct which bans private work except in very exceptional circumstances. He went to see the chief executive of Cleveland county council to report what was prima facie evidence of corruption.
  Mr. Spayne also took with him two further letters, which he has given to me. The first is a letter from Mr. Narey to Rank Xerox which says:
  "I am returning the cheque which eventually arrived last week in the hope that you can have it amended for me. As you will see, it is made out to KN Consultants. I need to have it in my own name and hope that this can be arranged. If it is any use to you, I enclose a second invoice in my name only. Sorry for the inconvenience."
  The second piece of paper is from Mr. Kevin Narey of the same address. It is in respect of
  "two days' consultancy, travel and subsistence and other expenses."
  Mr. Bruce Stevenson, the chief executive of the county council, who is also my constituent, assured Mr. Spayne that he would deal with the matter thoroughly and that he need not trouble him with it again. Mr. Spayne then received a visit from his union branch secretary. He was clearly told not to mention the matter outside the county council and specifically not to go to see me, his Member of Parliament.
  Following this action by Mr. Spayne, his working environment rapidly deteriorated. Mr. Narey came to see him, accused him of shopping him and started to harass him at work. His life became difficult. He was, for instance, booked on to a management training course while Mr. Narey was away and he received a start date. On Mr. Narey's return, the course was cancelled. There were complaints about every aspect of his work, even about the way in which he parked his car and about a range of other matters.
  Mr. Narey, meanwhile, was promoted to head of the computer department and Mr. Spayne's life became even more unpleasant. Finally, in September 1993, the situation

  1633
  culminated in Mr. Spayne being issued with a disciplinary notice for dereliction of duty. Understandably, Mr. Spayne appealed and refused to speak to the people who were harassing him without a union representative being present. A report was prepared for the appeal tribunal by an investigating officer who was appointed by Mr. Narey. The report did not, however, uphold the case for suspension and Mr. Narey sent it back for redrafting. Mr. Spayne's colleague at work was approached to give evidence against him and was asked, in effect, to lie about him. On 18 January 1994, Mr. Spayne was suspended from his post.
  An independent inquiry was launched by a Mr. Dokes from the education department of the same county council. After a few weeks, my constituent was taken off suspension and put on leave of absence with pay. In May, he returned to work but was given menial tasks in another department, the printing department. From October last year, he went on sick leave as his new job was getting him down.
  Meanwhile, Mr. Dokes had rapidly concluded his investigation and had written a 23-page report substantially supporting Mr. Spayne and drawing on the long history of events, going back to the discovery of the invoices in 1988. It was submitted to the chief executive, Mr. Stevenson, who apparently ordered it to be suppressed and another one to be written. Mr. Dokes said to a Mr. Slater of Unison of his first report:
  "If anyone requests this report I shall deny even writing it, because I have my own position to think about."
  There were witnesses present who wrote those words down. A new report was written; it was heavily jargonised and it did not come out with clear conclusions.
  Late last year, Mr. Spayne came to see me. I regard allegations of corrupt practices as extremely serious, especially when the chief executive is alleged to be covering them up. I went to see the leader of the Conservatives on the county council and she directed me to the leader of the council, Councillor Paul Harford. After going through the facts and discussing Mr. Stevenson's role in all this, Mr. Harford agreed with me that there should be an outside investigation. He asked the county secretary, David Ashton, to receive a report from Mr. Spayne and to set up the necessary action. Mr. Spayne saw Mr. Ashton in December. In January, Mr. Spayne was suddenly recalled to work. He had a two-minute meeting with Mr. Wright of Unison and Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson said that there was no reason why he should not return to work immediately in his old job. However, he refused to discuss why Mr. Spayne had been off work for nearly a year. My constituent then returned to work and wrote to the personnel department asking for written reasons why he had been away from work, but he was given none.
  Following the meeting with Mr. Ashton, the county secretary wrote to Mr. Spayne and to me in April this year saying that the matters had been investigated. I am afraid that the explanations offered do not amount to very much. There is to be no outside investigation.
  First, Mr. Ashton appears to believe from what has been said by Mr. Wright of Unison that my constituent's grievances were being pursued through the normal channels when that was patently not the case. They have not been pursued by anyone, let alone Unison which seems, incidentally, to act as an arm of the county council.
  1634
  After all, it was another union representative who informally offered Mr. Spayne £20,000 to leave the county's employment.
  Secondly, Mr.Ashton has taken advantage of Mr. Spayne's understandable reluctance to speak to superior officers in his own council about his allegation to discern that Mr. Spayne does not allege misconduct on the part of the chief executive. Yet the reason why I went to see the leader of the council and asked for a proper outside investigation was precisely because such an allegation had been made. I do not believe that it is in the interests of my constituent, Mr. Stevenson or the county council simply to brush the matter aside. If senior officers can accept outside payments from companies dealing directly with the county and can then have the matter hushed up, the council tax payers in my constituency should know about it.
  The explanation of the events leading a senior officer of the council to invoice Rank Xerox has no substance at all. The matter was apparently referred to an internal auditor who sent a report to the chief executive who decided to take no action. Mr. Ashton—another servant of the council—has apparently read the report and is happy with it, but he will not say what is in it. However, I understand that in the light of today's debate, a statement has been issued to the press which offers some explanation.
  Mr. Ashton has said that the personnel director stated in 1974 that, from time to time, chief and senior officers were requested to give informal or formal talks on particular aspects of the work of council, and that expenses for travel and subsistence and a fee could be paid. So why was Mr. Narey not open and above board about it? What about the company called KN Consultants, which apparently disappeared overnight? Apparently, it was resolved by the council that permission could be given for such talks if the appropriate chief officer was consulted. But no suggestion has been made that anybody was consulted in this case.
  Why was Mr. Narey so angry about being shopped? Why was Mr. Spayne hounded, nearly out of his job? Why was the report on Mr. Spayne's employment quashed and sent back for a redraft? If the matter was all in order and above board, why did not Mr. Stevenson just tell Mr. Spayne that? Why is Mr. Narey now telling my constituent that he has no chance of redeployment when the computer department moves over to the new unitary borough of Middlesbrough? Is Mr. Narey, along with other officers, free to accept payments from contractors and then harass his staff if they question his doing so?
  I suppose that it is possible that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, but justice has not yet been done, nor has it been seen to be done. There are, I suspect, only two alternatives. Either something very shady is going on in the county council and there has been a cover-up for some reason, or it is just a very badly managed institution which treats its staff poorly and has terrible internal communications. Either way, I am not confident that Cleveland county council is the efficient organisation it has pretended to be to stave off its own abolition.
  I hope that the Minister will use what powers he has to have Mr. Spayne's case properly investigated by an outside authority. I would also like to see an independent report on Mr. Narey's activities with regard to the dummy

  1635
  invoices, and a clear statement from Cleveland as to the circumstances in which officers' private arrangements with outside companies are deemed to be corrupt.
  Since these events happened, Cleveland county council has revised its guidance on private work and general conduct for staff. Under the heading "General Conduct" in both the old and new versions, it says clearly:
  "The Council must be in a position to rebut with confidence any allegation that the integrity of its administration is being impaired because of the leisure time activities of any of its staff. Implicit in this is the requirement that there must be no question of staff undertaking activities in circumstances which might lead to suspicion of undue or improper favour being granted, or undue or improper influence exercised, in relation to contracts or any kind of consent, permission, licence etc., which members of the public seek from the Council."
  That is a clear statement which, in the circumstances, I do not think Cleveland council can live up to today.
  Finally, it is beholden upon Cleveland county council to apologise to my constituent for the appalling way in which he has been treated, and to offer some token compensation. Once again, we see evidence of how the internal dealings of Labour-controlled councils leave a lot to be desired, and how difficult it is to bring such circumstances out into the light.
  1.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has classically presented his case with typical clarity. Those of us with an interest in these matters will wish to consider carefully what he has said and consider their response to his analysis of these issues. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on the specific case or the specific allegations. As my hon. Friend is aware, Ministers have no direct role in such cases, nor do they have powers to intervene. Nevertheless, the Government condemn all forms of impropriety and corruption in public life, wherever it occurs. We have done much in the last 16 years to promote good conduct in local government. I can offer my hon. Friend some general comments and some general guidance on how he might take this matter forward.
  Historically, local government in this country has been characterised by a tradition of propriety and public service. However, there is always the potential for misconduct or fraud and we must not be complacent. Central Government's role is to ensure that there is a framework in place to provide a safeguard against such misconduct. In 1982, the Government established the Audit Commission to arrange for the audit of local authorities. The Audit Commission oversees the work of councils' external auditors, who have an important role in the fight against fraud.
  In 1985, the Government set up the Widdicombe committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. We responded to the committee's report with legislation providing for a number of measures to ensure the good conduct of local authority business. In particular, we introduced a head of paid service, responsible for making reports on—among other things—the proper appointment and management of staff and the introduction of the role of the monitoring officer to make reports on the contravention of the law or maladministration.
  1636
  Other measures introduced by the Government since then have contributed to the improvement of the conduct of local government by encouraging authorities to root out waste and bureaucracy and to remove obstacles to the provision of efficient and effective services. I am thinking obviously of the disciplines imposed by the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to greater areas of local authority business and most recently the requirement to publish performance indicators.
  However, the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud within their areas of operation rests with the local authorities themselves. As responsible employers, councils should uphold the highest standards of probity among their own employees. In the great majority of cases, they do. Where fraud is found, the authority should root it out. However, my hon. Friend is clearly dissatisfied with the response he has received from the council in this case. I would advise him that he, his constituent and others concerned about this case have two alternate avenues to explore.
  In cases where there is a suspicion of criminal activity, the matter should be referred to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I am not aware that such allegations have been made in this case. Alternatively, matters relating to misconduct, fraud or the loss of public money can be referred to the council's external auditor. I am not in a position to say—nor should I comment—on whether the allegations referred to by my hon. Friend have some substance, but the nature of the allegations suggests to me that they are of the type which would fall within the remit of the district auditor. My hon. Friend may wish to consider this course of action, if indeed it has not already been done.
  District auditors are independent of the councils which they audit, and they have significant powers to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and take action. Their powers extend wider than those of a commercial auditor. They not only audit the council's accounts, but advise on matters relating to value for money and good financial management. They guard against fraud, misconduct and the loss of money, and if they find transgressions they can surcharge those responsible for the repayment of money.
  District auditors are overseen by the Audit Commission. Its statutory duties include the preparation of a code which prescribes
  "what appears to the commission to be the best professional practice with respect to the standards, procedures and techniques to be adopted by auditors".
  The code is subject to approval by Parliament and hon. Members with an interest in these matters will know that a Standing Committee of the House considered and approved the latest version of the code only last week.
  Auditors have a duty to comply with the code in carrying out their functions, and therefore it plays an important part in the fight against fraud. The code makes it clear that it is the responsibility of auditors to review the adequacy of the measures taken by councils to combat fraud, to test compliance with these measures and to draw attention to significant weaknesses or omissions which they may identify. According to the code, any person may at any time give information to auditors which concerns the accounts of the relevant councils or is otherwise relevant to the auditors' functions, and auditors must—I emphasise that—consider such information. The relevant auditor in the matters referred to by my hon. Friend would be obliged to consider information passed to him.

  1637
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sympathise with my hon. Friend's frustration in this case, and I hope he will not be disappointed that I have to say—in all fairness, I think he already realised this—that I cannot pursue the matter on his behalf. However, I have explained the framework within which local authorities and their external auditors must operate, and I have offered him some guidance on the future action he must take. I can do no more than wish him the best of luck.
  Mr. Frank Cook rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is an Adjournment debate, and the Minister has spoken.
  As both the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office are present, we shall now move to the next debate.

  Burma
  1.49 pm
  Sir David Steel: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important question of British Government policy on Burma. On Monday, I was able to welcome and congratulate the new Minister; let me do so again now. No doubt this is the first of many foreign affairs Adjournment debates that he will have to answer.
  The Minister inherits one excellent policy: what has been described as the "good governance" policy of Her Majesty's Government over the past two or three years. We shall all miss the leadership shown by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) over the years, and I have always given my full support to Baroness Chalker when she has spoken on the subject. Indeed, I shall begin by quoting from her Chatham house lecture of a year ago. She said:
  "The United Nations charter lays a duty on all of us to promote respect for human rights everywhere."
  That encapsulates the theme of my speech.
  In 1988, the National League for Democracy in Burma won the general election. Its victory was inconvenient for the military, which promptly staged a coup and established in its place the infamous SLORC—the State Law and Order Restoration Council. As with so many military coups around the world, the theory was that this would be a transitional phase prior to an orderly handing over of power to a democracy. That has not happened, however, and many of the Members of Parliament who had been elected were thrown into gaol. Since then, the legitimate Prime Minister of Burma, Dr. Sein Win, has been in exile. He is currently in Washington, and I had a long discussion with him there a few weeks ago.
  The daughter of the Independence Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been the most noted figure of opposition to the military, and has been awarded the Nobel peace prize. We all rejoiced when she was released last week after six years of house detention. She became a symbol of resistance to oppression around the world, but life could have been so easy for her: the regime was perfectly willing to release her provided that she left the country to join her British husband and family in Oxford, but she realised that she would never be allowed back and volunteered to remain under house arrest. That is a tribute to her steadfastness and courage.
  In her famous essay "Freedom from Fear", Aung San Suu Kyi wrote that courage could be described as grace under pressure—
  "grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure."
  That definition could very well be applied to Aung San Suu Kyi herself. She has been a symbol of hope to the people of Burma, whether they are in the country or—as many are—in exile around the world. I was glad to hear today that she was able to attend the martyrs' memorial ceremony; we wait to see what other freedoms she will be allowed following her release.
  We in the Liberal international movement decided to give Aung San Suu Kyi the 1995 prize for freedom. We award the prize annually to a figure who has made a contribution to world freedom, and I can think of no more appropriate recipient this year. Only a few weeks ago, the SLORC authorities refused me permission to travel to

  1639
  Burma and present the prize. Given the new circumstances, I have asked permission again, and I hope that it will be granted in the near future.
  I do not think that Aung San Suu Kyi would have been released but for the pressure exerted by many Governments around the world, including the strong words of our own Prime Minister in an answer to me at Question Time only three weeks ago and the pressure from the visiting Japanese Foreign Minister. All those factors have helped, but there is a danger that, because Aung San Suu Kyi has been such a symbol of the victimisation and oppression of the Government, the fact of her release may lead people to believe that things will be well in Burma from now on. I hope that they will, but the House should be aware that 16 elected Members of Parliament are still in gaol, and that there are an estimated 1,000 political prisoners in Burma—including nine students who were arrested only this year while attending the funeral of one of the Independence leaders.
  The regime has been universally condemned for its human rights abuses over the past few years. Successive annual resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly have been increasingly critical of SLORC, and the sub-commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities has also been extremely critical of its oppression of minority groups in the country—notably the Karen minority on the border with Thailand. No doubt the Minister is aware of a recent television documentary that produced some evidence that biological warfare had been used by the regime against the Karen people. That in itself deserves international condemnation.
  All the UN resolutions have consistently called for an end to summary executions, torture and forced labour. I have just been reading the International Labour Organisation's report on forced labour. It estimates that some 800,000 people have been used for that purpose under legislation that allows Burmese local authorities to requisition citizens for public works. It states that the Government are is using forced labour in a strategic and systematic way to develop holiday resorts for tourists. For example, workers have been conscripted to clean out with bare hands the Mandalay canal, 10 km long and more than 3 m deep. Houses bordering the canal have been demolished and local people forced by the military to work 24-hour shifts, and 2,000 prisoners in chains have been brought in to assist. The report goes on to claim that some 30,000 workers have not been paid for work at the new airport in Basang, and that hordes of men have been seen cleaning streets and historic buildings in Mandalay.
  The regime has responded that the allegations of forced labour are false and are being made by people who want to denigrate it. It argues that international critics do not understand the culture of the people; the voluntary contribution of labour to building shrines, temples and so forth is a tradition that goes back thousands of years.
  That superficial argument has been rejected by, among others, the United States Government representative to the ILO, Julia Misner. She has pointed out that, while the United States Government respect the tradition of voluntary community service in Burma, there is clear evidence that people have been forcibly conscripted, taken
  1640
  from their villages and farms and made to work—often without pay or food—under threat of heavy fines, and subjected to severe physical abuse. She said:
  "Some of these workers had died as a result of mistreatment and some had been murdered. What was unacceptable and alarming was not only had the Government failed to suppress the use of forced labour, but apparently had even promoted the spread of this practice".
  When we speak of good governance, we are not talking only about obscure parliamentary traditions; we are talking about the way of life imposed on the people of Burma by the present regime.
  What should we, in the outside world, be doing about that? Of course we have no aid programme to Burma because of the human rights record, yet Burma is a very poor country. The per capita gross domestic product is only $235; that is half of India's per capita GDP and less than that of Bangladesh. Only 10 per cent. of homes have electricity. Obviously, therefore, Burma is a country which in normal times would be a very worthy recipient of international aid assistance.
  Given that that aid has been denied to them and given their inflation rate and their levels of poverty, the Burmese authorities have been developing what I can only call "economic diplomacy". A Japanese trading company recently signed an agreement on major infrastructure joint ventures and it is widely believed that the Japanese Government are now considering the resumption of an aid programme. Britain held a trade promotion week last year, and the World bank is currently preparing a report on economic reforms.
  It is believed that Burma may announce other palliative measures following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. She herself has answered a direct question on her release. She was asked by Time magazine:
  "How should the international community react"
  to your release? She replied:
  "The authorities should be given credit for releasing me, but I think people should wait a bit to see what follows. There is no use rushing in and thinking everything is going to be hunky-dory from now on."
  I think those are wise words.
  I suggest to the Minister that our policies should be roughly as follows.
  First, we must use our position in the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure that major economic benefit lending is not resumed to Burma without a dramatic improvement in human rights. I believe it is essential that we use our. influence in the international financial institutions in that constructive way.
  Secondly, I do not believe that any further trade or investment delegations should be sent to Burma until the UN resolutions have been complied with.
  Thirdly, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support the UN machinery to establish a contact group which could encourage dialogue between SLORC and the National League for Democracy. It is interesting that members of the National League for Democracy—at any rate those that I have met—are not wild-eyed revolutionaries. They are making a reasonable suggestion that in Burma there might be, as an interim measure, a shared administration between the present regime and the NLD, pending the construction of a proper constitutional conference.

  1641
  I believe that that is a sensible and moderate suggestion, which the UN is ready to encourage and which Her Majesty's Government should support.
  We must make it clear to the regime that unilateral constitutional tinkering on its part will not be acceptable. The present so-called "constitutional convention" is already in draft and proposes, for example, a major continuing role in the democratic assemblies for the military. It proposes, for example, to disqualify from standing for presidential office anyone married to a foreigner; a more blatant piece of manipulation intended to exclude Aung San Suu Kyi is difficult to imagine.
  Obviously, it is unacceptable that the existing regime should itself revise the constitution. There must be some process of dialogue, of constitution-building on a consensus basis. I suggest that the international pressure, especially the pressure from Her Majesty's Government, which was applied to the Banda regime in Malawi and produced exactly that type of constitutional dialogue leading to democratic elections, is what is required in Burma.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that not only shall we ourselves not resume an aid programme until there are changes of a more fundamental type in Burma, but that we shall talk firmly to our allies in the Japanese Government to try to ensure that they do not do so either.
  I freely recognise that one of the problems facing the Government in promoting the good governance policy is that pressure through withdrawal of investment or trade is not effective if it is unilateral. It must be on a multilateral and co-operative basis. I argue that that co-operation should begin in the European Union. It may take us a long time to move to the so-called common foreign policy outlined in the Maastricht treaty, but whatever our opinions may be in the House on that subject there can be no denying that, on the issue of trade and investment pressure, a common policy is exactly what is needed. Otherwise, one country's sanctions become its neighbours' business opportunities. I hope very much that the policy of good governance will be pushed forward, especially in the European Union.
  In the past few days, we have had the sad example of Nigeria. Strong statements were made about Nigeria by the Minister and by Lady Chalker, and the Nigerians have reacted against that and called in the heads of the British oil companies to warn them against what they regard as interference in their affairs. We are exposed as an individual country unless we work together with our allies to increase the pressure on those totalitarian regimes and persuade them to return to civilian Government.
  I realise that I have not used up all the extra time that you have generously allowed us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a result of the shortness of the previous debate, but I have never believed in occupying space for that reason alone. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
  2.6 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) for initiating the debate. It is certainly very timely for the House to focus on Burma slightly more than a week after Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released from the house detention to which the right hon.
  1642
  Gentleman referred. She had indeed endured that house detention for almost six years, and it had long been a policy priority of this Government to secure her unconditional release. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members of the House will wish to join the right hon. Gentleman and myself, especially on such a significant day, in welcoming that courageous lady back to freedom.
  July 19 is martyrs day in Burma, commemorating not only Daw Suu Kyi's father, but the other Burmese leaders who were assassinated just before Burma achieved its independence. Earlier today, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, Daw Suu Kyi joined the State Law and Order Restoration Council—the SLORC—in laying wreaths for her father. The ceremony passed peacefully, and I believe that we should take that as a good omen for a united future for Burma.
  I wish to begin by expressing my heartfelt admiration for Daw Suu Kyi. The citation for her Nobel peace prize in 1991 described her contribution as one of the most remarkable examples of civilian courage in Asia in recent decades. I am pleased to hear of the additional honour to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  Throughout her detention, Daw Suu Kyi remained untainted by bitterness, and was rightly regarded as a fitting symbol of the non-violent struggle against oppression. Since her release, that courage has been complemented by a remarkable magnanimity and self-restraint. She has indeed been an example to all democrats. In a moving statement that she made to the press on her first day of freedom, she spoke, not of triumph, but of forgiveness and reconciliation. Now she is free, and is turning her efforts towards working with the SLORC for the good of the Burmese people. As I say, I cannot praise her enough and I should also pay tribute to the fortitude shown by her family.
  We must also welcome the decision of the ruling military regime in Burma, the SLORC, in finally agreeing to remove the restriction that it had placed on Daw Suu Kyi. A long detention without trial was against all the principles of justice. We appreciate the SLORC's acknowledgment of her right to liberty at long last. By agreeing to her unconditional release and expressing its desire to work with her for the peace and stability of Burma, it has acted in its country's best interests. We warmly welcome its action and hope that it represents the first step in an irreversible pursuit of progress towards a prosperous and a democratic Burma.
  As no one appreciates more than Daw Suu Kyi, that will be no easy task. But now there is hope for change. Burma is one of south-east Asia's least developed countries, with vast unrealised natural and human resources. The SLORC has asked Daw Suu Kyi to participate in the creation of a peaceful and prosperous country, and has expressed its hope that national reconciliation will be achieved. We encourage the SLORC to recognise the rights of all Burmese people to participate fully in the political process, and to heed the call for dialogue.
  Encouraging such dialogue and cooperation has been a key. aim of our policy since the SLORC came to power, and it will continue to be so. As Daw Suu Kyi has already pointed out, the positive resolution of political problems throughout the world in recent years has been achieved primarily through dialogue.

  1643
  We have been heartened by the SLORC's stated intention to achieve reconciliation, and by its recent release of many political prisoners. But, as the Secretary of State said in his message marking the release of Daw Suu Kyi, there are many more people still detained in Burma. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments in that regard and for confirming the magnitude of the existing problem. We hope that the process of formulating a new constitution will become a truly consultative process involving all ethnic and political groups and that all those still detained for voicing their hopes and aims for a free and democratic Burma will be released to take part in that process.
  Of course, civil liberties are not the only important rights. The welfare of the Burmese people continues to concern us. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the human rights situation in Burma is distressing by any standards. We are aware of reports of forced labour and military porterage, and of the displacement of entire communities. The plight of the Karen people on Burma's border with Thailand must not be overlooked. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been graphic evidence of that in recent television programmes.
  Freedom of speech and association are still denied in Burma. We have condemned such human rights abuses and will continue to do so, both bilaterally and in international forums. We support the activities of the United Nations in promoting democracy in Burma and we would consider carefully any proposal for a contact group. But there is hope for change. The SLORC has at last realised that the removal of constraints from Daw Suu Kyi can help it to achieve a prosperous and a peaceful Burma. We must work with others to persuade it to realise that the same benefits will come from respecting the human rights of all the Burmese people, including the ethnic minorities.
  We are committed to helping Burma develop into a peaceful and prosperous nation with which we can enjoy productive relations. We endorse Daw Suu Kyi's call for the healing of divisions to stabilise Burma and we are encouraged by the SLORC's request that she work with it for the peace and stability of the country. Internal stability is a vital prerequisite of the political and economic development that is essential if Burma is to play a full international role.
  We recognise that Burma's neighbours have direct concerns which affect the formulation of their policy. But we urge them to consider carefully the implications of moving too quickly. Daw Suu Kyi and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the advantages of a quiet and careful approach. We should not rush into things, assuming that everything is, as Daw Suu Kyi said, "hunky-dory". We all want Burma to play its full part in international and regional groupings. But before Burma can fulfil wider roles satisfactorily, the SLORC needs to be encouraged to apply principles of good governance. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said in that regard. The principles of good governance require a Government to be legitimate, competent, accountable and to respect and promote human rights and the rule of law. We can all do much to encourage that.
  All those Governments with an interest in the future of Burma are reviewing their policies following Daw Suu Kyi's release. But the watchword is caution. We shall all
  1644
  be watching closely to see if the SLORC takes advantage of the situation that it has created. Burma stands to benefit greatly if it does.
  Aid is an important aspect of our policy, as the right hon. Gentleman highlighted. We shall be considering carefully the direction that our aid policy should take over the coming months. Aid is a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma, and we must be careful that it is used to support reform rather than undermine it. We shall discuss the way ahead with our European partners. We are already in agreement that we should reward reform in Burma by providing aid.
  We consider it vital that the SLORC should cooperate with the UN bodies and other aid and humanitarian agencies working in Burma, whose efforts we strongly support. It is only in that way that the Burmese people will be able to benefit from the help that we all wish to provide.
  Burma is in desperate need of economic development, as the SLORC has recognised. We should be doing the Burmese people a grave disservice if we were to ignore that. Daw Suu Kyi has also expressed her support for measured economic development country wide. But we must proceed with caution. As part of our critical dialogue, we should let the SLORC know that progress with economic assistance will be conditional on both economic and political reforms. They must be radical. In particular, Burma needs a stable fiscal framework and a new currency policy. She should address urgently the problem of her foreign debt.
  We shall also be reviewing the means by which we assist British companies to prospect the Burmese market. It is a market that could develop quickly should real reform come. We need to ensure that British companies will not be at a disadvantage when competing in those conditions. The competition will be intense. Through trade, we can help to reinforce rather than undermine our policy in other areas. Through increased commercial contacts with democratic nations such as Britain, the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles. So I do not share the view of the isolationists who contend that trading with repressive regimes only brings them succour.
  I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the trade fair. British week proved extremely successful. It was a small scale affair, but one which aimed to give British firms a chance to assess for themselves market opportunities in Burma. It was not just a trade event; it included cultural and information elements that aimed to correct the distorted image of the United Kingdom in Burma. We do not have any plans for future events, but I believe that the trade fair achieved all of its aims.
  Overall, we aim to provide the strong and sympathetic support that Daw Suu Kyi asked for from the international community, working bilaterally with our European partners, Burma's neighbours and other nations. The continued interest shown by the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to help to achieve the aims that she has represented for so long. We must impress upon the SLORC our interest and potential to contribute, but we must emphasise our continued insistence on the removal of the many abuses and restrictions that remain. It is truly critical to maintain our dialogue.
  I can summarise our current attitude as cautiously optimistic. We are looking at our policy options but will not rush ahead. We must allow the dust to settle and the dialogue between Daw Suu Kyi, her followers and the

  1645
  SLORC to develop. We must do our best to aid the progress of dialogue and reconciliation by recognising and rewarding moves in the right direction. Daw Suu Kyi has warned the Burmese people
  "not to expect too much too quickly",
  but her positive attitude gives hope for progress. She pointed out that the differences between the regime and the Opposition in Burma are nothing like so great as the gulf that divided black and white in South Africa. If South Africa can resolve its differences and proceed as a united country, there is hope for Burma. We shall do all that we can to encourage the fulfilment of that hope. Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for raising the issue in the House today.
  2.19 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  2.30 pm
  On resuming—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 19 October.

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June].
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    National Park Authorities
    Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the new national park authorities. [33371]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Our conclusions in response to the many representations we have received are reflected in part III of the Environment Bill.
    Ms Ruddock: The Secretary of State will be painfully aware of the extent to which Britain's conservation bodies feel cheated by his decision to remove "quiet enjoyment" rather than accept the definition tabled by the Opposition on Report. When will his revised guidance be published, as promised? Will he give us his word that that guidance will make it crystal clear that a special quality of all national parks is their peacefulness and tranquillity?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Lady should not have read with care reports of discussions in Committee, when it was made clear that, although the Government sought to find a way both to retain "quiet enjoyment" and to ensure that people could continue to do in national parks what they have done and want to continue to do, there was no way in which either the Opposition or the Government felt that that could be achieved. We have removed "quiet" and I have stated in the guidance, which I hope to publish as soon as possible, that we shall ensure that the tranquillity that is suitable for national parks is maintained while enabling people to continue to lead their lives in a reasonable manner. I think that that is reasonable, and most bodies agree with me.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision to increase the number of local people on national park authorities, especially parish councillors, has been warmly welcomed, particularly in the context of the Northumberland national park? Will he dissociate himself from the remarks made by an Opposition Front Bench spokesman in Committee to the effect that parish councillors are overly parochial and accountable to no one?
    Mr. Gummer: I was surprised to read of the Labour party's assertion that parish councillors are accountable only to themselves. I was surprised also by the dismissive and contemptuous way in which they were treated by the Labour Front Bench. I hope that parish councillors notice that the Labour party does not consider them to be representative of local parties and does not believe that they are elected. I hope also that parish councillors will know what to do in future when the Labour party woos them.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are many people who enjoy walking in national parks? Will he encourage national parks to negotiate access agreements to increase the areas in which people can walk? Will he urge all national parks to achieve the target set out in the Edwards report by ensuring that, by the end of the year, all rights of way in national parks are free of obstruction and are signposted where they leave the highway?
    Mr. Gummer: I am obviously pleased by the way in which we have improved the opportunity of access during
    1648
    the past few years. I know that most national parks are trying to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman has urged. We must recognise, however, that there is a balance to be achieved. Many other functions of the national parks must be carried out properly, such as conservation of habitat, protection of birds and improvement of agriculture. All those factors must come into the balance as well.

    Building and Construction Industry
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the prospects for the building and construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [33372]
    The Minister for Construction and Planning (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I commend to my hon. Friend the latest state of the construction industry report, produced jointly by my Department and representatives of the industry, which was published on 13 July. Copies have been placed in the Library.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my hon. Friend agree that a thriving building and construction industry is usually a great contributor to economic recovery and should be a political imperative for a party that has always championed the idea of a property-owning democracy? Given the present flatness of the housing market, has my hon. Friend any ideas in mind, such as the upgrading of our substandard housing stock, which would revitalise the industry and restore the cachet of home ownership?
    Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the construction industry. Of course we want to encourage it in every way possible to become more efficient and cost-effective so that it will continue to have an important place not only domestically but in terms of exports, which are going well. My hon. Friend should not forget that, despite gloomy pictures on the part of the construction industry, there are some better prospects and, in particular, exports are going well.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Minister accept that the prospects for the building and construction industry are extremely gloomy because, in the public sector, the Government will do nothing to release local authorities' capital receipts which could lead to jobs and homes being built and, in the private sector, the Government are impotent and can do nothing because the real problem is the British people's lack of confidence in the Government and in Britain's economic prospects while they remain in power?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman behaves as though the receipts that accrue to local authorities are sitting under councillors' beds. A proportion is used for housing investment and much is used as a substitute for borrowing or lent on the money market. If that money was spent all at once, it would exert upward pressure on interest rates as well as causing other problems.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Prime Minister who, when addressing the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance on Monday this week, said that, with interest rates and inflation under control and with falling unemployment, housing has rarely been more affordable, and that the only stumbling block was lack of confidence? What does my hon. Friend believe he should do to get over that stumbling block in order to encourage the first-time buyer, thereby enhancing the prospects for the construction industry?
    Mr. Jones: I read my right hon. Friend's excellent speech and I commend my hon. Friend's husband, the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), on his role in that organisation. My hon. Friend refers to the 20-year low in the ratio of prices to incomes and therefore rightly highlights the fact that housing is more affordable. Instead of talking down the housing market, Opposition Members should be emphasising that fact to encourage sales.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now come clean? In the past week we have seen figures from the National House-Building Council that show that starts in the first six months of this year are 15 per cent. down and figures from the Corporate Estate Agents showing sales down by a similar amount. Everyone in the industry knows that the house-building industry is in difficulty and that confidence has been further weakened by the crass decision to cut the income support safety net. When will the Government face up to their responsibilities? There was nothing in the White Paper to restore confidence in the market. When will the Government come to the help of the hard-pressed house-building industry and the millions of home owners who are in difficulty?
    Mr. Jones: No one has any illusions about the fact that the house-building sector is going through a difficult period which will be overcome only as confidence continues to gain strength. That depends on how the economy performs and on how the message—that private sector housing has not been as affordable as it is now for 20 years—is put across.

    House-building Industry
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the business prospects for the house-building industry. [33373]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government remain firmly committed to a policy of sustainable home ownership and we anticipate recovery in the house-building industry as the wider economy continues to grow.
    Mr. Nicholson: The national interest and the Conservative party's interest depend on a flourishing housing and building industry in the widest possible sense—home ownership and encouraging mobility. Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation—which has complex causes, notably the over-borrowing of the late 1980s—is not sustainable for long? It is desirable for the reasons that I have given that my hon. Friend's Department should work closely with the Treasury to bring forward specific, urgent and early measures to encourage the house-building industry.
    Mr. Jones: I shall certainly draw my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's attention to my hon. Friend's point, but I return to the fact that the health of the house-building industry depends crucially on the performance of the economy as a whole. As my hon. Friend says, it would serve no one any good if we returned to the days of hyper-inflation in house prices.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's new responsibility for health and safety, has he yet had time to look at the appalling health and safety record of building workers in the house-building industry? What will he do, particularly about the deregulated sector, commonly known as the lump?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Lady sounds like a voice from the 1960s. We are, of course, keen to see improving safety standards in the construction industry. As someone who worked in that industry, I am more aware of the matter than most, and we will continue to place emphasis on it.
    Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key factor in the house-building industry is the level of interest rates? Does he applaud the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5 May when he resisted increasing interest rates? Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that, like the Chorley building society, other building societies do not always put up their rates when the larger ones do?
    Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear about the building society in my hon. Friend's constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has to balance all the considerations, including the climate for inflation, as well as the performance of the economy as a whole. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that is not an easy balancing act.

    Houses in Multiple Occupation
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his reasons for deciding not to introduce a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. [33374]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The rules that we are proposing will permit effective action to ensure safety where that is necessary without imposing universal rules that may not be necessary everywhere.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister admit that three out of every four people who responded to the Government's consultation paper supported the case for a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation? By refusing to introduce such a scheme, are not the Government putting their ideological hostility towards regulation ahead of the proper concern for public safety and the need to save lives?
    Mr. Curry: It is true that a large number of people wanted a licensing scheme, but they wanted different things—there was little agreement on the shape of the scheme that they wanted. We have decided to build on the powers that local authorities have rather than impose duties on them. There are parts of the country where there are relatively few problems, and it is not necessary to introduce a compulsory universal scheme. Where it is necessary to introduce a scheme, local authorities already have the relevant powers, and we shall give them enhanced powers.
    Mrs. Lait: Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will advise local authorities that houses in multiple occupation are precisely that and that the term should not be applied to large houses that have been converted into a few flats with relatively few residents?
    Mr. Curry: We shall exempt from the regulation places such as long-term leasehold blocks, houses with self-contained flats and university halls of residence. They will be caught by different regulations that achieve the same purpose.

    Air Quality Monitoring
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many monitoring stations capable of recording levels of PM10s or lower provide information for his Department. [33376]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): There are currently 16 stations. Another nine will come on stream by the end of 1996. On top of that, local authority sites will be integrated to increase the coverage.
    Mr. Ainger: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I am extremely disappointed with his reply. Professor Seaton's report in The Lancet in January established a direct fink between the number and level of PM1Os in the atmosphere and high levels of death as a result of cardiovascular problems and respiratory disease. I understand that the expert panel on air quality standards will report later this year. Is not the number of monitoring stations wholly inadequate? Does the Minister agree that his plans do not address this serious problem?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that, in addition to the automatic monitoring stations, there are 250 non-automatic stations around the country. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that particle matter causes concern. That has been recognised by the expert panel, which is taking the matter seriously. No doubt particle matter will be one of the pollutants that we shall aim to reduce as part of our national air quality strategy that will be put in place by the Environment Bill. That strategy will be taken seriously; certainly it will be put into force.
    Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's appointment. I am sure that he is aware that pollution causes particular difficulties for those with health problems such as asthma. What further action can his Department take to ensure that existing laws and those that are passed in this Session are used to try to reduce the number of lorries and buses that belch out filthy black smoke?
    Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments, as I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) for his. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Diesel exhausts, buses and cars are responsible for a large volume of the pollution he describes. He will be aware that tighter standards are coming into force in 1996. They will result in a reduction of that type of pollution in the way that other measures, including the introduction of catalytic converters, have reduced other forms of serious pollution. All those measures will help to achieve the high standards for which we aim.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional new measures he proposes to take to combat homelessness. [33377]
    Mr. Curry: There will be a further rough sleepers initiative in London and we are considering how to apply the experience of the rough sleepers initiative outside London.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not it the case that, during the past 16 years of Tory government, homeless households have more than doubled and housing for rent has fallen to its
    1652
    lowest level? There are no real programmes offering homeless people what they really want—permanent homes. Why will not the Government let local authorities build affordable social housing?
    Mr. Curry: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is trapped in a time warp. That comment is typical of the whole Labour party, which wants only to build council houses and does not seem to take any interest in any other aspect of housing policy. The Government have shifted the emphasis for construction to the housing associations because we think that they do the job better than local authorities. We have also shifted the emphasis towards getting an increasing number of houses for rent available to people by making sure that we have vacancies for them.
    We have encouraged people to move into their own property if they can afford it so as to liberate that property, and we have a campaign to deal with the problems of empty property. We have achieved a much better balance in housing than existed before. Those policies offer to homeless people, specifically through the rough sleepers initiative and through the programmes that will be in the housing White Paper, a far better balance in housing policy across Britain as a whole.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which to tackle homelessness is through a thriving housing market? Given the current difficulties in that market, and especially its low margins, does he sympathise with the significant concern of the housing industry about the draft part M building regulations and about the additional cost brought about in particular by the insistence on ramp accesses for every new house? Those measures will inevitably impose costs on the housing sector and that will be completely against the interests of those who want to own their own homes and, ultimately, act against the interests of the homeless.
    Mr. Curry: We are not insisting on that. That is merely one of the options.

    Housing
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the advantages of large-scale voluntary transfer of housing stock. [33378]
    Mr. Gummer: As my hon. Friend will know from the recent transfer of Maldon's housing stock to the Plume housing association, large-scale voluntary transfers mean more investment in housing stock and better services for tenants.
    Mr. Whittingdale: My right hon. Friend mentions the transfer of Maldon district council's housing stock. Is he aware that, following that transfer to the Plume housing association, tenants will this year pay a rent increase of 3.9 per cent. rather than the 12 per cent. that was projected by the council and that the council has benefitted by £21.5 million? Is not that an excellent demonstration of the way in which large-scale voluntary transfer can benefit council tenants, the local authority and the council tax payer?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps he shares my experience. Now that LSVTs have been made in Suffolk Coastal, I receive from council tenants in a year the number of complaints that I used to receive every month. The improvement in the management of

    1653
    housing and the money available for improvements in housing stock have had a remarkable effect. I hope that other local councils will take heart.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While we welcome the moves towards greater mobility in the housing market, is it true that housing association are permitted by law to sell tenants their own homes, or are they forbidden from doing so? I am not speaking about special purpose housing, but normal housing.
    Mr. Gummer: The constitutions of some charitable housing associations have arrangements that make it impossible for them to sell, but, for the most part, associations can, if they wish, sell to their tenants. We are encouraging that. In future, housing associations that receive money from central funds will get it on condition that they provide a right to buy. The money that they make from those sales could, of course, be recycled immediately into new housing.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if Labour and the Liberal Democrats had had their way, local councils would have had no capital receipts because no council houses would have been sold?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. He may also notice that the Labour party has been extremely careful not to say, were it in power and were it to allow local authorities to spend their capital receipts, that it would maintain the same amount of capital allocations as we now provide. What the Labour party is saying is entirely untruthful. It might well allow capital receipts to be spent, but it would ensure that the same amount of money was not handed out by the Government to the councils that really needed it.

    Disused Mines (Water)
    Mr. Clapham: T: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what access his Department has to studies on the effects of the cessation of pumping at disused mines conducted by British Coal before privatisation. [33379]
    Mr. Clappison: British Coal has discussed with the National Rivers Authority the implications for the water environment of potential mine closures, and has made available any studies relevant to the responsibilities of the NRA.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but that conflicts with what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) were told when we recently met members of the NRA and local business in my constituency. We learnt that the NRA is finding it difficult to gain access to the impact studies that were conducted following the closure of each colliery and that they did not have access to the mine plans. Will the Minister ensure that the NRA and the new Environment Agency, which will take on that duty next April, have access to those mine plans and the impact studies carried out by British Coal?
    Mr. Clappison: I am happy to talk to them about that. The hon. Gentleman will of course derive reassurance from the fact that the Coal Authority has confirmed that it will continue pumping operations at abandoned mines where the NRA considers it necessary. It is doing just that at a former pit, Wooley colliery, in the hon. Member's
    1654
    constituency. My hon. and noble Friend Viscount Ullswater gave an assurance that the authority will go beyond that and seek the best environmental outcome in the circumstances.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that the Coal Authority has said that it does not consider itself to be responsible for the pollution from abandoned mines? Given the problems of the NRA not having access to certain information and insufficient resources to deal with the problem, the Government should devote more resources to combat pollution, which is causing a great deal of concern in former mineworking areas.
    Mr. Clappison: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has put that interpretation on what the Coal Authority has said, because he is completely wrong. As I said, the authority has guaranteed to continue pumping operations. It is clearly important that it should do so. The hon. Gentleman is aware that those operations are continuing at a number of pits, including some close to his constituency.

    Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the remit of grants available under the home energy efficiency scheme. [33380]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: This year, about 600,000 homes will be insulated under the scheme. Since 1993–94, we have increased the money going into it by 185 per cent., and we are now seeing whether there are any further ways in which to make it more effective.
    Ms Lynne: However welcome the home energy efficiency scheme is, does the Minister agree that, if the Government gave wall insulation grants as well, it would help the environment and help to fight fuel poverty?
    Mr. Jones: I agree that cavity fill is worth considering. There are many cases where it might be more effective than other forms of insulation. It is one of the areas that I want to consider during our review.
    Mr. Brandreth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent promotion, which was richly deserved in view of his sheer brilliance and because of the time and attention he has given to the City of Chester, which he visited recently in connection with this very scheme.
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that the scheme will benefit 600,000 homes in the coming year? Will he further confirm that the people whose homes in Chester I visited are saving several pounds a week in fuel costs since taking advantage of the scheme, as well as enjoying greater comfort?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It is sad that we are discussing this subject so soon after the death of his predecessor, who was a leading figure in the home insulation sector and president of the neighbourhood energy action group.
    I confirm that we estimate that 600,000 homes will be insulated this year, bringing to well over 1 million the number that have benefited from the scheme.

    Social Rent Homes
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of social rent homes which will be started in 1995; and what were the figures for 1979. [33382]
    Mr. Curry: In 1995–96, we estimate that about 46,000 new social rented homes will be started or released by home ownership grant schemes, together with a further 4,000 shared-ownership properties. There were about 77,000 starts in 1979–80.
    Mr. Khabra: The Minister is being evasive. Why does not he face the fact that the Government's housing programme has been a shambles? In the first five months of the year, housing association starts were down by 31 per cent. Does he accept that the output of new houses for rent is the lowest since the end of the second world war?
    Will the Minister confirm that his Department's estimate of housing need shows a requirement for between 60,000 and 100,000 new houses for rent each year? However, new starts this year will be only half of the bottom end of that range. Does he admit that his housing policy has been a disaster and does not meet the country's needs?
    Mr. Curry: To equate housing need and housing starts is a wholly false comparison. What matters is how many people acquire homes as a result of policies. Housing starts are obviously part of that equation, but so is people's ability to move into empty property, people taking up the incentive schemes and people taking shared ownership. I can think of no Government who would calculate the figures purely on the basis of housing starts. The hon. Gentleman should look at the entire pattern of the housing programmes to see what is being done to help the private rented sector and appreciate how the housing associations have been given a much greater role in the provision of housing. He should also look at the provisions in the White Paper, which are intended to bring greater capital into the programme. I am sure that he will find that, far from being what he described, the Government's housing policy is coherent. We are all waiting for the Opposition's housing policy. We have been told that it is about to be announced, but I suspect that, yet again, they are having a spot of trouble with Gordon.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is not the most effective way for local authorities to promote the construction of social housing—and, indeed, to release housing capital receipts—to adopt the large-scale voluntary transfer of council housing stock? They could then pay off their debts and invest their housing capital receipts in new construction, in conjunction with housing associations.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The large-scale voluntary transfer programme provides one of the avenues through which significant resources can be released for the benefit of the tenant and the local authority. I draw his attention equally to the Government's recent proposals on the creation of housing companies, which will provide another avenue. We are anxious to find as many ways as possible to provide the sort of houses that people want and to get the best value for money in providing them.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that housing need and homelessness are greatest in inner-city areas, will the Minister please confirm that Labour-controlled inner-city councils are
    1656
    mismanaging many thousands of empty houses and flats, to the detriment of people in real need? The Opposition want to run the country, but they could not even run a bath.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. Some inner-city authorities forget that the basic management skills involved in filling voids, doing repairs and keeping people moving up the waiting list are essential in the provision of homes. If they do not have those management skills, they are not likely to be able to embark on any of the more ambitious programmes.
    Mr. Dobson: Behind all the Minister's waffle, is it not the case that, in the first five months of the year, there were only 11,000 council or housing association starts and that we are therefore heading for the lowest number of such starts in any year since the second world war? Is it not a bit rich for the Minister to announce suddenly that the Government have seen a blinding new way to deal with the demand and need for housing when their predecessors took the simple-minded view that if there were people with nowhere decent to live, it would be a good idea to build them some houses? Is it not a fact that the Government's housing policy is letting down people who have nowhere to live and people who live in overcrowded conditions? Is it not also letting down owner-occupiers by the million through the record level of negative equity and mortgage arrears and, now, record low levels of house building? It is all very well for Ministers to laugh, but the fact is that, whether people are renting, or buying, or have nowhere to live, the Government are letting them down, and the recent housing White Paper offered no solutions to any of the problems.
    Mr. Curry: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too frantic, and before he turns his attention to persuading the shadow Chancellor to allow him to publish his own housing proposals, for which we are all waiting with bated breath, perhaps he might consider what is actually in the White Paper. It is amazing that, even when a document is leaked, the Labour party cannot understand the leaked version.
    We have significant proposals for the development of the role of housing associations; we have proposals that will help the development of the private rented sector; we have proposals for the diversification of tenure; and we have proposals to bring new money into the social rented sector and the private rented sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is privatisation."] There is a great deal to be said for privatisation. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that in, for example, our proposals for housing companies, we intend to allow local authorities a significant stake. I noticed that one of the Opposition's Treasury team speaking at Harrogate—at the same conference at which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) spoke—said that we should not expect the Labour party to allow local councils to have a majority stake in housing companies because it does not believe that they should. When he reflects on things, the hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty seeing anything in his document apart, of course, from proposals for more council houses built by the same councils on the same old dreary estates.

    Rented Accommodation
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to encourage the availability of affordable rented accommodation. [33383]
    Mr. Curry: This year, public funding will produce 70,000 new social lettings. Around 250,000 existing tenancies become available for reletting each year.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister not realise that what he has said this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other colleagues does not alter the fact that tens of thousands of families are being punished—there is no other word for it—because they cannot get a mortgage and are unable to obtain a council house, as a result of Tory dogma? Why should those people be punished and have to live in the most dire circumstances, often in a single room, or even be homeless with their children, while Ministers have perfectly adequate accommodation? Is it not time that we allowed local authorities to build again, thus giving people who cannot afford a mortgage the opportunity to live in the kind of accommodation available to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Curry: I would be rather more concerned about the hon. Gentleman's indignation if I felt that he was being a little more useful in tackling the situation in Walsall, where the incoming Labour council is seeking to overturn a tenants' ballot in favour of taking the management of the estate under its control, not to speak of management changes that have even the Labour unions protesting against the Labour council. When he has addressed himself to the problems on his doorstep, he might be more qualified to address the problems of the nation.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in Hackney, the Monklands of the south, some 9 per cent. of the housing stock is empty? Is he aware that many Labour-controlled councils have a large number of empty council houses and that also they have not collected huge amounts of rent and rate arrears? If they collected rents, would they not be able to do something about improving the housing stock? Does he also accept that many people welcome the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deprive illegal immigrants of the right to social housing?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right on all counts. It must be the first task of local authorities to ensure that they manage their stock correctly. That means that they get down voids, they manage their repairs, they move people through on the waiting list and they collect the rent. The rent which is not collected is simply a resource being ignored, and that means that somebody suffers. Usually, people who are in the worst circumstances suffer from those inefficiencies.
    Mr. Dafis: Is it not difficult to justify paying housing association grants to private sector providers of social housing, as the White Paper proposes? If the Government insist on proceeding with that proposal, will the Minister confirm that such private developers will be subjected to exactly the same requirements as housing associations and local authorities on the selection of tenants and being required to accept nominations from local authorities, and so on? Do the Government have any concrete evidence that the private sector can provide social housing more efficiently than housing associations, bearing in mind that, of course, it will take its cut of profits?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should realise that if private-sector builders enter this process and therefore get Government subsidy, they will have to sign a contract with the Government that will govern the conditions
    1658
    under which they receive grant, get tenants and quit the sector and it will govern what happens to any profit that they might make over the very long-term from that activity. It is our absolute intention to ensure that housing associations and private developers in that sector are put on an exact equal basis and that the standards of the properties that they are required to build will be the same.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an unfairness because tenants of social housing and private rented accommodation qualify for housing benefit, and those who are in protected tenancies do not? Does not the landlord of the protected tenant have to subsidise that tenant, whereas taxpayers and council tax payers subsidise tenants in social and private rented housing?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that one of the central purposes of the White Paper is to encourage more landlords to come into the housing sector. The evidence is that a large number of landlords—many owning few properties—would like to be able to rent their properties but they are concerned about whether they would get possession of the security. Being given rent guarantees, having an intermediary who can act on their behalf and being given the assurance that if things go wrong they will be able to get their possession, for example, is an essential and important way of ensuring that more properties are made available for people to rent. A vigorous private rented sector is an important aspect of a successful economy because of the sheer mobility that it can introduce into our labour market.

    Social Housing (London Docklands)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy guidelines he has given to the London Docklands development corporation concerning the provision of social housing within its area of jurisdiction. [33385]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The London Docklands development corporation is not a housing authority. As part of its broad regeneration remit, the corporation works in partnership with the local housing authorities, housing associations and others, to assist the provision of new and improved social housing.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that it is the Government's remit to regenerate the whole London Docklands development corporation area, which must involve provision of housing and social housing for which it has recognised an arrangement with the London borough of Newham? Why is the new urban village confined to 25 per cent. of social housing, a figure which on the Isle of Dogs caused a good deal of community difficulty and, as he knows, had political consequences?
    Sir Paul Beresford: On this subject, the hon. Gentleman always shows the truth of the old saying that there are none so blind as those who cannot see. The evidence is on his doorstep. The success of regeneration, especially in housing, depends on mixed tenure, and mixed tenure has been the success of this area. Some 19,000 housing units have been completed and one third of them are essentially for rented and shared ownership—social housing. Some 7,700 local authority dwellings have

    1659
    been refurbished. Before 1981, 95 per cent. of housing in the area was local authority owned and was in poor condition in the hands of the Labour local authorities.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the London Docklands development corporation is a great success story? It has transformed the face of docklands and has brought in £6 billion of private investment for the good of the local community.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I recognise that my hon. Friend knows the area well, especially from the past. She has obviously seen the positive results and she is correct to say that £1.6 billion of public investment has drawn in £6 billion of private investment.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has flown over the area.
    Before the London Docklands development corporation is wound up, will the Minister look urgently at the fact that, as yet, within the area that the corporation controls, in which it is the planning control authority—
    Mr. Spearing: That's right.
    Mr. Hughes:—and where it owns much of the land, it has not nearly met the housing needs of the different local communities?
    Mr. Spearing: That's right.
    Mr. Hughes: Many of the people who bought their homes from local authorities are trapped with massive bills which they cannot pay. People are in shared ownership from which they cannot escape—
    Mr. Spearing: That's right.
    Mr. Hughes: I have never had such consensus. Most important of all, after 15 years of the development corporation, we still have among the highest unemployment rates in the country and most of the jobs in building local homes do not go to the local community.
    Mr. Spearing: That's right.
    Sir Paul Beresford: If I were the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I would be concerned about taking advice from the hon. Members sitting behind. [HON. MEMBERS: "That's right."] I think that there is a bit of mimicking going on. The reality is that the area is dramatically different from what it was in 1981. Many jobs have been brought in and jobs are available for the local people to utilise. In addition—this cannot be assessed—the difference in the economy between now and 1981 is absolutely dramatic, and that has had a knock-on effect. The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). She has close knowledge of the area; it is not a case of flying over. She knows the area almost as well as the hon. Gentleman does.

    Dredging (Wash)
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Rivers Authority to discuss dredging activities in the Wash. [33386]
    Mr. Gummer: I have regular meetings with the NRA.
    Mr. Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in the near future, he will consider a number of new dredging licence applications for the extraction of sand from the Wash for use in the beach renourishment scheme on the Lincolnshire coast. Is he aware that, when dredging took place last autumn, there was serious damage to the brown shrimp fishery in the Wash? Will he confirm today that if, as a result of the new dredging applications, there is serious damage to the fishery, the dredging will stop? Will he also confirm that if there is any loss to the local fishermen, they will be paid proper compensation?
    Mr. Gummer: Last year, it was necessary to take material from the Race bank to ensure that there was no damage by storms on the Lincolnshire coast. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we need to use the soft protection increasingly effectively. He will know that I am determined that the use of this material should not destroy the environment or the fisheries. Although this is overwhelmingly a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I will ensure that the environment is the first part of any decision that is made. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do my best to protect his constituents' interests.

    Waste Recycling
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards the Government's target of recycling 25 per cent. of reusable household waste. [33387]
    Mr. Clappison: Measures in the Environment Bill will significantly boost the recycling of household waste.
    Mr. Merchant: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and it is good to see him where he belongs—on the Front Bench. Does he agree that the proposed landfill tax will boost significantly the minimisation and recycling of household, industrial and community waste?
    Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right about the impact of the landfill tax. The tax will improve the minimisation of waste, and will also aid the recovery and recycling of waste. What is more, it will do so without imposing regulations or extra costs on business. It is a green measure which justifiably bolsters the green reputation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister explain how he knows more about the recycling and saving of waste in the packaging industry than the people who operate in that industry? Will he accept that the proposals from V-WRAG—the Val Pak working representative advisory group—which are supported by 50 companies in the packaging industry, are better than the proposals made by his Department? Will he accept those proposals, and let us get on with salvaging waste in the packaging industry?
    Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to the ambition that industry has shown to assist in the process of waste minimisation and the recovery and recycling of waste. The Government will listen to what the industry has said, but it has set ambitious targets and the hon. Gentleman has not done justice to the industry.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend take into account what the industry's representative body,

    1661
    V-WRAG, has had to say about the implementation of the European packaging directive? Will he look carefully to see if a multi-point implementation is better than a single-point implementation?
    Mr. Clappison: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It is important to listen to the industry, and we shall do so.

    European Nuclear Waste Repository
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the development of a European nuclear waste repository. [33389]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have received no recent representations on this subject.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My question has nothing to do with Nirex and the Minister need not answer in that context, as the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role to perform in the matter. Why cannot there be a European solution to a European problem—there is a problem in every member state in the EU—or an international solution to an international problem?
    Mr. Jones: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman means by that. If he means that there should be scope for co-operation and for a pooled use of experience, that is a sensible point. If he wants us to turn our backs on our policy of self-sufficiency, I do not agree with him.

    Water Supply
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to meet the chairmen of the water companies to discuss quality and reliability of water supply. [33390]
    Mr. Clappison: Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leading figures in the water industry who reconfirmed the high reliability and quality of British water supply.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister realise that more than 12,000 consumers per year have their water supplies disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their water charges? Is he aware that that number has increased by 86 per cent. since privatisation, while the fat cats on the water boards have laughed all the way to the bank with massive salary increases and other perks? Will the Minister intervene to stop that scandal? Will he consider introducing legislation similar to that in Scotland, where it is illegal to disconnect people's water supply under such circumstances?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that disconnection takes place only as a last resort, that the numbers involved are very small and that supplies are usually disconnected for a very short period. The hon. Gentleman's question, which included hostility towards the water boards, illustrates the pathological hatred that the Opposition have towards the water industry. They completely disregard the industry's success in improving reliability and quality—both of which are now of a very high standard—and its overall success in winning business abroad and increasing investment at home. The real answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about quality and reliability is that both are good.
    Mr. Nicholls: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a water authority that does not fit that pattern, South
    1662
    West Water Authority? On one particular weekend, the authority gave an increase of £67,000 to its managing director while ensuring that many people in my constituency could not even get water to come through their taps. Do not exceptional cases such as that bring the whole system into complete disrepute?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend echoes comments that have already been made. As he must know, South West Water has special circumstances; the overall picture of the water industry—with which Opposition Members are unable to live—is of success, and improvement in water quality and reliability.

    Atmospheric Pollution
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to reduce atmospheric pollution. [33391]
    Mr. Gummer: The Government have brought forward provisions in the Environment Bill to implement a new framework for air quality management, and later this year we will publish our proposals for a national strategy for improving air quality.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of that answer—the answer that was also given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)? Some 17 months ago, a Select Committee drew the House's attention to the dangers of PM10s. It was suggested then that they would cause 10,000 additional deaths each year—three times as many deaths as are caused by road accidents. There is also the problem of photo-chemical smog, which has caused three major incidents in this city over the past four years, and all the other problems of vehicle exhaust pollution. Is it not an utter disgrace that, after 16 years of this Government, hundreds—almost certainly thousands—of people in this city are being killed by the air that they breathe?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman really ought to get the facts right—they are very clear. The amount of pollution in the air is falling, and we now have a European framework directive as a result of action led by this country. That directive is crucial. Much of the pollution caused by traffic in this country is blown over the channel, so we must make sure that it is seen as a European problem. We also have the Environment Bill, which gives us the power to act. Moreover, we are giving local authorities much more power to deal with the matter locally. The hon. Gentleman must know the facts before he stands up and pontificates.
    Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people, especially those affected by asthma, are praising the lead that Britain has taken? Having secured the regulations, however, will he try to ensure that the regulations are observed and properly monitored, and that when they are broken, prosecutions are quickly brought? Is not what worries many people the breach of regulations—even those that already exist?
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is right. That is why we are increasing the number of monitoring stations. We have a number of temporary stations, and we are introducing local authority monitoring stations into the network. It is why we are giving local authorities specific and direct powers to deal with the worst problems, and

    1663
    why we and no other Government introduced monitoring which enables us to announce to the public when the weather makes it likely that asthma sufferers will experience particular difficulties. That is why, next year, we shall have even tougher measures to deal with pollution from road vehicles, and that is why the European Community is dealing with these matters at European level—which is the only sensible way in which to deal with pollution that knows no national boundaries. My right hon. Friend is quite right; what he says contrasts starkly with questions of this type.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State look again at atmospheric pollution from the generating industry? In particular, will he consider the Drax power station area, where flue gas desulphurisation equipment has been installed at massive cost but is not running, while dirtier plant is running? Is that not a crazy system, and is there not a need for reform?
    Mr. Gummer: When I last visited Norway, the Green movement there welcomed me with a specially written English leaflet saying that Britain had done better than any other country in regard to sulphur, that we were doing better than Norway herself, and that, having not been prepared to sign up to the 30 per cent. club in advance, we had done better than that. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the generating industry: overall, it has contributed greatly to Britain's new reputation as the clean man of Europe.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that, in the past, it has been very difficult to detect particulates—the fine particles in the air that emanate from diesels and the like. I am sure that he will welcome the news that AEA Technology at Winfrith, in my constituency, has just invented and developed a process to monitor particulates. Will the Department look carefully at the new equipment, and ensure that it is available both to the Department and to local authorities as soon as possible?
    Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to consider that. I should also remark that atomic energy provision has contributed considerably to the reduction of pollution—atomic energy stations that the Labour party would close down.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Ms Church: 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. [33392]
    Sir Paul Beresford: The bidding guidance for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund was issued on 12 April 1995.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that there is an urgent need for regeneration funding in Dagenham and other parts of east London. Will he ensure that the guidelines provide clear criteria so that local authorities do not waste vital resources in the bidding process and, of equal importance, that the criteria provide for long-term regeneration rather than short-term expediency?
    Sir Paul Beresford: As the hon. Lady is aware, her area has been successful in the past, so it will learn from that. I
    1664
    understand that it is making bids again, so obviously it has accepted the positiveness of that approach. One of the advantages of the SRB is its flexibility. It is horses for courses, so we must have sufficient flexibility to allow some really innovative ideas to come forward. I do not want to be restrictive in any way.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the development of the single regeneration budget. My only objection to that budget is the fact that, so far, no bid has been successful in Gravesham. The problem that my hon. Friends encounter in Gravesham is that the Labour local council has been pretty incompetent in putting together its bids. May I ask my hon. Friend to consider the bid for east Gravesend and give every encouragement to the Labour council to get a bid into proper order, so that we get the developments there that we have always needed, and that the Conservative Government would like to bring about?
    Sir Paul Beresford: We should encourage the hon. Gentleman, with his expertise, to use the expertise of the private sector in his area and to help that council to get it together—or get it together without, necessarily, the local authority.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister accept that the first round of bidding under the SRB began as a lottery and ended in farce? Why do the Government consistently refuse to publish a clearly defined regional regeneration statement concerning the Government's policy? Does the Minister accept that such action will save the enormous amount of time, effort and resources that are currently being spent on the part of those who bid? Or is the truth of the matter that the Government simply have no regional regeneration policy?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman has constant tunnel vision on matters such as that. He appears to believe that the local authorities have the only way of doing things. The local authorities have failed, and the SRB is so broad that it allows for bright ideas, innovation and success.
    If the hon. Gentleman feels that the first round was a failure, he should consider the results, and the fact that we are building on the approach that was previously adopted. The success of the approach is the reason why we have had so many strong bids this time. The competition is stronger, and the bids are better, this time, and they will improve, step on step, throughout the years.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the need to introduce regional government in the east of England. [33394]
    Mr. Gummer: None. I detect no desire for regional government in East Anglia, but I do find anger at the Labour party's suggestion that Scottish Members of Parliament should vote on East Anglian issues while East Anglian Members of Parliament could have no say on Scottish issues.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend and neighbour agree that the last thing that people in East Anglia want

    1665
    is an additional new layer of local government on top of parish councils, district councils and county councils? Does he share my opinion that that is simply a device from our opponents to impose more useless bureaucracy on our people?
    Mr. Gummer: I suspect that my hon. Friend's message has been communicated to the Labour party. It is having some difficulty in maintaining its view on regional government in the teeth of public opposition. However, if it drops its view on regional government, it will have to explain why Members of the House will be divided into two classes—those who can vote on United Kingdom matters and those who can vote only on English matters.
    Mr. Tony Banks: There is plenty of demand—indeed, a need—for regional government in England. We certainly need it in London. Why can we not have a Greater London authority based at county hall where it belongs, rather than using county hall as a venue for rave parties?
    Mr. Gummer: We now see the real face of Labour; it does not change at all. That overspending body was lost without any regret. The Labour boroughs do not want to see the return of the Greater London council. They have learnt that, through co-operation with their neighbours, they can meet the strategic needs of the capital city. As the Minister with responsibility for London, I must say that we deliver a better deal now than the GLC ever did.

    Housing Renovation (Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in Lancashire require major renovation to bring them up to acceptable standards. [33395]
    Mr. Clappison: On the basis of the data from the most recent returns, it is estimated that 55,000 dwellings in Lancashire were statutorily unfit on 1 April 1994. However, more than a third of them could be made fit by the owners at relatively little expense.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that 65 per cent. of the houses in my constituency were built before 1919 and more than 40 per cent. need improvement work in order to bring them to acceptable standards? Given that background, how can the Government propose, with a straight face, to do away with mandatory improvement grants and leave it to the discretion of local councils who do not have the cash or the resources to make any kind of impact?
    Mr. Clappison: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, because I would have thought that local authorities would be able to take full advantage of the proposals in the White Paper and allocate resources where they were most needed through the new home repair grants and the disabled facilities grant. Home owners can take the opportunity to repair their homes, and they will be able to do so increasingly as a result of the prosperity that we are creating in Lancashire and elsewhere through sustainable economic growth.

Long-Term Unemployed (Recruitment) (Northern Ireland)
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 to encourage recruitment of the long-term unemployed.
I wish to say something about the context of the Bill. Much has been done in this area already in Northern Ireland. In fact, "Labour Research" of May 1995 published an article which said that Northern Ireland leads the way on fairness laws. It pointed out that Northern Ireland is doing much better with fairness laws than we are doing with race discrimination laws on the United Kingdom mainland.
The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 was amended by section 55 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 to add a new section 37C to encourage applications from under-represented communities and to approve any action taken in pursuit of affirmative action and to bring it within the law. Section 58 of the 1989 Act defined the affirmative action as
"employment of members of the Protestant or members of the Roman Catholic communities in Northern Ireland".
My Bill would add a new section 37D to the 1976 Act, which would extend permission for "affirmative action" to acts done
"in preferring those persons who have been unemployed for the previous year or longer"
in pursuance of affirmative action.
It is important to point out what the legislation would not do. It would not force employers to recruit, but would allow them to recruit if they so wished and if they thought that it was in the interests of their business and the greater cause of affirmative action to do so. It would benefit both communities. It is very sad to have to say that there are two communities; I think that we are talking here about people from both traditions, and hopefully one day they will live in the same community.
The Bill would allow the possibility of employment for many people who have been in excellent training schemes. I have visited Northern Ireland in the past few months to look at those training schemes. The problem is that, although many people in Northern Ireland are highly trained, they are still among the long-term unemployed. I have seen people take the trouble to take higher national and graduate courses and training schemes, only to return once again to the long-term unemployed register.
More importantly, the Bill will allow deep pockets of long-term unemployment to be targeted by foreign assistance. A Bill has just passed through the House of Representatives in the United States which says that the International Fund for Ireland money must be used in areas of high unemployment. The reality is that assistance cannot be targeted at the moment without the amendment that I propose to the Act.
The Bill would also allow for intermediate employment schemes, such as Glasgow Wise, which I have heard praised by those from Northern Ireland who have seen them in action. Those schemes could be transferred to Northern Ireland and targeted at the long-term unemployed.
1668
More importantly, why should we do that for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland when there are long-term unemployed elsewhere? The long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland are a symbol and a reality of the failure of the policies in Northern Ireland. I believe that they are a barrier to the long-term peace process in Northern Ireland. Despite the £3.4 billion transfer to Northern Ireland, there is still a massive surplus of long-term unemployed.
It is said that two thirds of the unemployed are to be found in Roman Catholic communities. I thank hon. Members who are Ulster Unionists for providing details of the problems in their constituencies. In East Antrim, 50 per cent. of the people in Rathcoole are unemployed and benefit-dependent. South Belfast is symbolically seen as a well-off community, but there is deep unemployment in Taughmonagh, and in the Village area on the Donegall road. I know from hon. Members of the situation in North Down. Unemployment exists throughout Northern Ireland. It has a large long-term employed population, who will have no stake in the future peace unless they can share in the peace dividend.
The world and the House looked on in the past few weeks, as we saw displays of discontent and the burning of vehicles over a particular issue, fuelled by the anger of the long-term unemployed. We saw also sectarian parades undertaken not out of pride, as they should be, but in anger against another community. The members of the other tradition are always seen as enjoying prosperity rather than the tradition to which one belongs, which is an indictment of how little has been done by the Government.
One factor contributing to long-term peace will be demilitarisation—getting arms off the street. Others include a return to the rule of law, the withdrawal of paramilitary policing, democratic free elections on a non-confessional basis and the right to work. In proposing my Bill, I ask for only one additional cautious step to be taken.
3.38 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I apologise to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) for opposing his Bill, because I do not challenge his motives. The Bill's objectives are entirely laudable, but I have a severe problem with the hon. Gentleman seeking to introduce legislation that would have the effect of reforming and amending the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
That legislation is an essential foundation for fair employment in Northern Ireland that has to do with discrimination—principally on religious grounds. In seeking to amend the 1976 Act as a way of achieving entirely laudable objectives, the hon. Member needs to think through the consequences.
When the 1976 Act came before the House, it was introduced by the then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), not only as a party political measure but after considerable discussion through the usual channels and in a working party established to consider fair employment in Northern Ireland.
That Committee was originally chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), and subsequently by Mr. William van

1669
Straubenzee, then Member of Parliament for Wokingham and also a Northern Ireland Minister. That working party devised the basis for the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Salford, East on 16 February 1976.
The debate on the Floor of the House involved the then Labour Minister and Conservative Opposition spokesman, and a number of hon. Members expressed grave concern at even the passage of that legislation. In view of the assurances then given by the right hon. Member for Salford, East, it would be wholly wrong to use the 1976 Act as a vehicle for the objectives of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East.
I say that because much feeling was expressed, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who then represented Glasgow, Cathcart. He said that it was wrong for the Government to bring forward legislation relating solely to fair employment in Northern Ireland. He felt that there was religious discrimination throughout the country. I am prepared, of course, to acknowledge that long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is far too high. I note that the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) are in their places.
No one can deny that long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is a problem. It is no more of a problem, however, than long-term unemployment in my constituency, which suffered tremendous redundancies in the 1980s in the steel and fishing industries. I have always maintained that, when legislating for a certain part of the kingdom, we should always have regard to the implications for other parts of it.
To introduce a Bill to amend the 1976 Act would open up a can of worms, bearing in mind the difficulties that the House encountered when the Act was passing through the House. More importantly, an amending Bill would create unfairness in the rest of the kingdom, especially in constituencies such as mine, where there are many long-term unemployed.
Legislation of the sort proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East should not be tagged on to existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1989 amendments to the 1976 Act. I had grave misgivings about those amendments. I felt that we were exposing ourselves to undoing all the delicate arguments that were advanced during 1974–75 before the 1976 Act went on to the statute book. I was anxious in 1989, and I would be loth to use a second opportunity in less than 20 years to use the 1976 Act as a vehicle for what I agree are laudable objectives. That is not the way to proceed.
I remind the hon. Member for Falkirk, East of the views expressed on Second Reading of what became the 1976 Act by a former Member, the right hon. J. Enoch Powell. He and his party opposed the measure. Mr. Powell said from the Unionist Bench that he felt that any opportunity that the House used to legislate separately for employment opportunities in Northern Ireland, be it to improve the prospects of the long-term unemployed or to improve the lot of someone who might suffer discrimination, would be more likely adversely to affect his constituents than to assist them. His view was endorsed by many Members representing the Official Unionist party, and by the late Sir James Kilfedder. It was taken up by other Members from across the political divide in Northern Ireland.
1670
We should be extremely wary before we use an opportunity that would be presented by the Bill to open up a can of worms. I suggest to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that the correct approach would be to introduce a Bill concerned solely with promoting long-term unemployment opportunities throughout the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents worked in the steel industry for 20 or 30 years, and they have been unemployed for five or 10 years. The same can be said of those who worked in the fishing industry in Grimsby.
It would not be fair to them for the House to legislate especially for Northern Ireland while they continue to suffer employment. It is with a heavy heart, and with great regret, that I ask the House not to grant the hon. Gentleman's leave to bring in his Bill.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 53.

Division No. 210]

[3.45 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Litherland, Robert

Ashton, Joe

Lynne, Ms Liz

Austin-Walker, John

McAllion, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Macdonald, Calum

Beggs, Roy

McKelvey, William

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

Maclennan, Robert

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McMaster, Gordon

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McNamara, Kevin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Madden, Max

Campbell-Savours, D N

Mahon, Alice

Canavan, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Chidgey, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Connarty, Michael

Martlew, Eric

Corbyn, Jeremy

Michael, Alun

Cox, Tom

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Miller, Andrew

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Dafis, Cynog

Morley, Elliot

Dalyell, Tam

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dixon, Don

Mullin, Chris

Eagle, Ms Angela

Murphy, Paul

Eastham, Ken

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Faulds, Andrew

Parry, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Fyfe, Maria

Purchase, Ken

Galloway, George

Rendel, David

Gapes, Mike

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Garrett, John

Rooker, Jeff

Godman, Dr Norman A

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Graham, Thomas

Rowlands, Ted

Hanson, David

Salmond, Alex

Hardy, Peter

Sedgemore, Brian

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Sheerman, Barry

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Simpson, Alan

Hood, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Hoon, Geoffrey

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Spellar, John

Hutton, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Stevenson, George

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Stott, Roger

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Timms, Stephen

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Tipping, Paddy

Khabra, Piara S

Touhig, Don

Killfoyle, Peter

Trimble, David

Kirkwood, Anchy

Turner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Tyler, Paul

1671

Vaz, Keith

Wise, Audrey

Wareing, Robert N

Worthington, Tony

Watson. Mike

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wicks, Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Winnick, David

Mr. John Gunnell.

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hunter, Andrew

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Booth, Hartley

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Nicholls, Patrick

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Butterfill, John

Rathbone, Tim

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Carrington, Matthew

Riddick, Graham

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Robathan, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Shaw, David (Dover)

Duncan, Alan

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Speed, Sir Keith

Dunn, Bob

Spring, Richard

Durant, Sir Anthony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Sweeney, Walter

Fry, Sir Peter

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Gorst, Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

Waterson, Nigel

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Whitney, Ray

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Tellers for the Noes:

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mr. Michael Fabricant and

Harris, David

Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Richard Burden, Dr. Norman Godman, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Mike Watson and Mr. Jimmy Wray.

Long-Term Unemployed (Recruitment) (Northern Ireland)
  LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED (RECRUITMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Mr. Michael Connarty accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 to encourage recruitment of the long-term unemployed: 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 171.]

Sir Alan Urwick
3.58 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House expresses its appreciation to Sir Alan Urwick, KCVO, CMG, for his 43 years of distinguished public service, including six years as Serjeant at Arms; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
The motion is in the name of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of all the other parties in the House. This is one of those occasions when Members in all parts of the House, as is evidenced by the signatures to the motion, can put aside party divisions and join together in paying tribute to a distinguished servant of the House who is shortly to leave us.
Unlike his predecessors, Sir Alan came to the House as Serjeant at Arms not from a background in the armed services but from the diplomatic service, which he joined in 1952. After tours of duty in western Europe, the middle east, Moscow and Washington, he reached the highest ranks of his profession, serving as Her Majesty's ambassador in Amman and in Cairo, and as high commissioner in Ottawa.
Sir Alan took up his appointment as Serjeant at Arms when he left the diplomatic service in 1989. He rapidly found out what life is like in this place during the summer recess: the Serjeant's usual quarters were uninhabitable, because the builders had taken them over, so he had to set up his office in a corner of one of the Committee Rooms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes."] As I sense some other hon. Members may feel, that is a familiar experience, and one which his successor is about to inflict on me and my secretary.
Over the past six years, Sir Alan has responded with the courtesy and skill we would expect of a professional diplomat to the many and varied demands which the House and its Members have made of him personally and of his Department. The security of the House has continued to be one of his major responsibilities, even in the more relaxed atmosphere of recent months, and the pressure on accommodation has been unremitting. I know that you, Madam Speaker, and the whole House have appreciated the way in which Sir Alan has dealt with those continuing concerns, and the effort he has devoted to the service of Members.
One of the major changes with which Sir Alan has had to cope during his term of office has been the implementation of the Ibbs report, which led to the House taking control of its own works programme. The Parliamentary Works Directorate has now been established as an integral part of the Serjeant's Department, and the evidence of its activities is all around. The ease with which that considerable change has been brought about reflects much credit on all those involved, Sir Alan not least among them.
As we say farewell to Sir Alan, we welcome as his successor Peter Jennings, the Deputy Serjeant, who came here nineteen years ago as Major Jennings of the Royal Marines, and is well known to us all.
I am sure Members on all sides will join me not only in expressing our thanks to Sir Alan, but in wishing him and his wife Marta a long and happy retirement.
4.1 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, the Ulster Unionists and the Scottish National party, I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Serjeant at Arms on his retirement. We thank him for all his work.
As the Leader of the House has said, the motion has been signed by all parties, because in the past six years Sir Alan has given service to Members from all sides of the House and, indeed, to our staff as well. His greatest achievement has been to help make substantial progress in providing additional and improved accommodation for Members and the Departments of the House. However, perhaps Sir Alan is best known to the public for his distinctive dress, which is often the subject of comment and question from our constituents when they visit the House.
After a long and distinguished career in foreign service, to which the Leader of the House has referred, Sir Alan was appointed Serjeant at Arms. One of his first acts was to hand over the Serjeant at Arms' residence in Speaker's Court, so that members of the shadow Cabinet could be provided with more reasonable office accommodation in the Palace. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I have a room in that block. My room is not as spacious as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who works in the old drawing room. It might be indiscreet to go further and reveal who is working in the Serjeant's old kitchen.
Sir Alan's family motto is "Verum nobilissimum est" which, as you know, Madam Speaker, means "Truth is the most noble". Perhaps we should keep those words in mind when we debate standards in public life.
During his six years in the House, Sir Alan has overseen enormous changes in the services required from his Department, and the size of the estate it administers. In the post-Ibbs review era, Sir Alan has played a full part in servicing both the Accommodation and Works Committee, and the Administration Committee.
1674
I hope that Sir Alan and the House will not mind if I use this occasion to pay tribute to Sir Alan's staff for the responsive way they react to our requests, and also to wish his successor well. I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with the remarks of the Leader of the House. We all want to thank Sir Alan for his efforts on our behalf, and to wish him well in the future.
4.5 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party—and indeed, the other parties not mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I extend our best wishes and thanks to Sir Alan Urwick for his most careful and courteous attention to the requirements of hon. Members and the care that he has taken over many important matters, in particular security.
When it comes to the duty of the Commission to advise on the appointment of a Serjeant at Arms, there is a difficult balance to strike between the relative advantages of a background in military service, which has been the norm in that post; the advantages of promoting from within the service of the House, a practice that is also important; and bringing in experience from elsewhere.
It is a difficult balance, but I feel that we were right in advising that a period under the stewardship of Sir Alan would be valuable for the House, bringing as it did an outside experience at a time when it was necessary to look again at some of our traditional ways of doing things. That experience has been valuable to the House, and we are grateful for it. We wish his successor well, confident that he will discharge the job in an extremely efficient manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House expresses its appreciation to Sir Alan Urwick, KCVO, CMG, for his 43 years of distinguished public service, including six years as Serjeant at Arms; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.

Standards in Public Life
Madam Speaker: It will, I think, be for the convenience of the House if we debate together motions Nos. 3 to 8. I have to tell the House that I have selected the three amendments to motion No. 7—(a), (b) and (c) in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—and sub-amendment (x) to amendment (a), which is in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
At the end of the debate, I will first put the Question on motion No. 3. Then I will ask the Leader of the House to move successively motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. When each of those has been disposed of, I will ask the Leader of the House formally to move motion No. 7. Then I will call Mrs. Taylor formally to move her amendment (a), followed at once by Mr. Maclennan formally to move sub-amendment (x). The House will then take its decisions in reverse order, as we always do—first, that sub-amendment (x) be made to amendment (a); then that amendment (a), with or without amendment, be made to the main Question.
It is important to recognise that, if amendment (a) is agreed to, amendment (b) will fall. If amendment (a) is not agreed to, I will immediately call Mrs. Taylor formally to move amendment (b). When amendment (b) is disposed of, I will immediately call Mrs. Taylor formally to move amendment (c).
When amendment (c) is disposed of, I will put to the House the main Question, as amended or not, as the case may be. Finally, I will call the Leader of the House formally to move motion No. 8.
Having given that introduction to our procedures today to ensure that all hon. Members are quite clear about what they are debating and what they will be dividing on at the end, I have to tell the House that I must limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes.
4.7 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards be set in hand under arrangements to be made by Madam Speaker on the advice of the House of Commons Commission and in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Motion 4—
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges should be established to take over the existing functions of the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to consider complaints concerning Members' conduct referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Motion 5—
That this House endorses the principle of a Code of Conduct, and instructs the appropriate Select Committee to prepare such a draft Code for approval as soon as possible, taking into account the suggestions of the Nolan Committee and any relevant overseas analogues; and whilst restating its commitment to the objectives of the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges, accepts the need to review its wording in the context of the work to be undertaken on the draft Code.
1676
Motion 6—
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, the Resolution of the House of 12th June 1975 relating to Members' Interests (Declaration) (No. 2) be amended by leaving out the words "the giving of any written notice or".
Motion 7—
That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee relating to consultancies (including multi-client consultancies) and disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests; and instructs the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct such an examination and to seek to bring forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current Session.
Amendments (a), (x), (b), (c), (y) and (d) to motion 7.
Motion 8—
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 637) relating to—

(1) the principal duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (paragraph 14);

(2) the method of removal from office of the Commissioner (paragraph 23);

(3) the preparation of amendments to Standing Orders relating to a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges (paragraph 40);

(4) the preparation of a draft Code of Conduct (paragraph 47);

(5) the preparation of guidance on registration and declaration of interests (paragraph 50);

(6) a review of the law relating to bribery of Members (paragraph 52); and

(7) updating, and improving the availability of, the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 66).

Mr. Newton: I am sure, Madam Speaker, that the admiration for you felt by the whole House will be increased further by your exposition.
I shall not speak at length, not because the subject is unimportant, but for three obvious reasons: this is a relatively short debate, designed to enable the House to take some initial decisions paving the way for further work; many hon. Members wish to speak; and as the motions are precisely in the terms recommended by the Select Committee which I chaired, the case I would wish to make will already be familiar to the House from the report that is before it.
The Select Committee's terms of reference, set by the House on 6 June, were to consider the first report of the Nolan committee
"so far as it relates to the rules and procedures of the House; to advise on how its recommendations might be clarified and implemented; and to recommend specific resolutions for decision by the House".
It was asked to
"report as soon as possible"
and, in any case,
"to make an interim report not later than Friday 7 July".
It was, frankly, a bit of a close-run thing. We agreed our report at about 7 pm on 6 July, after sitting 14 times in 14 sitting days, which I am told is an average of about two hours a day and something of a record. However, as a result, the report is a good deal more substantial than anyone might reasonably have expected, on that time scale, when the Committee was established.
For that, I hope that I may be allowed to pay tribute to the members of the Committee, not only for the amount of work they did, which is no doubt obvious from what I have just said, but for the way in which they did it, which

1677
made my task as Chairman infinitely easier, even in the relatively few areas where disagreements could not be fully resolved.
The result is that, of the six resolutions to which I am speaking, five were agreed unanimously. It is to those five that I shall speak, briefly, before coming at a little greater length to the area that proved more contentious. For the convenience of the House, I shall use the numbering not from the Committee's report but from the Order Paper.
Motion 3 invites the House to agree that work should go forward on the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, on the basis set out in the Select Committee report. The proposal does, I hope, meet some—I hope all—of the sensitivities reflected in our debate on 18 May, in particular in indicating that the Commissioner would be appointed by the House and that he would operate under the general powers of a Select Committee of the House.
Motion 4 invites the House to agree the replacement, with appropriate transitional arrangements for specific inquiries already in progress, of the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests by a single Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. For reasons set out in paragraphs 27 to 41 of the report, we believed that to be better than the existing arrangements, and better than what we felt were the rather over-complex arrangements proposed in the Nolan report.
At this stage, I should like to pay tribute, briefly but wholeheartedly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and the members of that Committee for the work that they have done over the years.
Mr. John Evans: Will the Leader of the House make it clear that, in our recommendations on the formation of the new Select Committee, we stated that we believed that it should be substantially smaller than the present Privileges Committee?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I am happy to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that, having chaired the Privileges Committee, I feel strongly that 17 is too large a number for a body to do the work that the Committee is asked to undertake. I believe that that view is shared by virtually all members of the Privileges Committee, and that, whatever else happens, there will probably be a general welcome for the suggestion that a Committee doing that kind of work should comprise fewer than 17 members. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Motion 5 invites the House to commission work towards a code of conduct, drawing on what is said in the Nolan report and, as appropriate, from other sources, including "Erskine May". I think that that suggestion came initially from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in her evidence for the report. The motion envisages, I think sensibly, that such a code would be in fairly broad terms and would be supported, as it would have to be, by more detailed rules such as those which, for example, currently govern the Register of Members' Interests.
Motion 6 picks up what is in effect a Nolan recommendation—although not clearly presented as such in the report—for further strengthening of our existing rules on declaration in relation to the Order Paper. It extends the present requirement for specific indication,
1678
which is only for the lead signatures on an early-day motion, to all early-day motion signatures, written or oral questions and amendments to Bills. I hope that the House will regard that as a sensible extension.
Passing by motion 7 for the moment, motion 8 seeks the House's endorsement of seven of the Committee's recommendations which do not in themselves require the passage of a specific resolution. They are set out in the motion by reference to the relevant paragraphs of the report.
I return to motion 7, which concerns the Nolan committee recommendations relating to consultancies, including in particular consultancies with what are described as multi-client lobbying firms, and the disclosure of contracts, including an indication of the remuneration involved.
In essence, the view of the Select Committee, by a clear majority, was that, in the time available—even with the effort that it put in—it was not possible to fulfil the House's remit to clarify the Nolan recommendations to enable the Committee to put to the House well-defined and workable propositions on which it could sensibly make decisions, and that the right course of action was therefore that proposed in motion 7.
The many definitional and line-drawing problems, which led the Committee to that conclusion, are set out in paragraphs 77 to 83 of the report. I shall not rehearse them at length, but simply draw attention to some of them. For example, at various points in his report, Lord Nolan uses expressions such as "the provision of services in their capacity as Members", "activities in Parliament", and "Parliamentary services".
It is not clear whether those expressions mean the same thing or different things, and none of them is further defined. For example, is any of them meant to include such activities as casual journalism or broadcasting? Those matters, in my view and in that of the Committee, need to be carefully thought through.
Ms Angela Eagle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that phraseology means that the Committee intends to go back and look at the detail, so that it can implement the Nolan recommendations; or that it will examine the Nolan recommendations with a view to changing them, especially in respect of the declaration of amounts and the banning of multi-client consultancies, as recommended by Lord Nolan?
Mr. Newton: I shall return to the matter in moment, but the point that I am seeking to make is that, when there are three phrases—to apply it to the example that I am touching on—which do not self-evidently mean the same thing, and they are used in different ways in different parts of the report, and are nowhere further defined, there is some significant difficulty in determining what the House would be deciding, unless some further work is done on that.
That is a key point, and on that would depend the House's ability to take a decision about any of the matters to which the hon. Lady has adverted, in the clear knowledge of what precisely it was doing. That is the problem that I am seeking to address.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On that point, is it not a fact that the recommendations which have been made, especially in our amendments, clarify the situation?

1679
The principle goes before the House; the House accepts it. There may have to be some small alteration, but surely that is the way to proceed.
Mr. Newton: I will briefly comment on the amendment in a moment, to which I note that the right hon. Gentleman's name is added, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will speak to the amendments that she has tabled. I imagine that she intends to do so. If I may, I would prefer to listen to what she says before commenting further. I will make a brief comment later in my speech, which will also pick up something that the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
To give another example, it is not clear whether the proposed ban on consultancies with multi-client organisations, which the Nolan report recommends, is meant to apply only to what can be described as lobbying and public relations firms, as the argument in paragraph 55 of the report implies, or to organisations of any type—a much wider category—as the recommendation a couple of pages later seems to suggest. If lobbying organisations only are to be covered by any new ban, we obviously need to establish a clear and workable definition of such organisations and what distinguishes them from others which might otherwise be caught.
Then again, the Nolan report acknowledges that difficult issues arise in relation to Members who practise in legal and other professional firms, offering what are described, but not further defined, as "Parliamentary services of any type". The suggestion is that a Member should not maintain his connection with such a firm unless arrangements can be made to separate the Member's interest in the firm from that part of its work. But as the Select Committee report notes in paragraph 81,
"it is far from clear what might in practice be regarded as fulfilling such a requirement",
and the Committee is certainly not yet in a position to suggest how such a Chinese wall might be achieved.
Thus, as I have said, what the Select Committee proposes is clearly set out in motion No. 7. It says:
"That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee relating to consultancies (including multi-client consultancies) and disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests; and instructs the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct such an examination and to seek to bring forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current Session."
The alternative view is set out in the amendment unsuccessfully moved by members of the Select Committee, in that Committee, which can be found on pages 29 to 32 of the Committee's report. It is, of course, mirrored in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, to which, as I have said, she will no doubt speak in a moment.
To the right hon. Member for Salford, East, I simply say this. As I have said, I will not seek to pre-empt the hon. Lady's arguments, beyond saying that, in my view at least, the tenor of the amendments seems amply to confirm the need for further clarification before the House could sensibly adopt them as decisions.
Not only as the Chairman of the Select Committee presenting its recommendations, but as Leader of the House, I say simply that it will, of course, be for the House to decide whether it wishes to go down the path
1680
sketched out by the Nolan report in these as in other respects. But if we are to ban certain activities, we need to be absolutely clear what it is that is banned. If we are to require public disclosure of what is at present private, the requirement should be as clear as we can make it.
The Nolan report criticises our existing rules for their lack of clarity and uncertainty. We shall do no service either to the reputation of this House or to the standards of public life if we simply replace one set of ambiguities and uncertainties with another. I therefore strongly urge the House to endorse motion No. 7 as it stands, along with the other motions on the Order Paper.
4.20 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall try to be brief, as the Leader of the House was, and I shall move our amendments at the appropriate time. At the start of the debate, all hon. Members should reiterate the interests they have. I tell the House, therefore, that mine are, as recorded in the register, that I am sponsored by the GMB, that I receive research report from Unison, and that I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. I also have an entry in the register following the gift of football tickets earlier this year.
No one should doubt the importance of this debate; it is important for two reasons. First, it is important to hon. Members, for the reason that some Conservative members suspect, because we shall have to make changes in the way that we operate as a Parliament and as individuals.
The second reason is more important. Today, we have an opportunity to start the long process of restoring public confidence in this House, and, indeed, in our democratic process. If we make the right decisions today, we shall not only start to clean up Parliament, but begin to stem the tide of cynicism which is eroding our parliamentary democracy. If we get it wrong, public confidence will be reduced even further, we shall all be tarred with the same brush, and we shall all be blamed for the abuses of the few who flout the rules.
When we previously debated the issue on the Floor of the House, the atmosphere was somewhat frenzied, and the House did its reputation no good. The Leader of the House made a suggestion at the end of that debate that the whole issue should be referred to a Select Committee. I freely admit that I was extremely suspicious, and thought that the suggestion was a delaying tactic in response to Conservative Back-Benchers who wanted to block the Nolan recommendations altogether. There followed, therefore, discussions and correspondence between us, and the Opposition had to feel satisfied that some progress would be made before agreeing to allow the Select Committee to go ahead.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Were not the negotiations on the setting up of the Committee delayed by Opposition Members? Did not the Committee's work become even more frantic as a result, as we tried to fit in all the work in the short time available before we produced an interim report?
Mrs. Taylor: The comments of the Leader of the House about the way in which the Committee worked were correct. I do not think that it was frantic. It was difficult to fit in everything in the time we had, but we did it.

1681
One reason why the Opposition insisted upon a tight time scale, and asked the Leader of the House to agree that 7 July should be the deadline for an interim report, was that we wanted to make sure that progress could be made. That is the reason why we are having this debate today. As the Leader of the House said, we had 14 sittings in 14 days and, for the most part, there was—despite what the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) said—a good working atmosphere in the Select Committee. That is reflected in many of the practical proposals that have been made in the report, and which were mentioned by the Leader of the House.
I intend to deal with the amendments in some detail later, but first I want to say a few words about the matters on which there was agreement. We made considerable progress about the role and principal duties of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We reached agreement on the recommendation that the House of Commons should eventually approve that person, but that the mechanisms for appointment should be set in motion by the Speaker and the House of Commons Commission.
We dealt with the relationship with the Nolan committee, which I know was causing concern to some Conservative Members. On the structure of Committees, the Nolan committee recommended that there should be a sub-committee of the Privileges Committee. The Select Committee explored many options, because that same objective could have been achieved in different ways.
We have recommended the merger of the Members' Interests Committee with the Privileges Committee, to establish a new Standards and Privileges Committee. We have not prescribed in the report that there should be a sub-committee, but we recommend that sub-committees should be allowed. We recommended unanimously, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, that the Committee should be smaller than the existing Privileges Committee.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Lady has identified a tide of cynicism, but does she accept that perception is as important as—if not more important than—fact in setting the reputation of the House? Does she also accept that people associate the Privileges Committee with perks and special favours? Has not the time come to update the language of the House, so that, when the Committee is reconstituted—as I think it will be—it can also be renamed, so that its work can be better understood by those who do not understand the practices of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mistakes the original meaning behind the words "Privileges Committee". The Committee was not meant to give privileges, but to protect the House. We did consider the naming of the Committee, but we felt that it would be clearer if we continued to use that name following the merger of the Committees.
The difficulties in the existing Privileges Committees meant that some of the inquiries were delayed, although we did agree on one important recommendation—that the new Committee should be able to sit in the recess to facilitate quick decisions where speed was necessary. There was general agreement that these proposals were practical, would improve the existing situation, and would be in line with what the Nolan committee recommended.
1682
On the code of conduct, we agreed that there was a need to update the 1947 resolution, and that is referred to in the motion on the code of conduct.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Before the hon. Lady moves away from the subject of the Committee and the commissioner—subjects on which we spent some time on the Committee—does she agree that we pushed further forward than Nolan had recommended on those matters, and, in so doing, clarified and put something forward that could improve the existing structure?
Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I think the suggestions in the report about the way in which detailed work, such as the work on a code of conduct, could be carried out are very significant. The House will be asked today not to determine the details, but to decide on what should happen in principle. The formula that we have adopted is one that I would recommend to the House.
There was consensus in all those areas, and progress was made. There was agreement on the Nolan committee's recommendation that there should be broader consideration of the merits of parliamentary consultancies generally; I believe that you, Madam Speaker, had already referred that issue to the Privileges Committee. Let me now deal with the areas of disagreement: multiple consultancies, and the disclosure of contracts and amounts earned.
Our amendments have been tabled to give hon. Members a choice when they vote. Amendment (a) provides for straightforward implementation of the Nolan committee's recommendations on disclosure. If it is rejected—which I hope will not happen—amendment (b) provides a fallback position, providing for acceptance of the committee's recommendations in principle. Those who consider the committee's time scale too tight, but who accept its proposals in principle, will be able to vote accordingly.
In Committee, we tabled amendments that have presented the House with the options that are before us now, and recommended that they be part of the main body of the report. We were disappointed that the Committee rejected our proposals, and that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did not support our amendments.
Perhaps the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity for second thoughts; it appears from the Order Paper that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues may have had words with him and shown him the error of his ways. This evening, they will have an opportunity to vote for or against the specific proposals in the Nolan report: for or against the Nolan recommendations in principle. All will become clear when the votes take place.
Let me say a word to any hon. Member who is considering voting against the amendments. I do not think that the constituents of any such Member will understand why there should be secrecy. Tomorrow, when newspapers publish the names of those who voted for secrecy, constituents will be checking to see which hon. Members went through which Lobby.
Mr. Duncan: Would the hon. Lady care to tell the House whether she regrets having been a director of a consultancy and lobbying company until this issue became a matter of public interest? Would she also care to tell us how much she earned?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is trying too hard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the question

1683
on another occasion. I even raised the matter when I gave evidence to the Nolan committee. Hon. Members should read the record. No, I do not regret anything that I have done. I am perfectly willing to comply with any of the new rules, and disclose any fees I earn outside the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will be equally willing to declare everything that he earns in relation to parliamentary activities. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is a serious debate, and I do not think that it should be spoilt by foolish and childish gesticulations and comments. I hope that we can maintain a high standard of debate.
Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what we are trying to do. Some of my colleagues feel that Lord Nolan did not go far enough—
Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask the hon. Lady about the wording of amendment (a)? It refers to
"contracts relating to the provision of services in their capacity as Members".
Does the hon. Lady agree that Members of Parliament should not be allowed to do anything that an ordinary lobbyist or anyone else can do, and have the same access, and that therefore anything that we in particular are able to do should not be allowed in any case? All of us, as Members of Parliament, may be recruited to do other work on the basis that we have a position as a Member of Parliament; therefore, surely the logic of what the hon. Lady says is that every penny that any Member of the House earns should be declared if we go down that route.
Mrs. Taylor: I was saying that some of my hon. Friends believed that Lord Nolan's committee's recommendations did not go far enough. Some people do believe that there should be no possibility of any outside income. Some people believe that any outside income—whether from family businesses, legal work or journalism—should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I have even heard it mooted that all MPs should have their tax returns made public, as happens in some other countries.
Mr. Bill Michie: If Members of Parliament did make their tax returns public, would they be accurate?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a good argument. I believe that there is a requirement of accuracy on all of us in all of these matters.
Let me, for the benefit of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others, describe the rules as I see them—the rules by which many people felt that the House was operating already, and had operated for many years, as I outlined in the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee.
There should be no possibility of any Member of the House being paid cash for questions, cash for amendments, cash for speeches, cash for early-day motions or anything of that kind—either to make them or not to make them. That should be our starting point.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am obliged to the hon. Lady, but I wish that she would reflect
1684
on what she has said. I am a supporter of Nolan, as it happens, and I have no difficulty with any of its conclusions. However, the unleashing of press hysteria on the basis that a Committee of the House of Commons has not reached a final conclusion on certain narrow issues appears an extraordinary threat to hold over the House, and not appropriate for a serious Opposition spokesman, when the proposition before the House is that that Committee, supported by the Liberal Democrats, supported by Conservative Members, should conclude on narrowly defining, appropriately, something that will bear on the existence of every Member of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he may not wish to vote for our first amendment, but he can certainly vote for our second amendment, which accepts Lord Nolan's recommendations in principle, but does not specify the time scale or the definitional problems that he may be suggesting. He will, on that basis, be able to vote for our second amendment.
I was discussing the proposition that there should be no payment for MPs for any activities of that kind.
It is, of course, permitted—
Sir David Mitchell: Would the hon. Lady explain, on this section of her speech, the way in which she envisages that proposition applying to retainers by trade unions to Members of Parliament, including payment to Members of Parliament's constituencies for their election expenses and their agents and other costs in their constituencies?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that matter, not least because, as recently as yesterday, I asked the Leader of the House to remove the Government's veto on Lord Nolan's committee considering party political funding before the next general election. We would all welcome an early investigation of that full matter.
Mr. Newton: I had not intended to intervene, but it would help me to have one thing clarified that arises from another aspect of the different phrasing used in different parts of the Nolan committee report. In its summary of recommendations, in paragraph 14 on page 4, the hon. Lady will find that it said:
"Full disclosure of consultancy agreements and payments, and of trade union sponsorship agreements and payments, should be introduced immediately."
I want to be absolutely clear that the hon. Lady's amendment is intended to embrace both types of payments.
Mrs. Taylor: Absolutely. If the right hon. Member looks at the register, he will see that it makes most of that clear. If there are any doubts, we are happy to confirm that those sorts of payments will be covered by our amendment.
I shall pick up where I left off on the previous query. I have mentioned the things that hon. Members cannot do. It is permitted for hon. Members to advise people outside the House. We all do that, whether it is updating constituents or informing groups about parliamentary and party issues. Hon. Members are sometimes paid for their services, but more often—especially on this side of the House—we are unpaid.

1685
If any hon. Member is paid for advice of that kind, I believe that that should be made known under the present rules. I believe that the amounts that hon. Members receive should also be made public so that constituents and others can judge how important that role is, how much time is involved and what is an hon. Member's level of commitment. If an hon. Member gives advice for money, the desire to continue a contract might be thought to influence that hon. Member. Therefore, I believe that we need transparency. Conservative Members cannot duck that issue.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: I will give way, but then I shall continue as I have already spoken for too long.
Mr. Bruce: It is an important issue. Hon. Members who are company directors, in an executive or non-executive capacity, may, in the course of their duties—perhaps only once every 10 years—inform their colleagues about an issue associated with their parliamentary work. According to her definition, the hon. Lady is effectively saying that all such earnings must be declared.
Mrs. Taylor: If advice of that sort is given, it falls into that category and it must be declared. I think that hon. Members would do well to err on the side of transparency. We should recall the words of the Prime Minister on that issue. He said:
"We have now seen the report. I have said repeatedly that I favour greater transparency".—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 704]
When the Prime Minister established the Nolan committee, he required it to report within six months because of the depth of public concern about the issue. The Prime Minister has also said that he accepts the broad principles of the Nolan committee report. We shall therefore watch very carefully how the Prime Minister votes today—if he votes at all.
We suspect that the issue is central to the concerns that Conservative Members expressed during the last debate. Some Conservative Members might dress up their opposition, but the principle of transparency—which the Prime Minister claims is so important to him—must be paramount. I believe that our decisions should reflect the urgency with which the Prime Minister charged the Nolan committee. Therefore, we should try to meet the Nolan committee's timescale in dealing with those important issues. If hon. Members fail to accept our amendment this evening, we will lose an important opportunity to start restoring public confidence in this place.
4.42 pm
Sir Edward Heath: As I had the opportunity to speak when the House debated the issue in the first instance, I shall add only a few words at this stage. The story is not over by any means.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) described the previous debate as frenzied. I do not think that she should accuse the House of being frenzied. She screamed throughout her speech, and throughout every interruption, for immediate action without proper consideration.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall ignore his charge that I was screaming, which is not characteristic of my behaviour.
In the previous debate, I suggested exactly what I have suggested today—that we should meet the Nolan time scale. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life proved that it is possible to achieve the time scale with regard to the other resolutions and we believe that it is possible to achieve it with declaration of income as well.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Lady demanded at the end of that debate that we should reach full decisions and put everything into operation. I cannot imagine anything more frenzied than that in relation to matters that will affect every Member of Parliament now and in future. Again today, the hon. Lady has demanded immediate action.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He could not have been listening to her.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should appreciate it if hon. Members would refrain from making seated interventions.
Sir Edward Heath: I take no satisfaction from the fact that the committee sat for 14 consecutive working days to try to comply with the time scale. What opportunity could members of that committee have of discussing the issues with Members of Parliament? If the hon. Lady wants the views of right hon. and hon. Members to be ignored, that explains a great deal about the attitude displayed by Opposition Members. We know which particularly Labour Members have been working for years for this. They are consumed by an insatiable desire to pry into other people's affairs. This time, they believe it will give them an enormous advantage when the general election comes.
The hon. Lady, adopting a threatening attitude, said that the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on this of the House in particular will never understand if we stand by our principles and vote against her. My constituents will understand it perfectly well, because they know what Opposition Members are about and they are not prepared to put up with it. My constituents accept that the House is capable of running its own affairs.
I am unhappy about the report's proposal to merge the Privileges Committee with the Committee on Members' Interests. It may be that the Privileges Committee, having 17 members, cannot function as easily as it would like. When I served on that Committee, its membership was not that large and it had no difficulty functioning. Also, when the Privileges Committee is considering a case, the individual under consideration is not allowed to hear the rest of the evidence or to be represented. Those are much more serious questions for individual Members of Parliament.
I do not care for the proposed amalgamation of the two Committees because the Privileges Committee has always held by far the highest position, being respected by everybody. It has reached fairly serious decisions, albeit infrequently, when hon. Members or outsiders have been summoned to the Bar of the House to hear the Committee deliver its judgment. That Committee's work is vitally

1687
important. The status of the Select Committee on Members' Interest is quite different. The Privileges Committee should maintain its present position.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman broke the Committee's rules.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Gentleman is being as tiresome as usual. I refer him to the decision of the Members' Interests Committee in respect of Lloyd's. It took no—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman broke the rules.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not expect to have to reprimand the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) or other hon. Members again, but that appears to be necessary.
Sir Edward Heath: The Members' Interests Committee took no evidence from anybody concerned with Lloyd's and then made the ridiculous proposal that any hon. Member's particular interest in Lloyd's should be fully displayed, for which there was no justification.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Sir Edward Heath: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. When those points were brought to the notice of the Chairman—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm for the record that the former Prime Minister broke a rule of the House of Commons? He now defends the fact that he breached that rule.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of that matter and cannot comment.
Sir Edward Heath: When the matter was brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Committee, he invited members of Lloyd's in this place to go to him and other members of the Committee who wished to be present to explain the situation, which we did. The Committee's decision was then withdrawn because it knew that it was wrong. These are the consequences of carrying on with doctrines without consulting Members who may be involved. If that process continues, the Committee that deals with Members' interests, or a joint Committee if that proposal goes through, will be absorbed for ages in a process of compiling House of Commons law on Members' interests.
We have already heard that the Nolan report does not clarify anything. Lord Nolan does not bother. He does not even try. He uses three phrases without saying what each of them means. As different issues arise the Committee will have to set about creating House of Commons common law on Members' interests. That will absorb all its energies. If the Committee on Members' Interests is combined with the Privileges Committee, the time of what is now the pre-eminent Committee in this place will be absorbed unnecessarily. For these reasons I do not approve of the combining of the Committees.
I repeat what I have said about that which is being demanded of Members' interests. If a Member states that he has an interest, that covers everything. It always has.
1688
The House knows that whatever a Member says is governed by the fact that he has an interest. Knowledge of the bracket of income is not required to decide whether a Member has an interest. The decision does not require a contract. The Member will have registered, and he will have said so in the House. None of the things is needed that the insatiable desire to pry into other people's affairs has demanded. That is particularly so when it comes to the Nolan committee.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member of the Privileges Committee and I was a member of the first Committee to deal with Members' interests. Does he agree that privilege is the privilege of the electorate, which we carry as a trust? Does he agree also that many of our electors would not think about prying into private affairs but think that Members should be transparent when it comes to matters that may affect their representation in this place? It is felt that we should engage all our attention on that and not be diverted into other channels such as selling information that is available to us. That is surely the concern of the electorate, and rightly so.
Sir Edward Heath: We are not being forced into anything. Every Member has his own will, takes his own decisions and is responsible for them. When one thinks that all this was brought about by two—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Idiots.
Sir Edward Heath: Yes, they would agree that they were idiots. It was a put-up job by a Murdoch newspaper. That is what has brought all this about. The hon. Gentleman knows my views for I have never concealed them.
There is no justification for requiring all the details that are now being demanded. But the pressure will continue for more and more details. Next, the hon. Member for Dewsbury will be demanding that all Members' bank accounts be shown to her. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is hiding his eyes in shame. He has every right to do so.
Mr. Bill Michie rose—
Sir Edward Heath rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Ten minutes is now up. I trust that someone else wants to speak.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).
4.54 pm
Mr. John Evans rose—
Sir Edward Heath rose—
Mr. Evans: I hope that my 10 minutes will start from when I begin my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it that my 10 minutes will start now.
At the outset—
Sir Edward Heath: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is some misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Heeley leaned towards me and started to rise, and I gave way so that he might intervene.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to have to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the 10-minute rule is in operation, so it is not possible for him to continue.
Mr. Evans: At the outset, I proudly declare my sponsorship by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It is the only interest that I have in the Register of Members' Interests and it has been declared ever since the register was established. I have no other interests to declare to the House.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee's Chairman who, in a quite splendid style, sought to obtain unanimity throughout our deliberations. I am sure that all would agree that he did a splendid job.
I have been somewhat disturbed during the past few weeks at some of the personal criticisms that have been levelled at Lord Nolan by a number of Members. Words such as "ambiguities", "muddled" and "fudged" have been used. The committee was a distinguished committee which included some long-serving parliamentarians, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Lord Thomson.
I have been a Member of the House for 21 years, but those three distinguished parliamentarians have been in the House for much longer than I have been. They have all been Cabinet Ministers and to suggest that people of that calibre are muddled and have produced a fudge is a slur on them, their reputations and the work that they have done in the House.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I have only 10 minutes.
Those three members of the committee, as well as its other distinguished members, know their way about politics and about Parliament. In case anyone has missed it, it should also be noted that Sir Clifford Boulton, a former Clerk of the House, was a member of the committee. If anyone knows his way around the Standing Orders and procedures of the House, it is Sir Clifford Boulton.
For some hon. Members to imply that the interim Nolan report was somewhat eccentric and muddled, produced by a rather other-worldly figure who simply does not understand the real world occupied by Members of Parliament was, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, deliberately misleading. The Nolan report was a unanimous report by 10 distinguished individuals from various walks of life who know what life is all about, and it is grossly insulting to them to suggest otherwise.
It is equally important to record that there were substantial areas of unanimity among the Select Committee members. Unanimity on the acceptance of most of Nolan's recommendations was easily achieved—in some instances with little discussion. Accepting the need for a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and how that individual should be appointed was an important duty that the Committee performed.
A code of conduct for Members of Parliament would be of enormous benefit to new Members coming into the House after a general election. I well remember that, when I came into the House in March 1974, no one told me anything about anything. I was simply left to my own devices to find out things as best I could.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Nothing has changed.
Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says, nothing has changed in the interim.
The Nolan committee recommended a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Leader of the House knows my views and I make the plea that such a Committee should be established soon, start work and take over the functions of the present Select Committee. The present Select Committee, which has done an excellent job, has a limited life and it is important that the new Committee should get into its stride and start work.
The motion concerning the declaration of Members' interests also establishes an important procedure. If a Member tables an amendment to a Bill or asks a written question, and Members have to declare their financial interests, we will all be able to see—including Ministers—whether he has an interest in that area.
The same applies to the updating of the 1947 resolution on Members' outside interests. We are reiterating the resolution, as Nolan asked us to do, but we are saying that we think that it could be updated to suit the change in standards between 1947 and 1995–96.
We parted company on three issues. The first involved hon. Members being employed by lobbying companies that provide paid parliamentary services to multiple clients. The second involved the requirement that hon. Members should, from the beginning of the next Session, deposit with the registrar any contracts they have with any company relating to the provision of services. The third, and much more significant, issue involved hon. Members having to declare their earnings from outside interests from the beginning of the next Session.
There were a number of occasions in the Select Committee when we touched on those subjects. We did not settle the subject at the very last sitting, at the 11th hour, but discussed it on a number of occasions. On every occasion, the attitude of Labour members of the Committee was that two options should be presented to the House. One option was the Nolan recommendations as printed in Lord Nolan's report; the second was that we accept the principle of Nolan, but provide further time to study some of the details.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee made it clear that they would not accept, and would not put their name to, Lord Nolan's words on the Order Paper of the House of Commons as appearing to come from the Select Committee. That is why we divided at the final stage.
Lord Nolan, in his unanimous report, made it clear that those were the two matters of great significance that the committee felt were at the heart of the decline in the public's perception of parliamentary standards and should be acted on immediately. Lord Nolan included those issues in his report and asked us to take action to solve those problems as quickly as possible, and certainly by the start of the next Session.
While the Labour members of the Select Committee accepted, and made it clear that we accepted, Lord Nolan's report, we were not dogmatic about it. In our view, it was not for 10 members of a Select Committee to remove Lord Nolan's words. We felt that it was for the House of Commons to take that decision once the options had been placed before it. The Tory and Liberal Democrat members sought to deny that opportunity, which is why

1691
we have placed the words on the Order Paper again today. We want to give every hon. Member the opportunity to vote for the Nolan report or to vote for the amendment that accepts the principle.
The Leader of the House carefully crafted the amendment that is contained in paragraph 86, and now appears on the Order Paper. The resolution that the majority passed in the Committee states:
"That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee".
I am highly suspicious of those words. If the recommendation had stated:
"That this House endorses the principle of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee"
and had instructed the Select Committee to conduct such an examination and make proposals, that could well have been acceptable to the majority of the Committee.
However, a number of Tory Members have made it clear throughout the debate that the thought of disclosing their earnings is anathema. A former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made that abundantly clear in his short speech on the subject. Such right hon. and hon. Members simply do not realise that the subject causes so much concern to the general public. The very thought that Members of Parliament have outside interests for which they receive substantial sums of money, directly and only because they are Members of Parliament, is a cause of public concern.
If Conservative Back Benchers tonight turn down the option of disclosing income, they will go a long way to persuading the public that they, as a party, are determined to bury the Nolan committee's recommendations.
I have already paid tribute to the Leader of the House's chairmanship of the Select Committee, and I understand the difficulties that he has faced. He recognises that there is a strong wish in his party to kick the Nolan report as far as possible into the long grass in the hope that, in the next three or four months, the Tories can come up with some alternative—any alternative—that will result in Lord Nolan's recommendations being shelved. If the Tories do that, they will be making an appalling mistake for which they will subsequently pay.
5.4 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I shall begin by immediately declaring various interests that are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
In considering the amendments and motions before us, we should bear in mind the introductory paragraph of Lord Nolan's report. It states that, when inquiring into the growing public concern about standards in public life, it became
"equally clear from a considerable body of this evidence that much of the public anxiety about standards of conduct in public life is based upon perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts."
When the matter has been presented in the press, that paragraph has not been quoted. On the contrary, the extent of the problem has been grossly exaggerated, but for the reputation of the House it is important and right that we should deal with the problem.
1692
The deadlines set on the Nolan committee report and the Select Committee have not been the least bit helpful in achieving a sensible outcome of the deliberations—nor has the shortness of today's debate. I do not agree with what the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said about the Nolan committee's report. It is true that it is a distinguished committee, but it would be charitable to think that it was the lack of time that led to the report's quality.
Having studied it in much greater depth than I did at the time of the debate on the Adjournment—I suppose that I have studied it as closely as anyone in the House—I am forced to the conclusion that it is as inadequate in its analysis as it is bad in its drafting. Therefore, the Select Committee has had to do what the Nolan committee should have done in the first place.
Lord Nolan deals with three issues: Members of Parliament, Ministers and civil servants, and quangos. The report goes through those issues at the beginning, and then again, for a second time. As we found in the Select Committee, one spends one's entire time bobbing back and forth, as the report is extremely badly drafted.
In addition, Lord Nolan is very concerned about the issue of timing and when particular proposals should be carried through. But if the Nolan committee had given the matter much thought, it would have realised that some of the actions that it said should be taken immediately could not sensibly be taken until subsequent inquiries, which it said should be done during the following year, had taken place. The report is badly drafted, and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it is sadly inadequate when it comes to defining its terms and explaining what it has in mind. It is right that the Select Committee should have done what it can to clarify the situation.
In the time available, the Select Committee has done a remarkable job. We sat day after day, with total disregard for the effect that would have on other programmes. I add to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his chairmanship of the Committee. I do not know how he has survived the past two months.
Not only has he carried out his functions as Leader of the House, with constant appearances at the Dispatch Box, but he has performed his role as Chairman of the Privileges Committee as well as Chairman of the Select Committee. He has also stood in for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time when necessary, and has had a number of other governmental and private matters to deal with—what Mr. Macmillan used to describe as "little local difficulties". My Tight hon. Friend has done a remarkable job. Other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have also done so.
I do not think for one moment that the Committee delayed matters unnecessarily. We dealt with an immense range of subjects and have done much to clarify the position and, in some respects, toughen up the Nolan proposals in respect of what is now proposed in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new Committee—on which I do not agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said.
We have done well in clarifying the relationship between the Commissioner and the new Select Committee structure. We have toughened up the proposals. We dealt with a number of issues, such as declaring interests on the Order Paper, which Lord Nolan had omitted to do.

1693
The Select Committee looked carefully at the subject of declaration. We were forced to the conclusion that we could not do it in the time available.
I was puzzled by the threats of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about what our constituents would think. No one says that we should not go ahead, and no one is procrastinating: it is absurd to suggest that. We have worked flat out all the time, and I understand that it is proposed that we should meet again tomorrow when the House has risen. But an article in The Observer on Sunday stated, "My goodness, they are trying to hook it into the long grass." That is not the case, but we must have sensible proposals to present.
One cannot deal with the issue of multi-client consultancies until the overall picture of consultancies is clear, and we must clarify that as quickly as possible. In the context of the declaration of contracts, it seems that, effectively, three categories of consultancy have to be taken into account. Some contracts do not arise in any way from membership of the House. It is clearly inappropriate to declare such contracts, and I think that Nolan recognised that. It is arguable that some of the matters that are now registered ought to be deregistered, because they are not relevant in this context.
At the other extreme, some consultancies are quite clearly designed to enable an outside interest to have advocates in the House to put down questions, perhaps to move amendments, to entertain in the Dining Rooms, and to effect introductions to Ministers and so on. An examination of the rather convoluted passages in the existing resolutions of the House and the Select Committee suggestions on the matter show that those activities ought to be banned. That is a personal view. However, if they are banned, the issue of declaration of amounts does not arise.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Terence Higgins: I cannot give way, because of the time that is available.
The Select Committee generally, and certainly the Conservative Members on it, advocated a tougher stance than Nolan has established. He did not distinguish, as one must do, between activities by the client that reach into the House and advice from the House to those outside. That is an important distinction. If a consultancy simply involves advice on parliamentary matters, the question of amounts does not seem relevant, because it does not in any way affect performance in the House. That is the crucial issue.
I hope that the work of the Select Committee can continue. It has been one of the best Committees, in terms of all-party consensus, that I have come across. Despite the general partisan exchanges in this debate, the. Committee ought to be able to reach a sensible conclusion and present positive proposals for the House to consider at an early date.
It would not be right for us to pass the issues to the new Committee. The existing Committee, on which I had the privilege, if it be that, of sitting, should be concerned with structure, and the new Committee should concern itself with the issues of operation and individual cases. If that is done, it will restore the reputation of the House. It
1694
is important for that to be done, but the process has not been helped by the time scale in which we have attempted to resolve an extremely complex and important problem.
5.13 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I shall begin by declaring that my interests are set out in the Register in the usual way. The previous debate on the recommendations of Lord Nolan's committee on standards in public life was on a take-note motion. Widely differing views were expressed at that time, but today hon. Members must take decisions. The overriding need is to approve the resolutions, which were designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Nolan committee. At the same time, we must resolve to complete the task of implementation in the time scale that was recommended by Nolan.
In reaching decisions, none of us is likely to forget the circumstances that gave rise to the report. The good name of the House, and its keystone place in our democracy, must be in the mind of every one of us. The House validates Government. If that process were to be corrupted by the self-interested action of Members, it would diminish our claim to speak for the country.
Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: Because of the time constraints, I will not give way.
If the House could not speak for the country, who would? This old institution reached its central representative role in the life of the country only through a process of evolution. Of course the House has not always risen to that challenge. Individual Members bring to its debates personal partialities and human idiosyncrasies, but in the process of debate there is sometimes distilled the true sense of where the people's interests lie. It is that which is put at risk if Members allow their outside interests, especially their outside financial interests, not merely to dominate their own judgment but to exert influence upon the judgment of the House.
Some would argue, although Nolan did not, that such outside interests are wholly incompatible with fully functioning membership of the House. Certainly the demands on each Member are such that there can be little time for extensive outside activity. Nolan sought to protect the honesty of debate by calling for openness about those interests. The report specifically advocated the severance of any direct financial link between Members and those whose business is to seek to sell influence over Parliament and Government.
Nolan worked fast, and that may have presented the problems to which the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) referred. The Select Committee also worked fast, but I hope that the House will agree to accept its resolutions, which were unanimously adopted by the Committee. Those significant resolutions are: to proceed with the appointment of an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to bring together within one Committee the work of the ancient Committee of Privileges and the modern Select Committee on Members' Interests; and to put in hand the preparation of a code of conduct for Members of Parliament.

1695
Those evolutionary developments should assist the House to investigate fairly and thoroughly allegations of wrongdoing that are made against hon. Members. They should also help in the process of monitoring the adequacy of the rules to deal with any slippage in standards.
On the two specific outstanding matters of disclosure and lobbying—to define them broadly—on which the Select Committee did not have time to reach conclusions, Nolan was quite clear on one matter. It was that controls should be in place at the beginning of the next parliamentary Session. The purpose of the amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends is to ensure that the House can do just that.
My amendment (d) to the final resolution which was tabled by the Leader of the House is intended simply to strengthen the instruction to the Select Committee to present precise proposals in those two areas by the end of this Session, to which in any event the resolution aspires.
My amendments to the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends would provide that, in the event of the Select Committee failing to present such precise proposals in that time scale—it must be remembered that the Committee was charged only to present an interim report, which is what it has done—the two broad, less precise, proposals of the Labour party, which are contained in amendments (a) and (c), would take effect from the beginning of the next Session.
As the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said, amendments (a) and (c) use the language of the Nolan committee, and for that reason are superficially attractive. However, they leave grey areas, which might be used by self-serving Members to avoid their obligations. It would not serve the interests of the House to have unscrupulous Members able to exploit loopholes.
To take one example, if the House believes that any association with a firm that engages in lobbying, be it a firm of solicitors or accountants or a public relations company, should be banned, in my judgment it should explicitly say so, and not rely on the general language of the Nolan committee. If the House considers that it is not illegitimate to belong to such a firm, providing that Members' contracts preclude lobbying activity, that alternative should be explicitly provided for.
I do not believe that the Nolan committee, in making its recommendations, considered that it was removing from the House the responsibility to draw up its own precise rules. Rather, I believe it sought to make recommendations outlining the purpose of the rules that should be implemented in order to renew the standing of Parliament. It clearly left it to the House to define precisely what those rules must be to make its. recommendations effective.
I emphasise that, working as the committee did, the Nolan timetable can be met, although I do not doubt that we will have to work hard during the summer recess. We will all remember that it is all the people who sent us here whose interests we must represent in the House. By our decisions today, we can renew their confidence that we will not be diverted by private or partial interests from that overriding duty.
5.20 pm
Mr. Tom King: I and my colleagues on the Nolan committee have had to experience the reaction of the House and others outside to our report. We did not have a particularly happy first debate, and I hope that today's debate will be an improvement on it. The contribution of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), however, who appeared deliberately to threaten hon. Members, was the singularly most ill-judged contribution that we have had to the discussion.
I have listened with great interest to the comments and criticisms by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have also taken note of the comments of Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) shared responsibilities on the Nolan committee, and I would like to think that we strove deliberately to conduct that committee on a non-party political, non-partisan basis. It was the better for it.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Dewsbury conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition the fact that I particularly regretted the way in which he has considered the matter. I also regret that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's response to the Nolan committee recommendations was met with a manifestly party political reaction at Prime Minister's Questions. It does not serve the interests of the House to approach the matter in that way.
I have had to endure the criticisms levelled against the Nolan committee. I also noted the Opposition's ridicule when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposed at the end of the previous debate that a Select Committee should be set up to consider the Nolan recommendations. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who now doubts the need for that Committee, which Nolan specifically recommended in our report.
I congratulate the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life on the work that it has done. I might say with tongue slightly in cheek that, having had to endure the slings and arrows of some of my hon. Friends at what were suggested by some to be ludicrous recommendations in the Nolan report, I am encouraged to find how many of those recommendations have been warmly endorsed, either by the Government in their excellent response to the recommendations we made about Ministers and appointments to quangos, or by the Select Committee.
Despite the criticisms of bad drafting and lack of clarity of thought, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the Committee for carrying through, clarifying and improving, as I hoped and knew that it would, a number of the recommendations we made. I was told that the idea of a Commissioner could not possibly work—I congratulate the Committee on seeing the advantages of it. I also congratulate it on appreciating the merits of our suggestions on the Committee's structure. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) disagreed with them.
It is important to consider the particular point that is the source of division: what is meant by advocacy. My right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Worthing criticised the Nolan committee for lack of clarity, and questioned whether it had spelt out sufficiently clearly what exactly was meant by the activities that Members might conduct in the House on behalf of outside parties.

1697
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) got it precisely right. For all the kind words of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) about the three experienced parliamentarians who served on the Nolan committee, we did not presume to impose our judgment. The Nolan committee deliberately did not dot every "i" and cross every "t", in the knowledge that it would be for the House finally to decide on that most difficult of matters.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury spoke about voting tonight for the straightforward implementation of Nolan. As one of the members of that committee and one of the authors of its report, I do not believe it is possible to do that. As yet, nothing has been determined. Are we to say that we will, in principle, impose certain conditions on such activities of which we do not know at the moment? We must determine what those activities are. I stand by the Nolan report. People who seek to advocate in the House and sell their position as a Member of Parliament to provide services in this House to others are in a different category from other hon. Members.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Dewsbury swept together advice outwards and advocacy inwards. Not a single member of the Nolan committee took that view. We regarded advice outwards as positively helpful in many cases to a parliamentary democracy, and positively part of a Member of Parliament's responsibilities. Advocacy inwards is not in the same category.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said. I clearly said that advocacy on behalf of people for payment is not allowed, while giving advice out is allowed. I made that clear in my evidence to the Nolan committee, as I did in my speech tonight. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not support Opposition amendment (a), so I hope that he will feel able to support the Nolan recommendations in principle, which are embodied in amendment (b).
Mr. King: It is not a question of what is permitted. Advocacy—the selling of one's services in order to provide services in the House—is in a different category from that advisory function that hon. Members have often quoted in debates on Nolan. One cannot, understandably, refuse to give advice. If people ask us what is going on in Parliament, we cannot say, "I am forbidden to give you that advice." I have never heard anything so fatuous in my life. We say often enough that we are cut off from people outside, so of course we must be prepared to give advice.
It is important to consider what activities the category of advocacy covers. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney would agree with me that the Nolan committee found it difficult to reach a decision on that and to determine where to draw the line. As the right hon. Gentleman and I said in the previous debate, to an extent we passed the buck to Parliament. That is why the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right to say that the Nolan committee recommendations are a challenge for the House. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that that deliberation is not a delaying tactic.
There is no point in going from the current unclear situation to yet another unclear situation. We have to have the courage to face up to the problem posed by advocacy, put it right and then determine the conditions that should apply to those who practice it.
5.28 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: I declare that I am a sponsored member of the union Unison, which entails a £600 payment to my local constituency per annum in accordance with the Hastings agreement—a published document. I receive no personal financial gain.
I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, and the progress it has managed to make in the short time available to it. I welcome the fact that agreement has been reached on certain issues. Anyone who has served on the Select Committee on Members' Interests knows of the genuine difficulties encountered when considering the detail behind some of the matters at issue tonight.
I therefore welcome the proposals on the Order Paper, which seek the agreement of the House and on which we will vote. I particularly welcome the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which would be established if the appropriate order goes through quickly. That is essential. The report says that the Commissioner might be part-time. I hope that he will be full-time, because a great deal of work needs to be done. The House should take the post seriously, make it full-time, and get it up and running as quickly as possible.
I also welcome the abolition of the Members' Interests Committee and its merger with the Privileges Committee. Even though I am a member of the Members' Interests Committee, we have had a great deal of difficulty not only with partisan problems and a breakdown of the consensus upon which the success of the Committee was built—which has made it impossible for us to do our work—but in trying to get hold of the facts.
The concept that the Commissioner will be able to gather the facts, and have the wherewithal to do it efficiently, will make the operation of this part of the proposed changes much more efficient and rapid. Therefore, it will be much fairer to any hon. Member who might be referred to the new Committee.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I am extremely worried about the wording of motion No. 7, which refers to
"the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee"
that deal with the nub of the issue, which is the declaring of amounts received and the banning of multi-client consultancies. Many of our constituents regard that as the most crucial of the Nolan recommendations, and we must deliver it.
I do not agree with everything in the Nolan report, but I am willing to go along with it, because rescuing the reputation of this House and ensuring that the people believe that we are in this House for public service, not private gain, are too important to be left to quibbling around the edges of the little bits of Nolan with which we do not agree. We must move quickly to ensure that both the declaring of the amounts and the banning of multi-client consultancies are put into effect as quickly as possible.
The phrase
"the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee"
suggests that, upon examination, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life might decide that the recommendations on the two issues which I believe the

1699
public regard as crucial to our credibility in making these reforms should not be implemented. That would be a serious error, and it would bring the House into disrepute.
That is why I would have preferred to see the phrase "an acceptance in principle" about the issues. We could then have looked at what I agree are sometimes difficult practical interpretations and definitions. However, I do not think that definition is impossible, or that it is impossible to do so in a tight manner.
There is doubt in the minds of those who are perhaps cynical' that the Government really will deliver on those two important areas. Whatever welcome progress there is on the implementation of the rest of the Nolan reforms, if we procrastinate and do not deliver on the issues of declaring the actual amounts and banning multi-client consultancies, we will fail to reassure our constituents that we can put our own house in order.
As the Nolan report said, it is not credible to argue that, if someone has a financial consultancy that is worth £5,000, somehow that can be equated with one that is worth £50,000. Our constituents have a right to know if we are making money as a direct consequence of our membership of this House—that is the key issue—and how much money we are making, so that they can make their own judgment about how we are spending our time, how credible we are as independent advocates of their interests in this place, and whether we might have our heads turned by private financial interests. That is a wholly reasonable issue, on which we must agree.
I know that some Conservative Members think that it is none of the public's business to know how much money they earn, even in such a direct area. Unfortunately, we cannot maintain credibility without making that concession to the public. We are not saying—and Nolan did not say—that we should declare all our private earnings. I am a full-time member of the House, and have no other earnings to declare. Some people think that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job, and that there should not be the time to do all sorts of other jobs.
Certainly, many of our constituents and people who work in certain jobs in industry who are restricted by their contracts from working in other jobs would agree with that. We must make the concession, and be seen to be making it. If we prevaricate and hope that we can kick these two issues into the long grass, we will fail to reassure people about the vibrancy and honesty of our democracy, and we will be doing a great disservice to the House.
Tonight is the time to support the amendments moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), to reassure our constituents that we are absolutely determined to deal with the issue as quickly as possible, in an open and honest way. We must reassure them that we are not trying to preserve privileges that are no longer relevant and to allow people who have brought the House into disrepute to continue to get away with squeezing between the cracks and the ambiguities in the rules.
We must be open and honest in our declarations, and give up a small amount of our privacy to demonstrate the honesty and straightforward vibrancy of our democracy. We must not allow the House to descend even further in public esteem. The issue is that important.
1700
I hope that the House will take this early opportunity to support the amendments, so that we can make progress, as quickly as possible, in the two vital areas to which I have referred.
5.36 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: Like others, I wish to declare non-executive directorships, which are shown in the Register of Members' Interests. I do not have, nor ever have had, any consultancies.
In the time available, I shall make just two points. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the previous debate on the Nolan report because I was leading the British-American parliamentary group delegation on its annual visit to and meetings with the Senate in Washington. One of the points I would have wished to have stressed then, and wish to stress now, and which formed the bulk of my early evidence to the Nolan committee, is that I strongly believe that it would greatly weaken this House, the Government and parliamentary democracy if outside interests were barred or in any way greatly inhibited as a result of any recommendations in the Nolan report.
I gave many reasons for taking that view in my evidence to Nolan. I am therefore delighted that the committee strongly took up my theme. It said in paragraph 19 of its report,
"we consider it desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists."
That is absolutely right. It continued:
"A Parliament composed entirely of full-time professional politicians would not serve the best interests of democracy."
Again, that is absolutely right.
I have no objection to those who spend an entire working career in politics and in Parliament, but Parliament should not be mainly composed of those sorts of people. In some of the debate surrounding the Nolan committee, there was a real threat that some people believed that it should be and would try to further that particular cause.
In paragraph 20, the Nolan report said:
"We should be worried about the possibility of a narrowing in the range of able men and women who would be attracted to stand for Parliament if Members were barred from having any outside paid interests. We believe that many able people would not wish to enter Parliament if they not only had to take a substantial drop in income to do so but also ran the risk of seeing their livelihood disappear altogether if they were to lose their seats."
That, too, is absolutely right. That is why I was delighted that the Nolan committee strongly reaffirmed those points and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his statement to the House yesterday, robustly defended that point of view.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to concerns outside the House. One such concern that is widely held is that able people will not in future wish to enter the House if we put too many barriers in the way of their doing so. That is why I am concerned about one paragraph of the draft code of conduct contained in the report. We are discussing setting up a procedure and having a draft code of conduct now. This illustrates a point, made several times in the debate, that some areas of the Nolan report are not at all clear.

1701
The particular part of the draft code of conduct to which I want to draw attention is that which states:
"Where, in the pursuit of a Member's Parliamentary duties, the existence of a personal financial interest"—
not a contract or consultancy for lobbying—
"is likely to give rise to a conflict with the public interest, the Member has a personal responsibility to resolve that conflict either by disposing of the interest or by standing aside from the public business in question."
That seems at best fuzzy, ambiguous and unclear and, at worst, directly in conflict with the principles to which the Nolan drew attention. It illustrates exactly the kind of problems that we now face, although I am not criticising the Nolan committee because it had to do its work in such a short time.
Mr. Stephen rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give way because of the shortage of time.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and those who will be examining the draft code of conduct that the particular point to which I drew attention must be redrafted substantially. If it is not, it will mean either that Members with valuable experience will not be able to participate in debates or Select or Standing Committees—we all recognise their value—or that they cannot participate in particular votes, which would undermine the whole process of the House. Although I have dealt with it only briefly, I feel very strongly about that aspect of the drafting of the code of conduct as it has a bearing on the principles behind the debate.
My second point relates to motion 7 and consultancies. I had quite a long discussion about this issue with members of the Nolan committee when I gave my evidence. I said early on that it was very difficult to know where to draw the line and that we were looking to the committee to give us guidance about where to do so. I am not at all surprised that the Nolan committee threw the issue back to Parliament, which is what it effectively did by drawing attention to multi-client consultancies, but saying that, in every other sphere, it is for Parliament in the next year to consider how to proceed. The reason why the Committee threw the matter back to Parliament is that it is difficult to define precisely, and we have to get it right.
I am therefore not surprised that the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who did a superb job, said that in 14 working days it could not reach a conclusion on issues with which the Nolan committee said that it could not properly deal in six months. In addition, my right hon. Friend's Committee had to deal with other precisely defined matters, so it seems wholly reasonable for the House to support motion 7.
Not only was the threat issued to Members of Parliament by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) ludicrous but it debased the debate. I have no doubt that she has previously criticised—many members of her party certainly have—legislation that has been drafted too hastily. She is now asking for an over-hasty decision when there are still so many fuzzy matters to be settled. To suggest that our constituents could then be told that we had not fulfilled our parliamentary duties because we had agreed to do something that was not workable in practice is a ridiculous threat.
1702
The position adopted by my right hon. Friend and the majority of the Committee was entirely right. Given that the Nolan committee took some time to reach a position that is still unclear, and given that it also threw some matters back to Parliament, it is entirely reasonable to ask the Committee to spend another three months trying to reach a workable solution.
5.42 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I am a member of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life. I shall speak briefly but must first declare an interest. I am a sponsored member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers from which I receive no personal payment whatsoever.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: What about the office? Put a figure on it.
Mr. Orme: A sum of £600 goes directly to the office and is openly declared. All that we are asking is that such moneys be declared. As has been said, if Nolan wants to continue to examine the issue, we are more than willing to participate in that examination. We have nothing to hide.
I wish to take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a distinguished member of the Select Committee. He said that many strands were not tied together—and the Select Committee had some difficulty in that respect—but the motions that we debating are an attempt to implement what Nolan recommended. He wanted his recommendations in place by the next Session, and we are asking that they be approved in principle. We have come a long way down that road. No one is saying that every "i" has been dotted and every "t" has been crossed—that is not the case—but there is agreement in principle. We are therefore not asking for a debate in the next three months on whether we should implement the recommendations; what we are asking the House to do is to accept the principles and decide that they shall be implemented.
The previous Prime Minister spoke about being locked in Committees and not talking to anyone else so we would not know what others were thinking. Our Committee had many hours of discussion and, had he been there, he would have heard the many representations that we received from fellow Members of Parliament from all parties. We had a very open discussion, and I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the way in which he chaired the Committee. For my sins, I am a member of the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life. The right hon. Gentleman did a sterling job. We disagreed fundamentally on some matters—we are debating some of them tonight—but the Committee worked exceedingly hard to find a solution.
When all is said and done, Nolan's recommendations are moderate in many ways. We are not asking for the moon. The Nolan committee was established because of problems created, regrettably, in the House. However, our record as a democratic Parliament is probably better than most. We admit that there is a problem with which we have to deal, and we want to put in place a series of recommendations, nine tenths of which I believe are acceptable and will be voted so by the House.
I urge the House to go one step further and implement the principles set out in the motions. In the coming three months, let us examine the fine print and see whether we

1703
can make any improvements. If we do that, we shall be ready to implement the Nolan recommendations from day one of the next Session. That, I believe, is what the public want.
5.47 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I declare only those interests which are included in the Register of Members' Interests as I have no others.
I doubt whether the concept that Lord Nolan's recommendations are to be regarded as "set in stone", which appears to be the Opposition's view, is correct. After all, they are simply recommendations made by a committee comprised of human beings. It is up to the House to decide whether it wishes to take all of them, some of them or whatever is necessary. I do not accept all the recommendations, and I believe that I should say so at the beginning of my speech.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She has come in for some criticism, but, on the whole, I think that her speech was very moderate until she began to say that we should "clean up" Parliament, thus giving the impression that Parliament was in the mire and that we all needed a code of conduct to show us how to behave. In fact, 99.9 per cent. of Members of Parliament are operating in a honourable and proper way and therefore the phrase "start to clean up Parliament" does this House a considerable disservice.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on the work of the Select Committee and his success? I do not admire, however, the fact that there were 14 sittings in 14 days. I do not think that is the way that Committees should have to work. A little time for consideration in depth, especially on matters of such great importance, would have been better. I realise that he had a time scale to meet, but that is not the way in which I would recommend that other Committees should have to function.
Mr. Newton: I rather thought that the chairmen of other Select Committees might be a bit nervous about that precedent, but I would not urge it on the Procedure Committee.
Sir Peter Emery: I am very glad to hear that because I have no intention of carrying such a precedent forward.
I turn to motion 3 concerning a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I understand and accept the recommendation, but I suggest that the person who is appointed must have real knowledge of the working of Parliament and of this House. I do not think that we should just appoint a distinguished judge or lawyer who may be very good at his own profession but has no real knowledge of what goes on in this place. That point is of considerable importance to the appointment.
I turn to the code of conduct. It seems to me that all that is really recommended is that we revert to the standards that used to exist in the House. I immediately accept the need for transparency, but I have always believed that it has existed. Way before there was a Register, I published all the things that I did in business in "Who's Who". Indeed, when I was working on the
1704
Select Committee on Trade and Industry and it considered the accounts of the Post Office, it was possible that a company of which I was chairman would have a future contract with the Post Office. I immediately declared an interest, yet the Clerk said that there was no need to do so because it was only something that might happen and did not exist. Yet because of that possibility, not only did I declare the interest, I would not sit on the Committee while the Post Office accounts were being considered. That was the sort of transparency which I believe that nearly every Member of Parliament always considers. I was not special in the way in which I reacted.
I do not accept the concept that somebody must look only after the parliamentary aspect of what they are elected for. May I say why I do not accept it? When I was adopted to fight my by-election in 1967, my constituency wanted to know that it was taking as a candidate a person who had been in business, a person who had been successful in business, who would be able to keep up certain of his business interests if elected and would not be, as it would say, bogged down in politics and nothing else. We must not give way to the idea that a person must only be a full-time Member of Parliament.
I say quite clearly, however, that no attempt to influence matters in the favour of an employer through consultancy, directorship or advisory position, whether by question, early-day motion, letters to Ministers or delegations to Ministers should ever be allowed. That should be absolutely banned. Indeed, any specific lobbying for something for which a person is paid as a director should be banned.
When I was a director of Phillips Petroleum UK Ltd.—which I am not at the moment—I always declared my interest when I spoke in the House. In fact it allowed me to speak with perhaps a little more knowledge and understanding on energy matters than other hon. Members. I made it absolutely clear and bent over backwards never to allow anything that I did or said to be seen to work for the company which employed me. That is the way in which hon. Members can and should react positively and properly in the House.
Any hon. Member who takes part in and is paid to influence the House in favour of something outside his parliamentary duty should be treated most severely—even excluded from the House. If that were the case, I would see no need whatever for any revelation, publication or declaration of earnings. I warn the House that the moment we start demanding that hon. Members—even a small group of them—declare what they are earning, that is the moment we open that door. It will not be very long before other people will be pushing for the publication of every outside earning of every Member of Parliament. Then income tax will have to be made public as well. Members of Parliament have some right to a little privacy. As long as Members behave properly and honourably, as our constituents expect of us, I would urge the House to go forward in that way.
I find therefore that I cannot accept the Opposition's amendments. The approach was somewhat provocative. There is no need to demand the publication of earnings. That would be an unnecessary interference in the affairs of an Member. It in no way tells our constituents whether we are doing our job properly or not. They can judge that from what we say in the House, what we do in our

1705
constituencies, what we say in our letters and how we pursue their interests. That has nothing to do with what we are paid.
I therefore urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments. The motions moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should be passed and passed with unanimity.
5.56 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to declare my relationship with the union Unison, which helped fund a surgery for my constituents in Workington.
The right hon.Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) would have the public believe that we are trying in some way to prevent him from having interests outside the House of Commons. May I make it absolutely clear that we are not seeking to do that at all? All we are seeking to do is ensure that, when Members use Parliament to make additional money, it should be revealed to the wider public. That is all we are trying to do, and I think that that is a perfectly fair arrangement.
Now that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has returned to his place, may I say that his failure to realise that his 10 minutes was up at the end of his speech summed up for many of us the whole debate. Some hon. Members really believe that they are beyond the rules; that the rules do not apply to them. That is why the right hon. Gentleman failed to register an important interest of his two years ago in the House of Commons Register.
When I breach rules by using a word in this Chamber which is not even vulgar, I am asked to leave, and I am excluded from the House of Commons for 24 hours. When the right hon. Gentleman breaches a major rule of the House of Commons and acts as a fig leaf for another 11 hon. Gentlemen, his actions are ignored.
Sir Edward Heath rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to give way. He did not give way to me.
As far as I can see, in this debate Conservative Members intend to use every ruse in the book to ensure that multi-client consultancies are maintained, and that they retain those interests. They are out to block the reform of consultancy advocacy—they want to retain it. The reason is that they simply cannot afford to live on £33,000 a year. That is what is behind this debate. Conservative Members with two kids away at public school are spending, before tax, more than £30,000 a year; that is the truth of it. They know that, if they are to be able to fund their annual bills, they must find ways in which to use Parliament to earn extra cash. That is why many of them will never go into the Lobbies to block commercial consultancy advocacy.
Those Conservative Members will equally go to the wire on the disclosure of payments, irrespective of what happens in the Committee, irrespective of the debate outside in the country and irrespective of the national opinion polls. Many Tory Members will never, in any circumstances or in any conditions, be prepared to disclose under a banding system the amount they earn, because they simply do not want that information to be made public.
1706
I have worked out a way in which to deal with this block. It may well be that the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose report we are discussing today, has now come up against the wire. I do not think that the Committee will be able to do a lot more work, because it is up against a block. The block was shown by the defeat of the relevant motion in Committee, which many Conservative Members intend to defeat again tonight if they can.
The answer to the block is to be found in the rules of the House which provide, in exceptional circumstances, for Committees to deliberate in public. If the Select Committee deliberates in public, the block will be removed, because the moment the television cameras go into the Committee, Conservative Members will not be able to use proceedings to block the necessary reforms which we believe stand behind the Nolan proposals.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. I do not intend to give way.
We may appear to be setting a precedent. The reality is—we have now had a ruling to this effect—that it is possible for the Committee to deliberate in public.
Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to give way.
I want to go further. Many hon. Members have referred to updating the 1947 resolution. I shall read my update, which bans advocacy; such a ban is part of the real Nolan agenda. In his report, Lord Nolan did not take the decision to ban, because, as he says, 157 Members of Parliament would be affected by such changes. Indeed, those hon. Members were elected to the House on the basis that they could retain their consultancy arrangements. Lord Nolan was not prepared to go down that road, although it is clear to anyone who has read the text that that was where his sympathies lay.
I give the House the text of a resolution that would deal with the matter—a 1995 resolution. My resolution reads as follows:
"It is contrary to the usage and dignity of the House that a Member should:

(a) bring forward by any speech or question,

(b) advocate in this House or among his fellow Members,

(c) promote either directly or indirectly with Ministers of the Crown or Crown Servants,

(d) promote amongst representatives of the local authorities or any other public bodies

(e) use the services and facilities of the House to develop, advance or promote

—any Bill, Motion, matter, or cause in return for a fee, payment, retainer, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member has received, is receiving or expects to receive, or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving or expects to receive."
If at some stage we accept that proposal, which I have not tabled as a motion today for reasons that have been argued and which I perfectly understand, we shall effectively have banned consultancy advocacy, and I believe that that ban must be introduced.
We are not banning advisory consultancies. All we are saying about them is that some are dependent on membership of the House of Commons and the very exclusive knowledge that we acquire from being Members

1707
of the House. If we are advising organisations outside the House, the income, quite properly, should be declared, because the income is exclusively determined by the fact of membership of the House of Commons. Without membership, hon. Members would be of no use in providing advice.
We would go even further on general directorships. Hon. Members may be directors of companies that make widgets or, as I was once, of a company that manufactures clocks, or whatever. There is no question of contracts having. to be laid, or stipulating bandings of payments. The House and the public are not interested in what Members of Parliament earn or in what directors of companies earn. We are interested only when that income derives directly from membership of the House of Commons, and when Members of Parliament advise clients under a regime in which advocacy consultancy has been abolished. Those are essentially the reforms that many of us are pursuing.
I have another way in which to proceed; I would not necessarily proceed on the basis of the motions that we intend to carry this evening, although they will be helpful. The motion that deals in principle—only in principle—with payment bandings should go through. However, I believe that we should codify all the rules in a code of conduct.
I have spent my spare time in the past few weeks drawing up a code of conduct, which sets out in detail many of the motions before the House tonight, but which also goes further, in so far as it deals with the director of the widget manufacturing company, the advisory consultancy and the advocacy consultancy. All the rules would be there in the code.
My view is simple. If we develop a code on that basis—I hope in time to be able to publish my own code—we shall meet public concerns on these matters, and we shall stop once and for all the use of this place by people who want simply to make money out of membership of it.
6.5 pm
Sir David Mitchell: I declare my interest as a company chairman and practising business man.
Not unnaturally, I measure my support for the motions today against the checklist I made when I spoke in the House in May and when I wrote to Lord Nolan at the start of his work. Before I go further, I join others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the assiduity with which he and his Select Committee have worked in recent weeks. I have not known of another Committee of the House that has got through so much work in so short a time. The whole House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend.
I am at ease with much of the Committee's report, in particular with self-regulation and the code of practice. I wanted there to be an ethical adviser, especially for new Members. The Committee has gone further, but I find nothing objectionable in that.
I wanted parliamentary questions that arose from a paid external retainer or consultancy to be starred or marked in some other agreed form. I believe that this is the effect of the convoluted wording of motion 6, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can confirm
1708
that I am right in that assumption. I repeat: I hope that, when my right hon. Friend winds up, he can confirm that I am right in my assumption that motion 6 will ensure that, when a Member has an interest in a question that he has tabled, it is starred or marked in some way to indicate that fact.
Mr. Newton: I can confirm that. I am afraid that my attention wandered for a moment. However, I thought that I had made that point clear in my opening speech.
Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming that point.
There is one point of omission, unless I have misunderstood. The Committee wants the Register of Members' Interests to be updated more quickly. I believe that the recommendation should go further. I believe that no Member should act in any matter in which he has an interest if he has not already put that interest on the Register. Until he has declared that interest on the Register, he should not take any action that is a result of that external retainer. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will put that suggestion on to the agenda for his Committee in future sittings.
I hope that, broadly, the requirements that will be laid on Members of the House of Commons as a result of the motions today will have their parallel in the Upper House. If they did not, that would be an odd omission in the proper workings of Parliament.
I now turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I wrote down what she said. She said that duties should engage all our attention. Those were the words she used, as she will find when she looks at Hansard tomorrow. Some Members of Parliament may have an hour or an hour and a half a day in which they may want to do what they feel like doing. If such a Member spends that time pursuing a business interest, he is making himself more able to be a more useful Member of Parliament than if he simply spent it chatting to his friends or enjoying a long lunch.
We need Members with real experience of matters outside the House. I see a difference between a Member of Parliament who is advising an outside body—such as a trade association, a trade union or a company—about the effect of matters in Parliament on that body, and a Member who is accepting advice from that body. It is right that the House should recognise that there is a difference there, and there may be a broader consensus on that matter than may have been thought.
Motion 7 is a matter of controversy, and I believe that the Committee was right in its recommendation. We need to consider carefully the effects of the amendments, which could, on a hot July afternoon, stampede the House into ill-considered requirements which could have unsatisfactory and unforeseen effects. We have suffered considerably in recent years from uncertainty about the rules of the House and what is right or not right. It would be very unfortunate for the House if, through these amendments, it exchanged one lot of ambiguities for another.
There may well be areas where consensus can be reached. I do not find objectionable the registration of the non-financial terms of a contract entered into by a Member to provide services to an external organisation. There may be a consensus in the House that that might be

1709
a way forward. But there seems to be a good deal of division in the House about publication of the amounts of payment. That, I put it to the House, is irrelevant.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury says that such amounts should be disclosed, because they show how much work a Member is doing. They do nothing of the sort. Some Members are worth £10 an hour, while others are worth £250 an hour. If a Member is paid £1,000, is it for four hours' work or 100 hours? I would not even pay £10 for some Members, but that is by the way. The amount paid is no indication of the work done, and the hon. Lady—with great respect—is quite wrong in assuming that there is a direct relationship.
The hon. Lady went on to say that the amount should be disclosed, so that it can be seen how important the work is to the Member. If a Member has nothing other than his parliamentary salary to rely on, a payment of £5,000 may be very important. But if he happens to have a private income of £20,000 or £30,000 a year, a payment of £5,000 will make practically no difference to him.
The hon. Lady is wrong in assuming that there is a direct relationship between the disclosure of the amount of money and the effect that that money has on the work that a Member is doing. It would be misleading if the House were to have such a degree of disclosure. Opposition Members wish to satisfy idle curiosity and create envy. They wish to act as levellers down in every respect. For those reasons, the House should reject the amendments and accept the motions.
6.13 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Those listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and, just more recently, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) would have no idea whatsoever why the Nolan committee was set up. Listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, one could imagine that—apart from the two individuals concerned—there was no particular reason why the Nolan committee was set up, although the right hon. Gentleman did not say that the Prime Minister was wrong to do so.
I believe—like all my Labour colleagues—that the Prime Minister was right to do what he did. But it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not given the sort of lead to Ministers that I would like to have seen. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly at Question Time if he is in favour of financial disclosure, as recommended by Nolan, but he has refused to give an answer.
Apart from Tory Members, there are very few people in the country who do not recognise—as we do on the Labour Benches—that reform in the way in which we should deal with outside financial interests is absolutely essential. Is there a single newspaper in the country—I do not know of one, no matter how Tory the newspaper—that does not believe that what Nolan recommended and what we consider to be the very minimum should be put into effect?
Have any constituents written letters to say "Don't implement Nolan—it is totally wrong; it is an intrusion into privacy; you are undermining your position as Members of Parliament; it is totally alien to the parliamentary way of life"? Have the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Honiton received such letters? I very much doubt it. There is a consensus that
1710
reform is necessary. Hence the reason we believe that Nolan has made a number of recommendations on financial disclosure which are essential.
Sir Peter Emery: I have received no letters at all, on either side of the argument.
Mr. Winnick: In that case—according to the right hon. Gentleman—there is no need to proceed along the lines that the Opposition and Nolan believe to be necessary.
I must say straight away—I do not know whether I will be believed by Conservative Members or not—that I do not favour a ban on outside interests. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends are in favour of such a ban, or so they say. I can see no particular mileage for Labour Members in having full-time Tory Members. We get much more mileage the other way. One or two of my colleagues may disagree, but I do not believe that it would be useful to a Labour Government to have full-time Tory Members—whatever the numbers who manage to get into the next Parliament—doing their best, as the Opposition will do, to undermine that Labour Government.
Such a ban would be impractical. How could we have a ban on outside activities? Could we stop a Member writing a book and getting money from it? Could we try to stop a Member receiving payment for writing articles? It is simply impractical, and I have never argued in favour of that. I do not believe that many Labour Members would argue for such a ban. To some extent, such a ban could be a denial of a Member's basic civil liberties, and I would put it as strongly as that.
I have for some years written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to urge that there should be at least some financial disclosure. I am not boasting at all, as the Committee Chairman and other members of the Committee will know of my interest. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says that we are just trying to get information on other Members, and that it is unnecessary. I do not see the matter in that light at all.
Despite what the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said, there is a great deal of difference between someone receiving a relatively small sum—it may not be a relatively small to some of us, but that is by the way—of several hundred pounds or £2,000, and someone receiving a very substantial sum of money. Most people would understand that there is a difference.
I believe that Nolan's recommendations on this matter were right. I am not trying to say that I proposed all these ideas before Nolan, but in writing to the Committee at the time, I said that the exact sums were not necessary, and that the amounts should be listed in bands.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith indicated assent.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Member for Wealden confirms that that was what I said.
Of course, outside interests can have an unfortunate effect. When apartheid was operated in South Africa, I had a strong suspicion—I was not alone in this view—about some, if not all, of the Tory Members who got up at every opportunity to say that they were against apartheid, but went on to act as apologists for the South African Government. I believe that they might have had a commercial interest of sorts.

1711
The same applies to other countries. Those who apologise for the dictatorship in China may be expressing the sincere view that there should be no protests about what is happening in that country; on the other hand, a commercial interest may be involved—who knows? It may not be, but we have understandable suspicions. It is possible that hon. Members are involved in financial dealings with companies that have relationships with countries governed by dictatorships.
When outside interests are mentioned, Conservative Members tend to say—indeed, they have said it today—that outside interests provide experience. They say, "We do not want to be full-time parliamentarians; outside interests help us in our work." It is remarkable, is it not, that the outside interest that Tory Members defend at every opportunity is very restrictive? This is not the kind of work in which the vast majority of our constituents are engaged; very few of my constituents are involved in consultancies and directorships.
I am not talking about combining the profession of barrister or solicitor with being a Member of Parliament. I find it difficult to believe that Conservative Members engage in such activities because they want to bring their experience to the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right. Why not be honest about this? I agree that there are some exceptions, but most hon. Members who take outside work of the kind that I have described do so for financial reasons: as my hon. Friend said, they do so because they want extra income. They do not want to rely on the basic parliamentary salary; they want a certain standard of living.
Although it is not a standard of living that I enjoy, or wish to enjoy, I appreciate that most Conservative Members want a different life style from that which they are likely to have on their current salary of £33,000 before deductions. As my hon. Friend also said, those with children at private schools will not get far on that amount. But why not be frank, and admit it? That would be far better than hiding behind the facade that outside work is all for the sake of parliamentary experience, and makes better Members of Parliament. No one really believes that.
What about the intrusion into our privacy? The other day, in a supplementary question, I expressed the view that there was no justification for the tabloids' intrusion into people's private lives, including the lives of a number of Members of Parliament—mainly Tory Members so far, although it could well be us on some future occasion.
When it comes to financial matters, however, what about the Register of Members' Interests? Is that not an intrusion into privacy? Which Tory Member today will stand up and say that it should not be allowed, as some did when it was to be established? The next step—an important step—is for us to clean up our act, so that we can be proud of the House of Commons rather than feeling that unsavoury actions have undermined our collective integrity and reputation. We should put that behind us. The very minimum is what Nolan has recommended, but it is clear that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is against the principle of financial disclosure, and clearly many other Conservative Members strongly agree with him.
1712
I believe that we are right to press our amendments and accept the principle of Nolan. As I have said, the sooner we clean up our act as a Parliament the better it will be, not only for us and our constituents but for British democracy.
6.23 pm
Sir Peter Fry: I, too, declare an interest. I have always been scrupulous about that; in fact, on one occasion, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests said that I had declared too much rather than too little.
It seems to me that Nolan was born from knee-jerk reaction out of panic—panic induced by media hysteria and political expediency.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you ensure that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) declares precisely what he does? He is directly affected by the debate, but he has not declared an interest.
Madam Speaker: If hon. Members have an interest to declare, it is appropriate for them to do so in this debate.
Sir Peter Fry: Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I declare immediately that for some years I have worked a multi-company consultancy? The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that perfectly well, but he may be surprised to learn that that is not the basis of my objections to some of the Nolan report.
I can live with that, however; I take the point. What I find hypocritical is the way in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) defended her previous directorship of a multi-company agency. She said that she had no objection to declaring what she had been paid. That is not the point, however: under Nolan, she would be prohibited from being a director of such an agency. Was she ashamed of the work that she did for the agency? If she was not, why is it such a terrible sin today?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I said that I accepted the Nolan recommendations, not because I am ashamed of anything that I have done in the past, but because other hon. Members have breached rules that many of us thought already existed. I think that the Nolan recommendations would help to clean up everyone's act.
Sir Peter Fry: That is interesting. It seems that the hon. Lady thought that the rules already existed, and therefore does not think that any new rules are needed.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that we should give something up, but declared that no one had paid her anything. It is very easy to give up something that one has never enjoyed, so hers is hardly an effective argument. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we should do what the press wants. I have no doubt that the press is very interested in the hon. Gentleman's sex life; would he allow the publication of articles about how he behaves in the privacy of his own home? As the hon. Gentleman knows, his is a stupid argument.
The important point that has emerged from the debate is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is absolutely right: it is very difficult to define what should be declared and what should not.

1713
Let me say to two members of my party—one a former Cabinet Minister—that if they seriously believe that all hon. Members who are company directors are made company directors because people like their faces, they are abusing their own position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are given company directorships basically because they are Members of Parliament. I do not wish to name them, but I know that that is the case.
In those circumstances, it becomes exceedingly difficult for any company director to give even the faintest advice to his fellow directors or his company that could possibly impinge on his position as a Member of Parliament—if we accept the Opposition's definition. He would be put in the ludicrous position of being unable to speak in the House on many issues.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that it is all very well to say that hon. Members should not take part in a debate when they have an interest. What about general issues such as company taxation or pension law? According to my right hon. Friend, it would be wrong for any hon. Member who was a director of a company affected by such issues to make a speech about them. I consider that an unfair and unworkable restriction on comment.
As has emerged in the debate, what is important is whether advocacy—being paid to pursue an interest in the House—should be banned, and whether it should be subject to a declaration of income. We have already heard quite enough arguments to show that that requires much more detailed consideration.
I see no difference between a Member of Parliament who advises a trade association and a Member of Parliament who advises a trade union. I am aware of no reason why a Member of Parliament who assists a trade association is in any way different from a Member of Parliament who is a lawyer, whose law firm advises clients, or an accountant, whose accountancy firm advises clients, or a company director, who advises his fellow directors. That is the type of problem that we must solve in the present discussion, and I hope that the Select Committee will do it.
I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy that comes from Opposition Members. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] One would suppose that Labour Members of Parliament never did anything wrong, and were never influenced. I have sat on a Select Committee and watched Labour Members read the questions prepared by their trade unions, and if that is not trying to influence the course of the Select Committee, I do not know what is. So let us get away from the idea that the only hypocrisy is among Conservative Members. There is just as much among Opposition Members.
I do agree with the Opposition about one thing. It is important that we now get it right. Whether we like Nolan being created or not, we have to live with it, and presumably we must make it work in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Members. There is a great danger in going too far. The further we go, the more likely it is that we shall end up with total declaration of income, which will undoubtedly mean that the quality of people who want to stand in elections for this place will go down.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the motion that he has placed before the House. It is clear, from the composition of the Committee and the contributions that those Members have made, that they
1714
are learning of the difficulties, which I and others have outlined this afternoon, in trying to define the various types of consultancies that should take place. I have faith in the Committee. I certainly have no faith in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
6.30 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) said that, if transparency comes in—if the truth about what is happening to Members' income is known—the reputation of the House will suffer. Many of us would regard that as an admission of guilt.
The problem, as my hon. Friends have said, is a matter of income—not only income from outside sources, but total income—and the sums that Conservative Members are paid from outside the House affect that.
I have before me a list of 156 hon. Members who voted against our increases in wages and allowances, but who declare very substantial interests. I could read that list out, but it would take all the time available to me. Those 156 hon. Members have said that £31,000 is a proper income for Members of Parliament. If they believe that, there is no reason why they should take sums of money from outside.
What sums of money? I declare an interest—in receiving occasional fees from journalism and broadcasting, but never more than £5,000 a year. I am not sponsored, and I never will be. Conservative Members use that argument against us. The usual sums of money that come in from trade union sponsorship are very small and in almost all cases go directly to the constituency.
I believe that the Opposition should break the direct link between Members of Parliament and individual unions, because Members of Parliament should not be for hire. I know of no union that pays more than £1,000, but one Conservative Member has confessed that he receives £200,000 in income, not from what he was doing previously, and not from any job, but because he is a Member of Parliament.
It is crucial that those sums are declared. One Labour Member declares 12 jars of honey per year. It is reasonable to assume that the people who give 12 jars of honey do not get as much work out of their Member of Parliament as do the companies who pay £200,000 a year hiring a Conservative Member.
It was a sad day for the House when it approved a Select Committee recommendation that there should be transparency on Lloyd's, but its decision was not respected by very senior Members, including an ex-Prime Minister, who said that they would ignore it and that they would not give the details about their income. That was a disgraceful act against the reputation of the House of Commons, and it is what we are discussing today.
Our reputation as the mother of Parliaments has been besmirched by Conservative Members who have become used to huge incomes from outside this building. We are elected as Members for our own constituency and to represent our parties. We were not elected as Members for the transport and general workers party or the general, municipal, boilermakers and allied trades party or megagreed plc; we are here to represent our constituents.
I shall give a practical example of a road safety issue that led to hon. Members being assailed on one side by trade unions arguing a particular case. The example

1715
concerns bull bars, with which I have been very much involved. A union in my constituency represents people who manufacture bull bars. Jobs were at stake. If I had been sponsored by that union, it would have put pressure on me to act in a certain way. On the other side, the firms that manufacture the bull bars would, through their trade associations, have brought pressure to bear on a Conservative Member of Parliament.
Who speaks for the victims of the accidents caused by bull bars? They cannot pay to hire any Member of the House. We do not know who they are; there is no interest there. If hon. Members say that I must speak because of my trade union—I criticise my own party in that regard—or that I must speak because of the firm, because otherwise no one will speak for them, I ask, "Who speaks for all those interests such as the charities and the people who cannot afford to hire Members of Parliament?"
The message of today's debate, and the message of Nolan, is that the country is sick of the idea that Members are paid—and paid handsomely—to represent interests. Labour Members must sever the link between unions and individual Members, which is a venal sin. The sins on the other side are mortal because the sums involved are very great.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I want to remind my hon. Friend, who is my colleague in Newport, that, throughout the long time that I have served in the House, I have been sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. I have never personally received a penny from that trade union. Any money that has been received has gone directly to my constituency party. My union card is just about my most treasured possession, and I fully support the principle of sponsorship of Members.
Mr. Flynn: I have for some time been president of the constituency party to which my hon. Friend refers. Of course there was nothing wrong with the tradition because it was established when Members had no pay. I am saying that the Government are now using that arrangement as a stick to beat us with and to undermine the principle. Such a link is not worth retaining, although we must maintain a strong link between the trade union movement and our party.
I am grateful for being called, rather unexpectedly, in the debate. The matter is of enormous importance, and it is a great shame that the Conservative Members who have spoken are obviously speaking for their interests—for their wallets—rather than for the proud principles of the mother of Parliaments.
6.37 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate. my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who chaired the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, on the way in which he handled it. Throughout our proceedings, there was constructive debate by hon. Members from all the political parties represented, which I found interesting and informative.
In some senses, I arrived at the Committee with apprehensions and anxieties, but during the debate I saw us shape and reshape aspects of the Nolan report so that
1716
we delivered to the House today, especially in the first six resolutions, something of which I think we all may feel justifiably proud.
I am especially proud of the report that we have delivered in respect of the Commissioner and the new Committee. As my right hon. Friend knows, I was especially keen on, and pursued, the idea of natural justice throughout that part of our discussions.
The thing that I am most interested in—I am keen that the House should recognise it—is that we shall have replaced what I believe is the flawed system that we have now, which is in some senses a form of kangaroo court for accused Members, with a system whereby the individual concerned, as and when they are brought before either the Commissioner or the Committee, will have the right to have someone with them as an adviser and the opportunity to cross-examine those who make allegations.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the wording in the report.
Mr. Duncan Smith: If he reads the report, the hon. Gentleman will find that it does say that. We must address immediately the key question of the Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner. The matter of the Commissioner may be linked to the code of conduct. Perhaps we should think about it a little more. One or two hon. Members have drawn my attention to the fact that, in paragraph 14, we accept that the principal duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner should include:
"Receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of Members (whether related directly to alleged breaches of the Code or not) and reporting his findings to the Committee through the Sub-Committee appointed for that purpose."
I have talked to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) about that issue and he referred to it earlier. We should not create a charter whereby disgruntled citizens with an axe to grind pursue hon. Members and make obscure and absurd accusations against them simply because they disagree with the way in which hon. Members go about their duties. Constituents have the right to decide at the end of the life of a Parliament whether they like or dislike the way in which their representatives have performed. I hope that we shall clear up that matter during further deliberation.
The critical motion—7—has caused the greatest amount of discussion and argument today. I think that, in many ways, we have managed to miss the point and the real problem. I listened to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said. At the end of a good speech, she suddenly delivered a warning—if not a threat—about tonight's vote. I accept that the hon. Lady is trying to galvanise the attitudes, the instincts and perhaps even the fears of hon. Members in an attempt to get them to think carefully about how they will vote. I have thought about what I intend to do, and I have absolutely no problem with voting down the amendments to motion 7.
One of the amendments asks us to examine the principle. I believe that it is quite impossible for us to implement the Nolan report in principle because it is impossible to ascertain what that principle is. The problem with Nolan—it will require further discussion—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Delay.
Mr. Duncan Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would engage his brain before his mouth, he might learn

1717
something. The problem is that, in its rush to complete the report, the Nolan committee did not address the real problem. Our constituents are most concerned about certain reprehensible activities, which have been reported in the press. The 1947 resolution clearly states that advocacy should not be allowed, but the Register of Members' Interests has confused the issue. The principle must be that paid advocacy should not be allowed, but that principle is not enshrined in the amendments.
During the Committee hearings, I proposed an alternative which appears in paragraph 74 of the report. I have not amended it tonight, although it may have some flaws, because I intend to raise it myself and to force the House to decide whether to accept my proposals at a later stage. We must look at the 1947 resolution, define "advocacy" and then rule it out. It could take the form of being forced by an outside interest to put down written questions, to table or sign early-day motions or to table amendments to legislation. There may be further discussion about the issue; I accept that.
The point is that I will not vote for the amendments tonight because I believe that we need to go further than Nolan has gone. We must consider the problem with regard to hon. Members' outside interests. There has been much talk about the amount of money that hon. Members earn. For most hon. Members, who are remunerated with small amounts of money from a variety of different sources, such as trade unions, consultancies or multiple client agencies, the result is much the same. The fact is that that should not happen.
The best way to tackle the problem is to cut out the cancer at source: we must put a halt to advocacy. We should not try to define what companies are good or bad. Hon. Members will find ways around that. They will write new contracts and they will register their interests in a different manner. It concerns me that the Nolan report provides a means of avoiding the controls that are in place at the moment. The Register of Members' Interests is far more stringent than Nolan would have us accept. There are routes through it—the definitions are ill thought out.
We must have more time to consider the matter. We undertake to give the House the opportunity to reach a decision by the end of the Session. There is no question that that undertaking will be avoided. I shall put forward the argument that we must deal with advocacy and I hope that hon. Members will support me when the time comes. Tonight is not the time to put down a point of principle because that point of principle does not exist.
When we have completed our deliberations, we must ensure that our proposals are workable, that they will stand the test of time and that they will put a stop to the constant backbiting. Hon. Members from all political parties represent their constituents very honourably, even though they may have outside interests. The reality is that, most of the time, this place behaves with great dignity and honour. I think that it is high time that we enshrined that principle. We must offer the House a workable proposal that will stand the test of time.
6.47 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: This has been a much better tempered debate than the previous one on 18 May. I think that I have missed only one speech by Conservative Members, who have certainly been less hostile to the concept of Nolan than they were on that
1718
day. In the main—I accept that there will be some resistance—hon. Members seem to accept the thrust of the Select Committee's report and the majority of the agreed amendments.
I refer in particular to natural justice and representation before the Privileges Committee, to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred. That matter has been raised before. The Committee did appear to be a kangaroo court, but the Select Committee has now made recommendations about how the new investigatory process will work in order to achieve representation and natural justice. Although it does not involve full cross-examination, it is a much fairer and more acceptable system. There will be speedier justice because the new Privileges Committee will be able to meet when the House is not sitting.
That said, it is almost a case of the lull before the storm. Judging from the comments that have been made both inside and outside the Chamber, the end game for most hon. Members is how to kill off the two central issues that divide the House and upon which we shall vote tonight: the banning of multi-client lobbies and financial disclosure. That is the bottom line and that is where the battle lines will be drawn. The problem will not go away after today. Time may be won or it may not, but, at some point, the issue will return to haunt the Government.
I do not have time to refer to all the speeches, but I completely reject the former Prime Minister's allegation that the Opposition are trying to pry into the affairs of others. We want disclosure of activities relating to the public position of Members of Parliament—nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Rooker: I also reject completely the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was threatening Conservative Members. Tomorrow, this debate will be fully reported in the press and hon. Members who seek to frustrate or oppose disclosure, which will only be from November anyway, on the banded basis of the money or multi-client lobby, will be listed and questions are bound to be asked.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Rooker: The Prime Minister set up the Nolan committee to work quickly, and it has. After the Select Committee reported on 11 July, a leader in The Independent stated:
"The fuss that Tory MPs are making is remarkable, considering how mild is the dose of probity that Nolan has prescribed."
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. My understanding is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) does not wish to give way.
Mr. Rooker: I do not wish to give way, Madam Speaker.
It was stated in The Times on 11 July that
"it was clear long before the Nolan report was published in May that its recommendations on MPs' duty to disclose their outside interests was likely to face hostility in the Commons."
The Times commented that lack of leadership by the Prime Minister, in not saying specifically whether he agreed with Nolan, has allowed dissent on the

1719
Conservative Benches. That bodes ill for the future. We want a decision and the public rightly expect the House to make a positive decision.
I say without party rancour that it is true, save for one or two cases, that the Opposition must and have sought to avoid taking a holier than thou approach, because every Member of Parliament is tainted in the eyes of the public as a consequence of the actions of a few hon. Members. It has been made clear by some Members of Parliament in comments made outside the House that accepting Nolan would mean bringing in outsiders, wrecking hundreds of years of parliamentary sovereignty and putting the whole edifice of democracy at stake. I reject that as absolute nonsense.
I was surprised that, last week, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—whom I have given notice of this reference to him—made remarks that created headlines on Saturday such as
"Redwood rallies the Right with attack on Nolan"
and
"Redwood to attack Nolan in bid for right-wing crown".
He said that Nolan breached parliamentary sovereignty and that this
"undermines the very foundations of our settled and unwritten constitution."
I do not share that view, which is based on a bygone age of ignorance, trust and deference on the part of the British people. In those days, we were privileged to enjoy something that we do not have today—a law-abiding society, and a Government and Parliament that were honourable and capable. There was consensus on public service and probity among people who might be termed the elite, which created a legitimacy of popular consent outside the House. Long before I entered the House, custom and tradition were enough to restrain the abuse of office and power.
Those days are gone and Parliament must change. No change means no chance for Parliament in the court of public opinion, which is the court in which we find ourselves. The public want written rules and codes, and want them enforced. The public will not accept Members of Parliament being a law unto themselves because they are the law makers. Members of Parliament for hire give the impression of a Parliament for hire, and we must stamp that out. We are hired by our constituents and that is where it should stop. Why should Members of Parliament who hire themselves out want to prevent disclosure of the contracts and financial amounts involved? Is it because they pretend to have influence with Ministers and officials in exchange for reward? If so, we should be told and the public should know. If a local councillor did the same, he would be committing an offence.
No honourable Member of Parliament can claim in the House tonight that implementing all of Nolan in spirit and in practice would interfere with any of our prime functions, which are to represent our constituents, hold the Government to account and serve as the forum of the nation in which ideas can be debated—whether they be good, bad or tasteless. The conduct of policy and politics must change and be seen to change. The decline in deference is to be welcomed, but the decline in consensus and trust between Government and the governed, between Parliament and the people, is to be deplored.
1720
Members of Parliament are responsible for leadership and for setting a new agenda. We are responsible for leaving the political process in a better, healthier state than the one in which we found it. That can only be done if we vote tonight to start implementing in full all the Nolan recommendations.
6.55 pm
Mr. Newton: I agree with the opening remark of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker), that this debate was of significantly better quality than the one on 18 May, a week after the Nolan report was published. I say with a tinge of regret that the tone just adopted by the hon. Gentleman did not contribute to that better quality. I could have wished that the hon. Gentleman had adopted a calmer and more measured tone, in the way that informed the majority of today's speeches.
Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a high proportion of Labour Members receive benefits under contracts for trade unions not just for asking a couple of questions but questions by the sackload, generated by union research departments? Worse, Labour Members speak on behalf of trade unions, as we saw in last week's debate on the railways. Worst of all, Labour Members vote in the interests of trade unions. Should not that sort of thing be banned?
Mr. Newton: That point is touched on in the Nolan report and it relates to a question that I put to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) during her speech. It is plain from paragraph 14 on page 4 of the report, where its recommendations are summarised, that it is envisaged that the same rules as would apply in respect of consultancies in certain circumstances would apply also to trade union sponsorship—including the value of any support services, which can be significant. I agree with my hon. Friend that that aspect should be taken into account, and it will be taken into account in the continuing work of the Select Committee that I have been chairing, if the House agrees to motion 7.
Mr. David Wilshire: I arrived for this debate minded to vote for the Opposition amendments, but having listened to most of the debate, I am persuaded that there are matters of real detail. I still support the case for transparency, so can my right hon. Friend assure me that if I vote with him tonight, I will not be voting for deliberate delay and for undermining the Nolan report?
Mr. Newton: I hope and believe that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was going to say, emboldened by the remarks of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least members of the Committee, who were good enough to say kind words about my chairmanship of it—that no member of the Committee could credibly claim that I have been leading and chairing the Committee in a way designed to cause delay and to avoid the best possible progress.
I acknowledge, of course, that everything must ultimately rest on my word. I hope, however, that my conduct as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and what has been said about that in the debate lends credibility to the assurance that I give my hon. Friend that deliberate delay is not the purpose. I hope that I read the hon. Member for Dewsbury aright and that I am not putting words into her mouth

1721
when I say that in her opening remarks she came close to saying that when I first sketched the proposal for a Select Committee, first privately to her and then more publicly in the debate on 18 May, she thought that I was trying to push the whole issue into the long grass and have delay, but had changed her mind during the Committee's proceedings.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Leader of the House will recall that at the end of the debate on 18 May I asked him to specify the Committee's remit, and it was that on which we negotiated. The issue was whether we could clarify and implement the recommendations. That was critical. There has not been delay except for the crunch issue.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Our exchanges led to the terms of reference, to the date of 7 July being set, to the intensive programme of activity that the Committee has undertaken and to a substantial number of motions being put to the House in an almost incredibly short period. That lends credibility to the assurance that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I want to assure the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who if I may put it in this way were among the sceptics, that our purpose is not delay.
I shall try to lend credibility to something that by definition is not capable of absolute proof. I do not believe that the terms of motion 7 are consistent with delay, pushing into the long grass, trying to bury or whatever. The fact that the Committee has power to meet during the recess, unlike the Privileges Committee, for example, until last night or the night before, is not consistent with delay. The fact that I have arranged a meeting for tomorrow afternoon, on the first day of the recess, is not consistent with delay. It is not consistent with delay that I have asked members of the Committee to bring their diaries with them tomorrow afternoon with a view to ascertaining whether we can arrange some meetings in September, it being not unreasonable for them to be away a bit during August.
Ms Eagle: The Leader of the House rightly identifies me as something of a sceptic. Will he try to reassure me further by taking the opportunity to say that the Committee will be trying to implement the Nolan recommendations in two crucial areas rather than merely examining them? As a sceptic, I am worried that examination will lead to excuses not to implement the crucial recommendations to declare levels and to ban multi-client consultancies.
Mr. Newton: I shall not reiterate what I have said. I shall seek to ensure that the Committee will proceed, as it has proceeded, faithfully to fulfil its terms of reference, to advise the House on how the Nolan recommendations might be clarified and implemented, and to put forward specific motions on which the House might decide. We have demonstrated that we have been able to do that in areas that appeared to be extremely difficult six to eight weeks ago. I believe that we shall be able to do so in other areas but that remains to be demonstrated.
There is another reason why I believe that approach to be the right one, and it has been demonstrated clearly by the debate. There has been almost no comment or criticism on and of any of the motions that I have proposed with the exception of the one that is undoubtedly contentious. On 18 May, however, there was near
1722
revolution in some quarters over the very idea that we might have a Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. By painstakingly working through the proposals and devising the arrangements that are reflected in motion 3, we have been able to bring proposals before the House that I judge, on the basis of the debate, to be broadly and generally acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Significant reservation has been expressed about only one of our proposals, and that was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I suggested within the Committee that there should be the establishment of a new Committee of standards and privileges. I shall not rehearse all the arguments. In my view, that suggestion, if implemented, would not lower the status of the Privileges Committee but would raise the status of the work that has hitherto been done by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I do not believe that the new Committee wold be any less prestigious than the Privileges Committee has been over the years. I do not intend that it should be.
The proposal, if implemented, would avoid the difficult overlap that has occurred in recent times between investigations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the Privileges Committee. I think that that overlap was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I remind him that it was the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I think, who said that it was specifically envisaged that the new Committee would have the power to create sub-committees partly to deal with or to meet the problem of overlap should it arise.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will quickly answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith): that if an Opposition Member, or even a Conservative Member, is bad at answering his constituency correspondence and is not seen in the constituency enough, that will be a matter for the electorate and not for the commissioner.
Mr. Newton: Yes, of course I can. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) will confirm that we discussed that very issue in the Committee. We recognised that there could be a channel for vexatious complaints of any sort. If my hon. Friend reads the report carefully he will find that a number of the provisions that we have suggested are explicitly designed to avoid such a channel opening, which I think he and every other Member would think unreasonable. That approach is partly responsible for the passage in paragraph 26 of the report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, which reads:
"Where, however, the Commissioner decided that no prima facie case had been established, he would merely report the facts to the Committee. The Committee would inform both the complainant and the Member concerned, but no details of the complaint would be published."
That is an important safeguard that is directed exactly to the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed.
Those who are members of the Select Committee will have had a sense of déjà vu during the course of some of the arguments that have been advanced this evening. Without insulting anyone, I hope, I should say that little has been said during the debate that appeared to me to add significantly to the arguments that were deployed before

1723
the Select Committee and lead me to feel that I should respond in a significantly different way, or additionally, from or to my comments in opening the debate.
I have not heard seriously questioned from the Opposition Front Bench or from the Back Benches on either side of the House the real need to undertake more detailed work before anyone can be sure of what we are talking about when we say implement Nolan. My recommendation remains that the House should pass motion 7 as it stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards be set in hand under arrangements to be made by Madam Speaker on the advice of the House of Commons Commission and in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Standards in Public Life

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
  Resolved,
  That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges should be established to take over the existing functions of the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to consider complaints concerning Members' conduct referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.—[Mr. Newton.]

  CODE OF CONDUCT
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses the principle of a Code of Conduct, and instructs the appropriate Select Committee to prepare such a draft Code for approval as soon as possible, taking into account the suggestions of the Nolan Committee and any relevant overseas analogues; and whilst restating its commitment to the objectives of the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges, accepts the need to review its wording in the context of the work to be undertaken on the draft Code.—[Mr. Newton.]

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)
  Resolved,
  That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, the Resolution of the House of 12th June 1975 relating to Members' Interests (Declaration) (No. 2) be amended by leaving out the words "the giving of any written notice or".—[Mr. Newton.]

  CONSULTANCIES AND DISCLOSURES IN THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee relating to consultancies (including multi-client consultancies) and disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests; and instructs the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct such an examination and to seek to bring forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current Session.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Amendment proposed: (a), line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add
  'from the beginning of the next Session Members should be required to deposit in full with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards any contracts relating to the provision of services in their capacity as Members; that such contracts should be available for public inspection; that from the same time Members should be required to
  1724
  declare in the Register their annual remuneration in respect of such agreements; that the use of bands of up to £1,000 and thereafter every £5,000 be treated as an acceptable way of complying with this requirement; and that an estimate of the monetary value of benefits in kind, including support services, should also be included.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (x), in line 9, at end add
  'subject to the proviso that this Resolution shall only take effect if the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life has not brought forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current session which define precisely the meaning of contracts relating to the provision of services in their capacity as Members.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 515.

  Division No. 211]

  [7.09 pm

  AYES

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Maddock, Diana

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Chidgey, David

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Blunkett, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boateng, Paul

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allen, Graham

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burden, Richard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Butler, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Byers, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Caborn, Richard

  Battle, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Bendall, Vivian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cann, Jamie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Carrington, Matthew

  Benton, Joe

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  1725

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Church, Judith

  Flynn, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Clappison, James

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Forth, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Clelland, David

  Fraser, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Coe, Sebastian

  French, Douglas

  Coffey, Ann

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Corvin, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Congdon, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Connarty, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Conway, Derek

  Gapes, Mike

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Garnier, Edward

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Garrett, John

  Corbett, Robin

  George, Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Corston, Jean

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cousins, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Cox, Tom

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cran, James

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cummings, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Gorst, Sir John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Darling, Alistair

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Davidson, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Gunnell, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hague, William

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hain, Peter

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

  Hall, Mike

  Denham, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Devlin, Tim

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Dewar, Donald

  Hannam, Sir John

  Dicks, Terry

  Hanson, David

  Dixon, Don

  Hardy, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Harris, David

  Dover, Den

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Dowd, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Duncan, Alan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Hawksley, Warren

  Dunn, Bob

  Hayes, Jerry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Dykes, Hugh

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Henderson, Doug

  Eastham, Ken

  Hendry, Charles

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Hicks, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Etherington, Bill

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Evans, David (Wetwyn Hatfield)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Faber, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Fatchett, Derek

  Horam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  1726

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Malone, Gerald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mans, Keith

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Marland, Paul

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Hutton, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Illsley, Eric

  Mates, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Jack, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Meacher, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Janner, Greville

  Merchant, Piers

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Michael, Alun

  Jessel, Toby

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Milburn, Alan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mills, Iain

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jowell, Tessa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Key, Robert

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Khabra, Piara S

  Morley, Elliot

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Knapman, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mudie, George

  Knox, Sir David

  Mullin, Chris

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Murphy, Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Leigh, Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Norris, Steve

  Lewis, Terry

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Lidington, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Lightbown, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Olner, Bill

  Litherland, Robert

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lord, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Paice, James

  McAllion, John

  Parry, Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Macdonald, Calum

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  MacKay, Andrew

  Pearson, Ian

  McKelvey, William

  Pendry, Tom

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Pickthall, Colin

  McLeish, Henry

  Pike, Peter L

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Pope, Greg

  McMaster, Gordon

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Powell, William (Corby)

  MacShane, Denis

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McWilliam, John

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Madden, Max

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Madel, Sir David

  Purchase, Ken

  1727

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Sweeney, Walter

  Randall, Stuart

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rogers, Allan

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tracey, Richard

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rows, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Vaz, Keith

  Sackville, Tom

  Viggers, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Salmond, Alex

  Walden, George

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Clare

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Sims, Roger

  Watts, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Welsh, Andrew

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

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whittingdale, John

  Snape, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Spellar, John

  Willetts, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Winnick, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wise, Audrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stern, Michael

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Yeo, Tim

  Stott, Roger

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Straw, Jack

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Sumberg, David

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That amendment (a) be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 282.

  Division No. 212]

  [7.25 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainger, Nick

  Etherington, Bill

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fraser, John

  Barren, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Berry, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hain, Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Church, Judith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowell, Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

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

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Denham, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  1729

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooker, Jeff

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooney, Terry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWiliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Salmond, Alex

  Mahon, Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, DrJohn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martlew.Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Miburn, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Paul

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Mike(N W'kshire)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Trimble, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis

  Olner, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike

  Pickthall, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pike, Peter L

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wray, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. Joseph Ashton and

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. John Evans.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Boyson, Rt. Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Budgen, Nicholas

  1730

  Burt, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Butler, Peter

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Horam, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, Wiliam

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  1731

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stephen, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Stern, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Streeter, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sumberg, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walden, George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (BeaconsSeld)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Steen, Anthony

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: (b), in line 1, leave out from `endorses' to end and add,
  'the principle that contracts relating to the provision of services by Members acting in that capacity should be deposited in full in the Register of Members' Interests and be available for public inspection, and that the annual remuneration from such contracts, including estimates of the monetary value of benefits in kind, should be declared in the Register; and instructs the appropriate Select Committee to prepare detailed rules to give effect to this Resolution taking account of the need for clear and workable definitions of the term "contracts" and of the case for requiring all such agreements to be put in writing.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 283.

  Division No. 213]

  [7.38 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  1732

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Godsiff, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Berry, Roger

  Graham, Thomas

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hat, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hanson, David

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Henderson, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

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

  Church, Judith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clapham, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Jarmer, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Darling, Alistair

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

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Denham, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Faulds, Andrew

  McLeish, Henry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fraser, John

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mahon, Alice

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  1733

  Maxton, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michael, Alun

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Parry, Robert

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trimble, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. John Evans and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Booth, Hartley

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  1734

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Horam, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  1735

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pattie.Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard.Rt Hon Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stariey, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stem, Michael

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Streeter, Gary

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: (c), in line 3, leave out from second 'and' to end and add
  'with effect from the beginning of the next Session, no Member shall enter into any agreement in connection with his role as a Parliamentarian to undertake services for or on behalf of organisations which provide paid parliamentary services to multiple clients, or maintain any direct or active connection with firms, or parts of larger firms, which provide such parliamentary services; and that any Member who has such an existing agreement shall divest himself of it by no later than the end of this Parliament.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 280.

  Division No. 214]

  [7.50 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  1736

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hodge, Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Hoey.Kate

  Byers, Stephen

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Church, Judith

  Hutton, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbett Robin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Jean

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

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

  Cox, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cummings, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dafis, Cynog

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davidson, Ian

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Denham, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Dewar, Donald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  MacShane, Denis

  Dowd, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Milburn, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Garrett, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  George, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Gunnel, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, Bill

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Parry, Robert

  1737

  Pearson, Ian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Stott, Roger

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Radice, Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Randall, Stuart

  Trimble, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Vaz, Keith

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Watson, Mike

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Audrey

  Simpson, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Dr Tony

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. John Evans and

  Spellar, John

  Ms Angela Eagle.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Conway, Derek

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boswell, Tim

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Elletson, Harold

  1738

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn HatField)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, LadyOlga

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heald, Oliver

  Norris, Steve

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  1739

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Watts, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stephen, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stem, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee relating to consultancies (including multi-client consultancies) and disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests; and instructs the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct such an examination and to seek to bring forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current Session.

  STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE (GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS)
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 637) relating to—

  (1) the principal duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (paragraph 14);

  (2) the method of removal from office of the Commissioner (paragraph 23);

  (3) the preparation of amendments to Standing Orders relating to a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges (paragraph 40);

  (4) the preparation of a draft Code of Conduct (paragraph 47);

  (5) the preparation of guidance on registration and declaration of interests (paragraph 50);

  (6) a review of the law relating to bribery of Members (paragraph 52); and

  (7) updating, and improving the availability of, the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 66).—[Mr. Newton.]

Orders of the Day

  Children (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 336 agreed [some with Special Entry].

  Bosnia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Foreign Secretary, I must remind the House that Back-Bench speeches are restricted to 10 minutes.
  8.3 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The House will be familiar with the many tragic events that have led to the present crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Thousands of lives have been lost and countless families have been displaced. Night after night, we have witnessed harrowing scenes on our television sets. We are witnessing a bloody war, in part a civil war and in part a war of aggression. It is a characteristic of civil wars that civilised behaviour rapidly gives way to the basest of acts.
  Like all civil wars, this one is extremely complex. It is not, simply, three distinct groups fighting it out. In some areas, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims are together opposed to Bosnian Serbs. In other areas, Bosnian Muslims have been fighting Bosnian Croats. In yet others, Bosnian Serbs have assisted Bosnian Muslims. In one way or another, all the parties have degraded themselves, and they have degraded humanity with the ferocity of their actions. No faction is blameless, but in the enclaves, the Serbs have behaved with a savagery that has appalled the world.
  In the former Yugoslavia, we have seen European man at his absolute worst. All sides have been guilty of slaughter, rape and other atrocities. I said "European man", because this civil war is happening in Europe, and that is a fact that we cannot ignore. I wish to make it clear to the House that the Government believe that what happens in Europe touches on this country's vital national interests.
  Ms Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is partly a war of aggression and partly a civil war. He then went on to talk as though all the parties are equally guilty. Surely that is profoundly wrong. The Serbs are the aggressors, and they have been responsible for ethnic cleansing, the mass use of rape and torture and so on. To talk as though there were two equal sides is to distort the analysis from the very beginning of the debate.
  Mr. Portillo: I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to what I said. I said that there have been atrocities on every side, and also drew attention to the particular savagery of the Serbs which we have witnessed in the enclaves. The record will bear out that that is the way I expressed myself.
  Into all this chaos, the United Nations is trying to bring succour, relief and sanity. What the United Nations cannot do is end this war by military means. In practice, it can be ended only by a political solution.
  The United Nations and the European Union have toiled to achieve peace through diplomacy. A history of broken promises and broken ceasefires now lies behind us, but those efforts must continue. We firmly support the efforts of Carl Bildt, the European Union's negotiator, to negotiate a recognition of Bosnia by Serbia and

  1741
  Montenegro, and to reopen a dialogue on the contact group plan, which we urge all parties to accept as the starting point for negotiations.
  The international community deployed forces to the former Yugoslavia for the best of all possible reasons. The world could not stand aside from the slaughter. Countries from around the globe have sent troops. Britain felt the call of duty particularly strongly. We are Europeans. We are members of the Security Council of the United Nations. We understand our obligation to defend our humanitarian values, and we are privileged to have superb armed forces.
  There has been from the start a serious risk that this conflict could degenerate into a regional war, setting light to the Balkans and bringing into play highly dangerous international forces. The west has a vital interest in containing the conflict.
  Mr. John Townend: When I was studying history, it was always a maxim of British foreign policy that one did not get involved on the ground in a Balkan war. May I remind my right hon. Friend that Germany is not involved with troops on the ground? It is surely not in our interests to have our troops there. Many people in this country feel that we should bring them back forthwith.
  Mr. Portillo: Germany is not a member of the Security Council of the United Nations; Britain is, and Britain feels her responsibilities acutely. As I shall point out to my hon. Friend, we are not in Bosnia to fight a war; we are there to save lives. That is the essential difference that my hon. Friend will, I hope, recognise. We have always seen that the United Nations is there to be the peacekeeper. Our forces are equipped not to make war but to move among the local population bringing food and medicine and confidence and security wherever we are able to do so.
  UN forces in Bosnia are not a combatant force. We obviously cannot stop all the horrors, but that does not mean that we can do nothing. Indeed, we have achieved a great deal.
  Mr. Max Madden: Since the United Nations, NATO and the international community have vividly demonstrated their unwillingness and inability to intervene militarily in a way which would bring this war to an end, and as the Bosnian Government naturally resist a political settlement resting on genocide and territorial gains made by external military aggression, will the Secretary of State, who does not come to this issue with any political baggage, make it clear that it is now time for the arms embargo to be lifted and the Bosnian Government to be given the means to defend their people and their territory against external Serbian aggression?
  Mr. Portillo: I shall come later to the question of the arms embargo, but I must say that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman speaks realistically. To bring this war to an end militarily would require the commitment of hundreds of thousands of men, equipment and armaments, at enormous risk to those forces. I do not believe that it is possible to commit those forces to this theatre.
  Even if we did, our chances of success would be remote. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the only way that this war can end is by political settlement. But
  1742
  there is a two-pronged approach: a political approach to try to achieve a settlement, and military forces doing what they can to bring security as and when they can.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one thing that he cannot possibly do in this situation is respond to Bosnian Serb aggression against UN-designated safe areas with an ignominious retreat of our own forces? Does he agree that it is vital that we do nothing to undermine the credibility of NATO, the Western European Union, or, indeed, international law?
  Mr. Portillo: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I shall of course come to those important matters, but I must do so as I make progress through my speech, and I must do so in a considered way, for reasons that will become clear.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I want to make progress, but I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  Mr. Livingstone: How will the Secretary of State explain to those outside this building, who see that the west mobilised hundreds of thousands of troops when its oil interests were threatened, that the Government are not prepared to take the same stand to stop the slaughter and mass rape of tens of thousands of ordinary people?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison which has often been made before, but which none the less I regard as fatuous. In the case of the Gulf, we intervened because there was an aggressive nation on the loose that had attacked Kuwait and threatened the entire region. In Yugoslavia, we have positioned our troops to do what we can to bring peace and save lives, and that is a noble ambition.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I am going to make some progress. I shall possibly give way later.
  We have achieved a great deal, and the House should remember that.
  Croatia and Serbia have not been at war since 1991. The Bosnian Federation of Croats and Muslims has brought peace to central Bosnia, which has witnessed the rebuilding of civil government and the return to normal life, where before there were scenes of slaughter. Tens of thousands of lives have been saved. In 1992, the Bosnian war claimed 130,000 lives. In 1994, that was reduced to 2,500.
  Today, the UN provides support for 2.7 million people; 153,000 tonnes of aid were airlifted into Sarajevo between July 1992 and April 1995. British Royal Engineers have built 42 km of road, and they keep open nearly 1,000 km of supply routes. British troops have rebuilt kindergartens, restored essential services, and taught children how to look out for mines that, for years to come, may threaten to blow them to pieces. Fourteen British soldiers have died playing their part in this operation to save others' lives.

  1743
  For all our soldiers, peacekeeping brings not only danger but frustrations. We must operate with consent in a land of village apparatchiks, empire builders and local warlords. The peacekeeper must learn to negotiate without showing that frustration. But I flatly contradict those who claim that there is humiliation in what the British forces are doing. The saving of human life is noble and dignified, and I feel extraordinarily proud of the British men and women who have achieved so much.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: I am sure that the whole House shares the pride expressed by my right hon. Friend in the wonderful work done by British forces in Bosnia. However, given the peculiar responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, who sponsored UN resolution 836 to establish Gorazde as a safe haven, could he say whether, when that was done in the spring of 1993, it was our intention to take steps to make those safe areas safe, or was it just intended as a form of words?
  Mr. Portillo: I will come to that later, but I will say to my hon. Friend—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That is the third time he has said that.
  Mr. Portillo: I am making a speech, and I have ordered my thoughts, as the hon. Gentleman should consider.
  I shall come to the point that my hon. Friend raised, but I say to him now that the UN foresaw a need for 36,000 troops, and put out the request to the international community for them. In the event, 7,500 were forthcoming.
  The deteriorating situation in Bosnia, especially after the taking of the hostages, showed that UN forces needed more protection. We sent artillery and armoured engineers immediately, and French forces and 24 Airmobile Brigade have followed.
  I must make two points. First, there has been no change in the UN's mandate. The extra forces are not there to make war, any more than those who were there before them. Secondly, we remain bound by the need for consent for their arrival and deployments through Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They are sovereign nations, and we are peacekeepers, not invaders.
  At no time has the UN authorised its troops to fight a war; nor are they equipped to do so. Indeed, the UN has been under-resourced to achieve even those objectives authorised by the Security Council in its resolutions. As I have just told my hon. Friend, 36,000 troops were envisaged for the enclaves. The Dutch, the Ukrainians and the British responded, but the UN's request resulted in just those 7,500 troops being committed. The safe areas, like so much else, have depended on consent.
  Srebrenica has now fallen. Zepa is under attack. Once more, the civilised world has been appalled by the barbarism in the Balkans. Once again, the UN has responded. They have built tented accommodation and provided basic services for 6,300 people at Tuzla air base. They have also organised logistic support for supplies to arrive from Split.
  Our own special interest lies with Gorazde. We have there nearly 200 men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. An UNPROFOR convoy with supplies for our troops got into Gorazde this afternoon. Like others in these operations,
  1744
  our soldiers are equipped with neither tanks nor artillery nor heavy arms. They are in Gorazde to play a humanitarian role.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a former member of a national service tank crew, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it would be wise in the new circumstances to provide the Welch Fusiliers with some armoured cover, because in all that we were taught, armoured cover is essential in any dangerous situation?
  Mr. Portillo: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates me; I am coming to that point in the immediate paragraphs that follow. [Interruption.] I repeat, I am coming to that point in the immediate paragraphs that follow.
  Each of the options on Gorazde before the international community carries its own risks. To withdraw the troops would leave the Muslims in the enclaves at the mercy of the Bosnian Serbs, and would provoke resistance from the Muslims, who would claim a gross dereliction of duty. Reinforcing the troops poses significant practical problems. We do not have the men or the guns anywhere in former Yugoslavia to stave off a determined onslaught by many thousands of Bosnian Serbs.
  The road from Sarajevo to Gorazde passes through hostile territory, and has 26 bridges and eight tunnels. It poses a hazardous route for reinforcement. To reinforce by helicopter carries possibly greater risks. The aircraft are vulnerable to attack unless air defences are destroyed by a massive pre-emptive attack, with all the risks of military escalation.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Not at the moment.
  The United Nations could use NATO to deploy its air power to deter or repel an attack, again with the risk of escalation. The Royal Welch Fusiliers have adequate supplies of fuel, food and water, and they are in good order. In its history, the regiment has proudly stood in many a perilous situation, and has emerged with honour. The safety and dignity of those men is of paramount importance to this country. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that anyone who harms them will be held personally responsible by the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I will not give way.
  None of the options on Gorazde that I have set out is appealing, but we must choose among them. The decision must be a joint one, involving the UN troop-contributing nations, NATO and the United States.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that the United Nations and NATO have at their command a decisive instrument, which is available and is within the theatre, yet not within the land mass of former Yugoslavia? I refer to their air power, which is off the coast and on Italian air bases. Cannot this be used if appropriate precautions are taken by the troops on the ground, both to deter future attacks on the safe havens and as a punitive reprisal to any barbaric acts of aggression by the Serbs? A civilised

  1745
  community has a duty to influence events within the theatre, and not just to let things slide down a slippery slope towards humiliation and withdrawal.
  Mr. Portillo: I listed the options to the House, and I included in those options the use of air power. Now I shall explain why I did not want to be drawn on these matters earlier.
  I have to be responsible about what I say about these matters. There are those who would like to know which way our minds are turning and we have to be very careful about what we say about these matters. Therefore, I have set out in my speech precisely what I want to say on these options, and I am not prepared, even in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), to be drawn any further on those options for our defence.
  This Friday's conference in London has been convened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to settle our common positions.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I will not give way at the moment.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the Secretary of State give way on Gorazde?
  Mr. Portillo: I will not give way.
  Mr. Faulds: This is very important.
  Mr. Portillo: All right.
  Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful for that reconsideration. Very courteous. The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If you will be quiet, you will hear what I have got to say. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the others. The right hon. Gentleman made the assertion a little earlier that the British troops in Yugoslavia had done a magnificent job. None of us disputes that. He said that there had been no humiliation of British troops. Will he maintain that, if British troops are driven out of Gorazde, the word "humiliation" will not apply to that operation?
  Mr. Portillo: I have said what I am prepared to say about the military options. I have made it perfectly clear that the British Government will hold responsible any who harm our soldiers in Yugoslavia.
  This Friday's conference in London has been convened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so that we may settle among the nations concerned our common positions. Since last Sunday, intensive discussions have been under way to establish the military options and more broadly to concert our policy on former Yugoslavia. I must attend a further meeting this evening in connection with those options, and I very much hope that the House will forgive me if I am not here throughout the debate.
  In the run-up to Friday's meetings, I can think of nothing more unhelpful than to indulge in megaphone diplomacy. I will not do so. Nothing could be more dangerous for our men in Gorazde than to rehearse the detailed merits of the military options, or to strike public postures.
  Friday's meeting must chart the way ahead, but I offer these thoughts. First, the United Nations went to Bosnia and Croatia to save lives. It has done so; it is doing it still. It is becoming more difficult now, but the United Nations
  1746
  should stay for as long as it can do good. This operation has to be conducted with some humility. Our first concern should be with saving lives. Secondly, the real focus is on the political process. The military operation can help the political process by offering security where a ceasefire is agreed, and it can buy time for the political process. To abandon the chance to buy time is a big step.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Thirdly, withdrawal will have its consequences. It may be militarily hazardous, and it is likely to lead to a more intensive and possibly wider conflagration. The humanitarian disasters that lie ahead could dwarf the horrors that we have seen to date. The war could spread wide, posing unforeseeable threats to the near east and Europe, and so to British interests.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Fourthly, we have often said that, if the arms embargo on Bosnia is lifted, the United Nations must withdraw. I reiterate that today. Equally, if the United Nations is obliged for any reason to withdraw, the United Kingdom will not oppose the lifting of the embargo.
  The time is now ripe for decisions, for the warring factions to contemplate the stark reality of the withdrawal of the United Nations and for the nations involved in the peacekeeping operations in former Yugoslavia to decide on what terms they are willing to stay.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: This is the third occasion in three months when the House has debated Bosnia. Each time we debate Bosnia, the situation on the ground appears more grave. At the outset, I pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the British troops who face the gravity of that crisis on the ground. Like the Defence Secretary, I have visited our forces in Bosnia and I was impressed by how, in a difficult situation, they maintained high standards of morale and of commitment to their job. If there have been failures in Bosnia, they are not failures that we can lay at the door of our troops. They are failures for which we and the other members of the international community must accept responsibility.
  There have been failures. We do not do justice to the gravity of the crisis if we deny that there have been failures. The international community has failed the refugees of Srebenica to whom we gave a commitment that there would be a safe area. That was the first commitment to a safe area made in Bosnia and it was at Srebenica that that commitment was broken. If the reports on tonight's broadcasting media are correct, it looks as if we are about, in the same way, to fail the refugees of Zepa.
  What has shocked many of our constituents is to see the photographs of the flood of survivors from Srebenica and to discover, two years after we had condemned the barbarity of ethnic cleansing, that it was being practised as brutally and callously as before, only this time, in areas that the United Nations had declared to be under its protection. This is not a failure for which we can pass the parcel of blame between the political parties. We all have a share in the responsibility for the failure of the international community.

  1747
  There was much in the Defence Secretary's speech with which I would agree. I particularly agree that it would be entirely wrong if we were now to turn the failure in Bosnia into a defeat by withdrawing in the face of that failure. There are more than 2 million civilians throughout Bosnia who depend on the UN presence for food and fuel in winter. The UN troops do more than simply provide escorts to allow that humanitarian relief to get through. The military has turned on the gas, electricity and water throughout central Bosnia. The military often even collects the rubbish in the towns. Civil society in much of present Bosnia under the present circumstances would collapse if the UN were to walk away.
  There would be military consequences for the area if the UN were to withdraw. One of the major achievements of the UN presence in Bosnia was the negotiation of a ceasefire between Croat and Muslim forces in a conflict which—at the time—was providing more casualties than the war with the Serbs. That ceasefire is still policed by UN forces—particularly British forces—who daily still inspect the ceasefire line between the two forces. If the UN forces withdrew, there is a real danger that that ceasefire would rapidly unravel.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever else may divide the House on party-political grounds, one thing that does unite us is the belief that British public opinion would not tolerate our troops in Gorazde being treated with contempt, brushed aside and disarmed so that humanitarian excesses may take place?
  Mr. Cook: I wholly concur with the hon. Gentleman. British public opinion has been much more robust than some Members give credit for, and there is a willingness to see through the mandate. I also entirely agree that it does not serve the interests of our troops, this House, or the people of Bosnia, if we turn the issue into the kind of party-political dispute which it unfortunately appears to have become in Washington.
  Withdrawal would have consequences of a profound character well beyond Bosnia. I find it difficult to see how we could contemplate withdrawing the UN presence from Bosnia without there being immediate demands for a withdrawal from Croatia. Such a withdrawal would leave the UN protected areas in Croatia unprotected and would reopen the prospect of President Tudjman renewing the military campaign against the Krajina Serbs. That would raise the danger of the restoration of a full-scale war between Serbia and Croatia, both of whom are—if anything—better armed than they were last time.
  Nor would the consequences of withdrawal be confined to the Balkans. Throughout central and eastern Europe, there are many borders—mostly drawn on the map at Versailles in 1918—which divide ethnic communities from each other and throw together other ethnic communities. If Europe permits the borders of Bosnia to be redrawn by military force, we will send a profoundly destabilising message across central and eastern Europe. Moreover, if the consequences of abandoning Bosnia encourage conflict in any of those countries, there would be no UN expedition to contain such a conflict because, in the wake of a retreat from Bosnia, the UN may not have the authority to mount a similar peacekeeping exercise for a generation. That is what is at stake.
  1748
  Yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) addressed the House at Prime Minister's Question Time, he said that we have a duty to uphold the UN mandate. A number of Conservative Members interrupted at that point to say that we did not have that duty. Away from the more charged and partisan atmosphere of Prime Minister's questions, I hope those Members will reconsider their response. I must say that I agree with the Defence Secretary—we do have a national interest at stake in the Balkans. That national interest is in upholding the principle that borders must not be changed by force.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not the point that Bosnia was a part of an internationally recognised country called Yugoslavia until just four years ago, when the international community chose arbitrarily to recognise it as an independent country against the wishes of a large number of its citizens?
  Mr. Cook: One of the things that I have learnt in the past nine months is that if only one could go back to the appropriate point in history, it would be entirely possible to resolve the problems we face today. I would counsel the hon. Gentleman against saying that because the borders have existed for only four years, and are therefore not inviable. There are many borders across Europe which have been created in the past four to six years following the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. Whatever doubts there may be about the wisdom of the original recognition of Bosnia, the fact is that it was recognised, and we cannot withhold from that recognised Government the right to inviable borders that we insist for ourselves and for any other independent country.
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has intervened already, but I shall give way on this occasion. I am anxious not to take as long as might be normal. I appreciate that it is a three-hour debate and that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the borders of Croatia and Bosnia have been redrawn despite the presence of the United Nations? The UN has not prevented that from happening.
  Mr. Cook: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should now acquiesce to what military action has delivered to the Karadzic Serbs. My argument is that if we appease on this occasion, we will face similar problems across many parts of eastern Europe, and Members must not imagine that we can then stand back in isolation from those problems.
  I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party has a proud record of upholding that principle during the past 16 years it has held office, both in the south Atlantic and the Gulf. It would be perverse if this country were now not to uphold that same principle when it is challenged within Europe.
  A commitment has been made by British forces in the fulfilment of the UN mandate in Bosnia. I find it a rather curious feature of some of the discussions about the crisis in Bosnia in the past few weeks that some people refer to the UN as if the UN were somebody else. They talk about the UN as if it were some other country, whose

  1749
  Government are to blame for the problem. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) did that himself, in a way, when he intervened a moment ago.
  The UN is ourselves. It is made up of countries such as us. Indeed, Britain has a leading responsibility in the UN as a member of the Security Council. We ourselves supported in the Security Council the very mandates that we are now fulfilling within Bosnia. We cannot put ourselves forward as that leading member of the UN if we do not also accept the duty to fulfil the mandates.
  If our commanders on the ground, of their own volition, were at any time to say that it was simply too dangerous for our troops to stay, there must be no alternative in the circumstances but for us to withdraw the troops. But those are the only circumstances in which we should abandon our mission in Bosnia. Those who demand withdrawal in any other circumstances must ask what message that would convey to the Karadzic Serbs. I may say here that I hope throughout to refer to what are commonly called the Bosnian Serbs as the Karadzic Serbs. There are many Serbs who support the Government of Bosnia, and there are some Serbs in Pale who do not support Karadzic.
  I submit that the message we are in danger of sending to the Karadzic Serbs by talking of withdrawal is that if they apply a little more pressure, we will pack up and get out of the way. If I am right, the demands for withdrawal do not serve the interests of our troops there, but make it all the more likely that they will come under that extra pressure.
  Our response to the setbacks in Bosnia should not be to accept defeat and pull out, but to show a new determination to carry out the UN mandate. Two months ago, the international community demonstrated unity and resolve in demanding freedom for the UN troops taken hostage. We must now show the same unity and resolve in delivering freedom from fear and oppression to Bosnia's civilians. The fate of the eastern enclaves raises doubts about the resolve of the international community, and doubts will have been raised in the minds of the Bosnian Government and the Karadzic Serbs.
  Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I have some hard questions to ask, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman first.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know that he wants to make progress. He advanced a powerful argument for delivering an ultimatum to the aggressors—in this instance, those whom he has described as the Karadzic Serbs. What if that ultimatum is not accepted? Does it follow that one of two things must then happen? Must we be prepared to support such an ultimatum militarily? Failing that, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the alternative is to give the numerous troops on the ground—the Bosnian Government troops, that is—an opportunity to support the ultimatum by allowing them to arm themselves with heavy weapons?
  Mr. Cook: I am at one with the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of lifting the arms embargo. I see no way of lifting the embargo without immediately pulling out the United Nations presence, with all the consequences that I have just paraded before the House. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, let me take
  1750
  this opportunity to issue a plea to the United States Congress not to make such a decision, and in particular not to make it unilaterally. Unilateral action by the United States to lift the arms embargo would have profound consequences not only for Bosnia and the United Nations presence there, but for the legitimacy of United Nations resolutions on any conflict around the world that the United States had chosen to set aside.
  I said earlier that some hard questions must be answered. The first is this: was there no intelligence warning of the attack on Srebrenica? Those of us who saw the photographs of the attack noted that it involved heavy artillery attacks. Did no one observe the build-up? If we knew that an attack was coming, why was the Dutch garrison at Srebrenica left at half strength? Why was there no formal protest of the kind that the Secretary of State has just made, with a warning to Mr. Karadzic? Why was there no attempt to involve President Milosevic in pressure to make the attackers back off?
  It is reported that the Dutch troops requested close air support, and that their request took four days to process in Zagreb. That suggests that the pace of bureaucratic decision-making in Zagreb is wholly out of step with the urgency of the military conflict on the ground. If our response is to be more robust, and if the dual-key mechanism is to continue in its present form, we must ask whether the current UN civilian leadership is capable of the response—and the speed of response—that the military requires.
  Of immediate concern to the House and the British people are the hard questions that now arise over Gorazde and the safety of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and other units of the British forces in that town—and also the safety of the tens of thousands of civilian refugees whom it is their mission to protect. The gravity and isolation of their position is underlined by the fact that in the past 24 hours they have found themselves protecting Ukrainian troops who were themselves there as part of the UN protection force.
  I understand that the situation in Gorazde is now serious. Only one food convoy has gone through in the past seven weeks. The function of our troops was to observe whether the two sides were adhering to the observance of the safe area; for the past two months they have been unable to man the observation posts lest they themselves be seized as hostages. The danger is that the entire contingent will, in effect, become hostages as a result of being based in a camp at the bottom of a valley ringed by Serb artillery.
  In those circumstances, I find it puzzling that over the past week it has been the French Government who have demanded the strengthening of the British garrison, while British Ministers have explained the difficulties in the way. Having heard the Defence Secretary rehearse those difficulties, I must ask why we have had British troops in such an isolated and exposed position for a year with, apparently, no prior contingency planning of what practical means could be used to strengthen their position if they came under threat—particularly in a conflict such as this. There is ample historical reason for suspecting that- the Karadzic Serbs would not remain committed to the paper undertaking that they gave not to attack.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will, but this must be the last time if I am to make progress.
  Mr. Redwood: What is the hon. Gentleman's message to the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, and what action does he recommend to strengthen their position or provide them with additional cover?
  Mr. Cook: The message from the House to the Royal Welch Fusiliers is that they have our full support for their mandate and their mission. Our second message must be to the Government—that every possible practical means must be found to strengthen the position of the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
  The right hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me conveniently to my next point. If the Government have no practical means of reinforcing the garrison, I hope that there are contingency plans to remove the soldiers from Gorazde if they cannot sustain their position. If reports that that is being examined are correct, I hope that withdrawal will be accompanied by an agreement allowing the orderly evacuation of refugees, so that the refugees in Gorazde are not abandoned—like those in Srebrenica—to the mercy and charity of the Karadzic Serbs.
  I want to raise a final issue about the military position. It arises from our last debate, when the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the rapid reaction force and presented it as a new capacity for the United Nations protection force.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. I said that I had given way for the last time; many hon. Members wish to speak, and I am anxious to make progress.
  As I was saying, the Prime Minister presented the rapid reaction force as a means for the United Nations protection force to protect itself. It may well be that the relief of Gorazde is not an appropriate or realistic mission for the rapid reaction force, but it must be able to make some useful contribution to the deteriorating military situation in Bosnia. After all, we have an obligation to Sarajevo, which is now receiving one sixth of the amount of food that it requires.
  I noticed yesterday that the Prime Minister did not rule out the use of that force to secure a land route into Sarajevo. If that is militarily feasible, I urge the Government to issue a valuable signal to residents of Sarajevo who are under siege that there is material assistance for them, and a clear signal to the Karadzic Serbs that the international community has the will to enforce the UN mandate where it has the capacity. That would also help to dispel some of the accusations that the rapid reaction force is little in evidence in Bosnia, because its real purpose is not to strengthen the UN presence but to assist in the removal of that presence.
  The really worrying issue is that we have already committed a large quantity of our troops to the Bosnian theatre with no clear idea of what they are meant to do, and without the capacity to carry out much of what we ask of them. That is unfair to our troops and damaging to the UN, whose authority is diminished as a result. It also encourages the Serbs every time they discover that we have not the capacity to deliver on our threats or fulfil our promises.
  1752
  Our future strategy in Bosnia—for I believe that we must remain in Bosnia—should include four guidelines. First, we should clarify what are the feasible military objectives, and ensure that we provide the military assets to achieve those objectives. Equally, we must ensure that we do not make commitments to objectives that we do not regard as militarily feasible. Secondly, we must show resolve in securing the objectives that we define as achievable. It would therefore be helpful if those who speculate about what those objectives might be did not in the same breath speculate about the possibility of withdrawal.
  Thirdly, we must back every possible diplomatic and economic sanction to oblige the parties to the dispute to reach a political settlement. In view of clear evidence over the past two months of the support that President Milosevic has given the Karadzic Serbs, there must be no more talk in the immediate future of relaxing sanctions on Serbia. That does not mean that we should not be prepared to lay on the table now a programme of economic reconstruction for the post-war period, which might help to concentrate the minds of those in the Balkans on the enormous destruction and lost opportunities that the conflict has cost the economy.
  That brings me to my final guideline. As well as containing the military expression of ethnic hostility, the international community should engage more actively in the propaganda war that manipulates that hostility.
  The control of national television and press gives Presidents Milosevic and Tudjman weapons more powerful than their tanks or aircraft. The people of Serbia have never seen the candid pictures that we have of the horrors done in the name of greater Serbia in Srebrenica because, the night after that event, the news was filled with a half-hour bulletin about the record harvest in Serbia, with President Milosevic gathering it at the wheel of a combine harvester. That totalitarian control of the media is part of the reason why nationalist politicians can prolong the war, regardless of the cost to their people.
  Some progress towards increasing the pressures for peace might come if a modest fraction of our effort in former Yugoslavia went into providing and supporting access to alternative pluralist news media.
  There is one central message which it could offer to the peoples and the politicians of former Yugoslavia. That is that, in disappearing into their own history in search of justification for present hatreds, they are turning their back on the Europe of the future. The modern Europe is about bringing down barriers, building bridges on the economic ties that cross ethnic and cultural divisions. What is happening in the former Yugoslavia is a challenge to the values of that new Europe, to equal democratic rights, to religious tolerance, to ethnic pluralism—values which are not the monopoly of any party in the House, but are common to both sides of the House.
  That is why we cannot walk away from Bosnia; not only because to do so would be to abandon civilians there to humanitarian catastrophe, but because to do so would be to walk away from our own values. There must be no doubt about our commitment to those values and that is why, in Bosnia, we should take every practical step to support and defend those values.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that all speeches are now restricted to 10 minutes, with the exception of that of the official spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hurd: The last occasion on which the House discussed Bosnia was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement a week ago. Some of the press reported critically on the exchanges across the Floor of the House that followed. I thought that those exchanges reflected reality, as have both the speeches to which the House has just listened.
  The House feels very strongly about Bosnia but, with relatively few exceptions, it discusses Bosnia now with a very bitter sense of realism. In that, I believe that it is in tune with the view of the public in the country, perhaps more than some of the comments in the media.
  Everyone who has followed this tragedy from the beginning, or has come to it lately, feels distressed, angered and frustrated by the suffering that we are now witnessing again. Everyone can now see that that is largely the responsibility of the Bosnian Serbs. I think that, overwhelmingly, people believe that Britain should, with others, do what we realistically can to soften that suffering and bring about a settlement.
  We know that all, or almost all, those who are fighting in Bosnia have homes in Bosnia because they are Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats or Bosnian Muslims. That is to say, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, we are dealing with, essentially, a harsh civil war, originally supported from outside, with confused fighting lines, in which cruelties and lies abound.
  No solution can be imposed from outside except in one circumstance—except if we had sent a large international army on what would have been, essentially, an imperial mission, to fight, to take casualties week by week in those mountains and valleys and to stay indefinitely while the solution that we had imposed took hold.
  Many commentators in many countries have overflowed with rhetoric, as though it were because of a failure of the international community that that has not happened. But the House knows that no single country has at any time suggested that that could, or should, be done. What has been much more commonly expressed is the idea that a total answer could have been achieved by lesser military means. I believe that that is, frankly, flannel.
  Ms Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way once, to the hon. Lady, and then I should like to make progress.
  Ms Short: Is not the problem the pretence that we must choose between an all-out ground war and no use of force at all? Could not the UN have used force defensively, to protect the safe areas, to get the supplies through? That is the failure, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is partially responsible for it.
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed that argument. Resolution 836 and, indeed, the earlier one on Srebrenica, established safe areas and appealed for troops, which were not then forthcoming, to deal with them. I do not believe that any shame attaches to this country because, as my right hon. Friend said, we were one of the three countries that responded specifically to that request.
  1754
  However, I am discussing the belief that the hon. Lady has often expressed—the idea that, somehow, by lesser military means than the total imperial mission, peace with justice could have been achieved by a few bombs in a few weeks, by a little extra equipment for the Bosnian Government, by a few extra million dollars. I really believe that that is flannel.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Would my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have only a short time and I have given way once. I would rather get on and conclude.
  There is a role for air power, as Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged for two years now, and in the next few weeks there may well again be a role for air power to deter Bosnian Serb attacks on Gorazde or Sarajevo. But I do not believe that it is possible, from the air, to bomb the Bosnian Serbs into coming to the conference table and reaching a peaceful settlement.
  However, although most people in this country accept that we cannot do everything, they do not go on to conclude that we should do nothing. They support the substantial efforts that we have made—perhaps more pre-eminently than any other country, counting the aid as well as the military side—and want that effort to continue for as long as it can. As long as it can, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that is the rub.
  I conclude with two short points about that. I believe that the next two or three months may be the climax in deciding whether it can. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, UNPROFOR depends on a minimum of consent which does not at present exist. If there is no substantial improvement, we may, by the test of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—by the judgment of our military commanders—have to withdraw.
  I have felt, for a bit now, that it might be right to be a little more specific about that, and to say that, unless specific improvements on the ground are achieved, unless consent is restored, it might well be the judgment of our military commanders that we could not continue. UNPROFOR might then have to withdraw. I believe that then the arms embargo would have to be lifted; the logic of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said about that is clear.
  I do not believe that either side really wants to be left alone with the other side in that bloodstained cockpit, knowing that their opponents—and that would be true of both sides—would be able to draw indefinitely on the very large quantities of weapons that are available in a world awash with arms.
  I understand the operational difficulties of withdrawal, as I am sure does the House. A scheme for withdrawal that involves introducing a large North Atlantic Treaty Organisation force to help the withdrawal of a relatively smaller United Nations force will have a seismic effect on the ground, on the region. It will powerfully change the position in a way that military planners, whether in Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe or in London, cannot be sure of in advance.
  Unless circumstances can be improved—unless the minimum consent can be restored—withdrawal may be inevitable because, in the judgment of military commanders, the force could not continue. That is not

  1755
  inevitable, but it is a real danger, and I believe that we can use that real danger to bring about the improvements that are necessary.
  I conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on his appointment, on the speed with which he has visited the troops in Bosnia and on the admirable and effective speech that he has just made.
  Some speak as though there were some system of international order which already exists, some glass palace of peace which has already been built and which is being shattered by what is happening in Bosnia or in west Africa or the former Soviet union, where similar horrors are occurring. But there is no such thing. There is no new international order. Man's cruelty to man continues; the tragedies multiply. What does happen is that people try to avert the tragedies, try to prevent them and, when they occur, try to reduce them.
  Some of those efforts succeed. They have succeeded in Namibia, they have succeeded in Mozambique, and they have partly succeeded in Cambodia. Some fail, such as in Somalia and Rwanda. Bosnia now hangs in the balance, unfortunately tilting the wrong way. On many occasions, Britain does not and should not take part; we cannot be even a part policeman everywhere. But sometimes it is right to join in the effort, as we did in Rwanda and as we are doing in Angola and in Bosnia. I am sure that it is right that we should do so for as long as that is possible, but I think that we should use the possibility of withdrawal to secure that minimum of agreement on the ground that would enable us to continue.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall address my brief remarks to the situation in Gorazde, where one of my constituents has a son serving with the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
  Despite what we have heard today, I do not know whether the House is fully aware of the real danger facing the 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Ukrainian contingent in Gorazde. The British contingent has a Bosnian Serb military force at the front gate. In its garden, which is a Bosnian Muslim hinterland, there are Bosnian Muslim forces. It has been said—I do not know whether it is correct—that attempts have been made to mine the area behind the British contingent to prevent its withdrawing into the hinterland. There are also reports that there may be an ammunition factory in the hinterland producing weapons and armaments.
  Gorazde is situated in a valley and is therefore surrounded by hills. There is little or no protection from the air and the 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers have very light armaments. The Secretary of State mentioned a convoy that had gone through recently, but there have been very few convoys in the past few weeks. They are dependent, probably entirely, on the consent and the permission of the Bosnian Serbs. As I discovered from meeting the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the contingent must take its drinking water from the river Drina and that water must be purified. Getting in food parcels and letters is also dependent on the consent of the Bosnian Serbs.
  As we know, the tour of duty comes to an end in early September. Britain has provided three tours of duty in Gorazde and it was hoped that the next would fall to the
  1756
  Ukrainian forces. It seemed that the Ukrainians were keen and happy to do that. However, I no longer think that that is the position in view of what the Bosnian Muslims are reported to have done to the Ukrainian soldiers, including taking their commander hostage and threatening him perhaps even with death. To leave Gorazde in September would again require the consent and the permission of the Bosnian Serbs. That might be forthcoming, but the Bosnian Muslims may have something to say about it also.
  The stark reality is that 200 British troops are trapped: they cannot go forwards and they cannot go back. They have very few resources with which to defend themselves, they are vulnerable from the air and they are surrounded by two warring armies. There is the added danger that NATO will decide to bomb in the vicinity in an attempt to deter the Bosnian Serbs from attacking.
  When this wretched war is over, perhaps some questions will be asked—such as, who put British soldiers in such a vulnerable position? They are highly trained soldiers from what is probably one of the best armies in the world. They are not peace corps volunteers. If they are put in danger—that is the nature of soldiering—we owe it to them at least to ensure that their orders are based on a rational and sensible military assessment of the dangers that they face.
  We face an extremely difficult position and there are no glib answers. The Secretary of State mentioned some of the options. First, we could do nothing. We could wait, and perhaps the Bosnian Serbs might not attack. The British contingent could then leave in early September as planned. I do not know whether the Bosnian Serbs would allow our soldiers to leave. Perhaps they would. I do not know whether the Bosnian Muslims would allow them to leave. There is also a possibility of air strikes. I do not know whether that is a real option.
  Secondly, there is the question of reinforcements. I suppose that it would be possible—although the Secretary of State poured cold water on the idea—to fly in a large number of troops in Black Hawk helicopters. They also would be very vulnerable and I do not know how many troops would be needed. Even if they could be brought in, they would still have to receive food and water. The logistic problems would still have to be solved and the troops would still face the possibility of spending a long Balkan winter with the Bosnian Serbs at the gate.
  Thirdly, we could sit down now and attempt to negotiate with the Serbs—and, I suppose, with the Bosnian Muslims—the removal of the 200 British troops. I do not know whether that is feasible, but the consequences of that option would be quite considerable for the entire strategy in the eastern enclaves and Sarajevo.
  It would be silly to pretend that there are easy answers or easy solutions. I simply ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that the welfare of British troops will be considered to be as important as the legitimate interests and welfare of other people in the Bosnian theatre of war. If our forces are asked to engage in dangerous movements or manoeuvres, their orders must be based on a proper military assessment and not upon some grand gesture designed to save the face of international bureaucrats or politicians.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Howell: At the outset of the debate we heard two very fine speeches from either side of the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the new

  1757
  Secretary of State for Defence on what he had to say. It was a very fitting beginning to his time in that high office. He comes to this problem at what appears to be the final part of a miserable series of developments, with the overrunning of Srebrenica, the imminent overrunning of Zepa and great fears among many people that the worst is yet to come.
  My hon. Friend said not to press him about what might be done to prevent those gloomy predictions from becoming reality; and we must not press him. However, his comments gave me new confidence that there may be ways of ensuring that Sarajevo is not strangled and that perhaps Gorazde can be saved from the ghastly horrors and tragedies that we have seen in Srebrenica and that we are now seeing in Zepa. Let us not press my right hon. Friend tonight, but let us be confident that he will, and must, find ways of stabilising the short-term situation and preventing a repetition of the miseries of the past few days.
  The United Nations has a mandate to protect the enclaves. Of course, that cannot be done against a massive and determined assault by thousands of the enemy—that would be impossible. But a serious attempt can be made to fulfil that mandate and to hold the further enclaves by getting reinforcements there in one way or another. I believe that that can be done. When it is, I hope that it will be done with the consensual support of the other major allies, possibly including the Russians. Certainly the Americans will have to decide between their two policies—the one on Capitol hill and the other in the White House—because one way or the other, the Americans will be drawn into events if the situation is to be stabilised.
  My plea concerns not so much the short term. We have all seen the agonies and have armchair recipes, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to bear the brunt with his other Ministers and with their opposite numbers in allied countries. My plea is that anything that we do to stabilise the short-term situation, to halt the terrifying sense of drift, is combined and interlocked with a new medium-term strategy, to prevent finding ourselves in a similar situation again—that despite a mass of good intentions, we are in an even worse position than now.
  The new strategy—which must be intertwined with what is done now, whatever is being planned—should incorporate two vital, realistic elements. I do not want to see the UN humiliatingly withdraw totally. I am uneasy with the language that says that there is an absolute choice between staying and fighting and total withdrawal. The UN has done brilliant work throughout the world. It is doing brilliant work in Bosnia, although we do not hear much about it, in saving lives and safeguarding convoys. It was not necessary to send vast armies into Ethiopia to start to save lives there. I do not know whether Angola is coming right, but the UN did not send vast armies in there. There were a lot of troops in Cambodia, but a lot of work was done. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rightly said, the UN is only the sum of its parts. It does not exist as an entity in space.
  The UN, through the support of its members, has done good work and there remains an agenda for United Nations personnel—civilians and the brave blue-helmeted soldiers who protect them—in the Bosnian and Balkan region. Having said that, I would not want to see a complete withdrawal. One is obviously vulnerable to the argument, "In that case, are you asking the UN forces to stay to do a job that they have not succeeded in doing?" They have not
  1758
  maintained the safety of the safe enclaves. They have been unable, because they are unequipped, to defend and to fulfil the trust placed in them by the wretched and tragic refugees of whom we have all seen pictures.
  There must be yet another part to the strategy but it is not one that yet carries my right hon. Friend, although I drew some hope from his remarks. That part has not carried hitherto the grandee policymakers of Paris and London or the White House—although it has received almost too vigorous support in the US Congress. If we cannot provide the forces on the ground to halt the atrocities and violence of the Bosnian Serbs as they fulfil the Greater Serbia agenda, which they are determined to do, we must examine gradually and carefully, perhaps not overnight, the forces who could do that job but have been denied the weapons so far. I refer of course to the Bosnian presidency troops, who outnumber the Bosnian Serbs two to one. They are excellent fighters but at this moment do not even have enough bullets, let alone heavy weapons, to defend themselves. They do not have the trucks to deploy their forces in such a way as to add to their current desperate efforts to save Sarajevo from total starvation and strangulation.
  Parallel with the saving and, I hope, holding of Gorazde—and beyond that the dignified withdrawal in due course of UN troops—should go not merely a reluctant recognition that the embargo must be lifted if we pull out, as my right hon. Friend said. I differ with him. Together with the pattern of holding Gorazde and Sarajevo in the short term must go a medium-term intention to ensure that the Bosnian presidency—the legitimate army of the legitimate Government of that hapless country—has the weapons, and maybe in due course the artillery and tanks, to defend itself. Back always comes the pat reply, "That will mean a vast escalation of the war."
  That cliché gets traded around, but it has not been carefully examined. If Bosnian Serb force were met with force, I wonder whether the Bosnian Serbs would not immediately realise that the time for easy games—for walking into towns and murdering Bosnians, and the rest—is over. They would face a determined enemy and there would be a kind of stalemate. Of course it would be a bloody stalemate, but we are seeing that already. Of course it would be difficult. Of course it would be a brave decision, but there might come a morning when the two sides would say, "For neither of us is it worth fighting on. For both of us it is worth sitting down and negotiating. However agonising the negotiation and the partitioning, we must sit down and negotiate." If we go along the path that I indicated, that point could be reached.
  We must we ensure that any winding down of the UN's activities is accomplished with dignity. We must ensure that UN civilian and some military operations remain, to save lives in the area. We should not just petulantly withdraw everything. Finally, beyond that withdrawal with dignity or winding down, we let the Bosnian presidency troops and the presidency government have the right and the dignity to defend themselves to show the Bosnian Serbs that there can be no winner and that they should stop the killing and negotiate. That is not only the best. way forward but, I believe, the way that events will dictate. I believe that there are no other options. Although we talk grandly of options, there is only the path that I have described, and that is the one that statesmen should now pursue.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), I have some sympathy with the restraint that the Secretary of State for Defence displayed in deliberately avoiding enumerating the possible military options. As I think he said, at least by implication, to do so might be to provide information of advantage to those against whom some of the options might in due course be exercised.
  With all due deference to the Secretary of State, the debate takes place to some extent in a vacuum. At the end of our deliberations we shall take no decisions. We all know, however, that even as we conduct the debate serious decisions may well be taken in Washington, where the Foreign Secretary has gone to have discussions with the United States Government and, I hope, with members of Congress, although some of the press reports suggest that he may find that a little more difficult than perhaps he would wish.
  The debate takes place to some extent in the abstract. The fact that the Foreign Secretary has felt it necessary to go to Washington—I make no criticism of that because I believe that his judgment was correct—serves only to underline something which we have seen in the history of events in the former Yugoslavia over the past two or three years. It is that where the United Nations seeks to embark on a major operation without the wholehearted support, political and military, of the United States, its activities are necessarily inhibited. Some of us may not like that but the events of the past two or three years demonstrate it eloquently to be the case.
  What else do the events of the past two or three years tell us? They tell us—I suspect that this is a lesson not yet learnt—that it is necessary to establish clear political objectives and then to provide sufficient military resources if we wish to implement Security Council resolutions.
  If the strategy has been one of containment, that strategy has succeeded to some extent. We are obliged to ask ourselves, however, how long that will be the position. If events continue to take their present course, can the relative calm in Kosovo and Macedonia be maintained? If the strategy has been to feed as many people as possible, that strategy too has substantially succeeded. That is especially so in central Bosnia. If the strategy was to drive the participants back to negotiation, we would be right to acknowledge that it has been a comprehensive failure. Why has that been so?
  We can track through the history of this matter and the path of the international community a lack of resolve that almost month by month, and sometimes week by week, has done nothing to increase the willingness of the Bosnian Serbs, or the Karadzic Serbs as perhaps we may now call them, to take advantage and to call the bluff, if we like, of the UN.
  The House will recall that we declared a no-fly zone. It was several months, however, before we put aircraft over the former Yugoslavia to enforce it. I understand that combat air patrols are no longer being flown over the land mass of the former Yugoslavia, although they may be still be being flown over the Adriatic. We declared an arms embargo, but it was more than six months before there was an adequate fleet in the Adriatic to seek to enforce it.
  1760
  Already, in the course of the debate, we have heard cries of withdrawal. I wonder how many people who cry for withdrawal have actually been to the former Yugoslavia and made any effort to assess precisely what would be involved in withdrawal. It is a country which consists, as many will know, of a lot of valleys with poor roads at the bottom of deep slopes. The idea that there is some easy withdrawal to be effected in a matter of a few weeks frankly does not stand up to even a moment's consideration if one has regard to the country's geography.
  If we were to withdraw, there would be damage to the reputation of the United Nations. Some have rightly talked of the long-term consequences of withdrawal. In my judgment, however, that would be nothing compared with the short-term risk to the civilians who occupy the former Yugoslavia, and Bosnia in particular. Which of us believes that, if there was a withdrawal, hostilities would cease?
  As I believe is now generally acknowledged—the Secretary of State said so expressly—if there is a withdrawal there would be no legitimacy in seeking to maintain the arms embargo. A stalemate may well come about, as the right hon. Member for Guildford said a moment ago, but one must have regard to what the consequences and circumstances would be from the moment of withdrawal and the lifting of the arms embargo until the point at which that stalemate was achieved. I beg to suggest that those consequences and circumstances might be very severe and damaging indeed.
  Then we must ask ourselves: what purpose can be served by the United Nations remaining in the former Yugoslavia? Like others, I have used the illustration from time to time, that the relative calm and the return, albeit grudgingly and with difficulty, to normality in central Bosnia continues to provide a rationale for our remaining. But I begin to doubt if that is enough.
  With regard to Zepa, one must be blunt. There seems little enthusiasm for or prospect of Zepa being successfully defended against a Bosnia Serb advance if that is what they choose to do. As to Gorazde, I do not—nor, I suspect, do any of us except those sitting on the Treasury Bench—have access to sufficiently adequate intelligence and information to determine whether Gorazde can be defended. Even if we were to decide that it could be defended, we would have to ask ourselves the subordinate questions: does that defence apply only to the United Nations forces who are there or, if we were talking about the defence of Gorazde, do we mean that we will defend any civilians who may find themselves under attack as well?
  I do not yet hear or understand there to be any clarity in a decision of that kind. It could be argued that the mere fact of sending large numbers of troops to Gorazde, whether by helicopter or otherwise—I suspect by helicopter only because, since the road from Kisseljak to Gorazde is substantially in Bosnian Serb hands, helicopters are probably the only means of doing so—would be deterrent enough. Like other hon. Members, however, I do not have the information which would allow me to reach a certain judgment on that matter. I therefore ask myself again: what is there that we can do that we can have some assurance about?
  We can say that we will not allow Sarajevo to be strangled and that we will open and maintain, with military means if necessary, a route for humanitarian

  1761
  relief over Mount Igman to Sarajevo. I say that for the obvious self-evident reason that we cannot have the strangulation of that city, with all the consequences for the people who live there.
  The second and perhaps more long-term element of that is to say that that would show in a dramatic and forceful way that the United Nations is possessed of resolve in these matters and that where it is militarily possible it is prepared to take steps in order to ensure that the resolutions by which its presence in the former Yugoslavia is justified can be implemented robustly.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about military means to keep a road open. What is his estimate of the size of that military means and would it involve arming?
  Mr. Campbell: On the issue of armour, I do not think that there is any doubt that it would be difficult to transport it over Mount Igman, not least because one would have to bring it up by road from Split. But I am satisfied that the rapid reaction force, properly deployed—particularly its first element which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, contains artillery—plus the full repertoire of NATO air power, would be sufficient to keep open such a route were it to be established for humanitarian purposes. I have some corroboration for that as that view has been expressed on a number of occasions in the recent past. From conversations that I have had, I believe that that view carries a certain amount of authority among those who may be responsible for making the ultimate decision.
  Some say that we should not do any of those things and continue to fulfil what is sometimes called, rather inelegantly but perhaps very descriptively, the muddling-through option. The muddling-through option will inevitably lead to withdrawal and it offers no clear policy objectives. It puts our forces on the ground in an impossible position—one that will be increasingly untenable. In that connection, I think that the House would want to know, within the constraints that the Secretary of State suggested at the outset, the precise role of the rapid reaction force. What are its terms of reference at this moment and what will its rules of engagement be in general terms? When may we expect it to be fully deployed and operational?
  Phrases such as "defining moment" and "turning point" have been used so often in the descriptions of what is taking place in the former Yugoslavia that they have lost their ordinary meaning. But one can say without over-dramatising the situation that the future course of events in the former Yugoslavia may depend acutely on the decisions taken in the next few days. More than that, those decisions may signally affect the relationship between Europe and the United States of America and may signally determine the credibility of the United Nations in a post-cold-war world.
  The resolutions of the Security Council can be enforced in a restrained way or in a robust way. Until now, the policy has been to show restraint, but I do not believe that that restraint has brought the international community—or, more importantly, the people of Bosnia—much satisfaction. The chilling image of the 20-year-old girl, anonymous and alone, who hanged herself out of desperation and hopelessness should haunt us all. That image should not drive our policies, but it should remind us of what the consequences of our policies may be.
  9.27 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall begin with some brief congratulations. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made an excellent and perceptive speech. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We all understand why he is not here now. Again, I was much impressed with what he had to say. May I also say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on the Front Bench in his new post as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I look forward to his, I trust, robust reply to the debate.
  I am glad that the summit is to take place on Friday. I have made about a dozen speeches on this appalling situation over the past three and a half to four years and, in the past 18 months, I have called many times for a summit. I would, admittedly, prefer it to be at head of state level, but the fact that a specific summit is being called with this subject as the sole item on the agenda gives me some encouragement. It gives me encouragement that, at long last, a more co-ordinated, cohesive, united and resolute approach is on the cards.
  The sad, deplorable story of the past three and a half years has not been one of the failure of British troops. Their bravery is unsurpassed, and we all rightly pay tribute to them every time we debate this subject. No one seeks to criticise—I certainly do not—the motives or credentials of our Government or the Opposition. But I have often been haunted by the remarks of Edmund Burke who said in this place so long ago that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. I do not suggest that good men have done nothing, but it is manifestly clear that they have not done enough.
  The hon. Member for Livingston, who spoke for the Opposition, did not seek to absolve himself of a degree of culpability, and in that he spoke for us all. The honour of the House is at stake far more than it was in the debate that we had earlier today. It is crucial that this situation in the centre of Europe does not become a cauldron that boils over into a European conflagration. That remains just as much a possibility as it did in the early hours of that December morning in 1991 when I drew a Consolidated Fund debate on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, and for the first time the House turned its attention to that.
  I am sorry that the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) is not in the Chamber. He spoke about there being no new world order. We accept that, but it is no excuse for not seeking to build one upon Europe's disintegrating old order. That is absolutely essential.
  The hon. Member for Livinston was right when he spoke about the signals that will go out if the Yugoslavian situation results in ultimate disaster. A number of us have made similar observations in the past. Irrespective of whether it develops into full-scale war, drawing in America and Russia backing opposite sides, those signals will be a recipe for international anarchy. Without the rule of law in a country there is no civil order, and without international law and respect for it, there can only be international anarchy.

  1763
  We have agonised in public for far too long about the difficulties. Of course, whatever course is adopted is fraught with risks—far more so now than it would have been if those air and naval patrols had been put in when Dubrovnik was being shelled. The risks have increased as vacillation has led to the Serbs calling people's bluff time and again.
  Let us consider for a moment what we are debating. President Milosevic has publicly repudiated Karadzic. He has not done enough, and there is much more that he can should do before there is any question of lifting sanctions. But he has dissociated himself from the activities of the Karadzic Serbs.
  It has been said often recently in the House that the Karadzic Serbs—I think that I was the first to use that specific term—do not represent the whole Serbian population of Bosnia-Herzegovina: far from it. At most they represent possibly 50 per cent. and probably fewer. That is the group of people we are debating. They have in effect declared war on the United Nations. That is what has happened. It is not a question of embarking on a war or throwing our weight around in that sense, but of the United Nations not allowing its mandates to be set at naught by a gang of brigands.
  We must therefore display determination and resolution. It must be made absolutely plain to Karadzic that Gorazde will not fall, and that Sarajevo will be relieved. Not a hair on a single Serbian head needs to be touched, but should they persist in their appalling actions and attitude, punitive action will be taken from the air and elsewhere. Of course it was right for the Secretary of State for Defence to be vague on that subject—one does not announce in advance precisely what one is going to do.
  There must be no doubt in the Karadzic Serb mind that the international community means business and is not going to see its rule flouted in this appalling way by those who have despoiled villages and towns, raped women and caused mayhem.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke about the lifting of the arms embargo. It has always been morally indefensible to have recognised a sovereign state, yet neither allowed it to defend itself nor defended it. My right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary once used unhappy words about "level killing fields". Far better that there should be a level killing field than a field of slaughter, with all the heavy weaponry in one pair of hands and none in the other.
  I do not want to see a quick move to lift the embargo—that will not be necessary given the resolution I have called for. There should be absolutely no doubt, however, in the Karadzic Serb mind that ethnic cleansing will not be allowed to pay off, and that those Serbs will not be allowed to alter international borders by flouting international rules.
  It is essential that, during the summer recess which we are to begin tonight, there should be no question of a great European city, which is Sarajevo—a model of multi-ethnic co-operation until a few years ago—being allowed to fall. That must not be allowed to happen, and the seige must be lifted in the interests of the new European humanity about which the hon. Member for Livingston so eloquently spoke.
  1764
  If there is any major change in policy, there must be no question but that the House must be recalled to discuss it. I hope that there will be no faint hearts on the Conservative Benches or in any other part of the House, and no flinching from our country doing its duty. This is a great nation; a leading member of the European Union; a permanent member of the Security Council and a founder member of NATO.
  In the very year when we commemorate the ending of the second world war, are we going to see our proud history of the past 50 years and our country's reputation besmirched by being defeated by the sort of people who are holding men and women to ransom in Bosnia tonight? I do not believe that we are. I have every faith in the Prime Minister. I hope that the summit on Friday will produce a resolution and determination and I look forward to that.
  9.38 pm
  Ms Clare Short: Our failure and that of the international community—Britain has played an enormous part in that, in which we are all implicated, as we all agree—to stand up for what is morally right and right in international law in Bosnia has created a nightmare there, that will haunt Europe for a long time to come. It has created unbearable suffering for the people of Bosnia. The United Nations has been humiliated; NATO has been humiliated, and any petty dictator seeking to acquire territory by force must feel encouraged by what has happened in Bosnia.
  Bosnia is a multi-ethnic state, recognised by the world community as an independent nation and a member of the United Nations. The population is predominantly Muslim, but it is mixed—23 per cent. of Bosnian families are a mix of Serb, Croat and Muslim. It is profoundly interesting that so much of the talk is about Serbs, Croats and Muslims, and always assumes that the Bosnian people are Muslim only.
  We know that Serbia has been trying to whip up a Muslim bogeyman and suggest that Muslim people cannot have a state in Europe. We are talking about a secular Muslim European people, but there is an attempt to blackguard them as unacceptable people. The language that is used so often by the commentators, which does not refer to Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim, or Serb, Croat and Bosnian, is playing that game. That, too, is dangerous for the world. If the world is to divide and find a new enmity between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, that would be dangerous for all of us.
  There is a deep and profound feeling of anger among Muslim people throughout the world that the world community does not extend to them the rights under international law that they expect. I saw in the press, either today or yesterday, that, when the Prime Minister of Bosnia was asked why he thought the world community had not protected Bosnia, he said, "It is because we are a Muslim people." That is profoundly wrong, and profoundly dangerous.
  Following the world's recognition of Bosnia as a full state under international law, Serb aggression took 70 per cent. of Bosnian territory and 30 per cent. of Croatian territory—a grave breach of international law, trying to change internationally recognised boundaries by force. Following that came the most vile ethnic cleansing, as we have learnt to call it—slaughter, torture and mass and

  1765
  deliberately organised rape aimed at driving people from the land in which they have lived for generations. Those are profoundly serious war crimes.
  It seems to me that the constant suggestion from British Foreign Secretaries that it is a civil war, and that the task of the United Nations is merely to supply humanitarian aid with the consent of the parties—as though the two parties are on an equal footing—is profoundly wrong in principle. It accepts that boundaries can be changed by force, and serious war crimes permitted. That has been the approach form the start, and that has been the error. Under the Vance-Owen plan, there was a willingness to change boundaries, although force had changed those boundaries. There was a willingness to appease ethnic cleansing. The contact group plan does exactly the same.
  I admit that, at first, I used to think that the reason for the weakness of British policy and UN strategy was a lack of resolve—a weakness and a fudge about which I was ashamed. I now think that our Government cannot be so incompetent. I believe that there is a hidden strategy to accept a greater Serbia as a way of stabilising the Balkans. Either we have an utterly unprincipled, incompetent, pusillanimous Government, or there is a hidden strategy along the lines of, "Let it happen, because we need a big power in the Balkans to stabilise the position. We will allow a greater Serbia to be built." I am becoming more and more convinced that the latter is the underlying strategy.
  Throughout the conflict—it happened again today—it has been suggested that those of us who say that more could be done are advocating all-out war; that we are saying that the UN should go to war with Bosnia. None of us has ever advocated that. Those people rule out the option of an intelligent and restrained use of force by the UN to protect international law; to use force defensively to protect the safe areas, so that any Serb aggression would be against the UN, and the Serbs would have to pay the consequences. It would also be possible to use a restricted force to get food and supplies to people in the safe areas.
  The humiliation for the UN is that it takes through supplies with the consent of the Serbs, who steal fuel and food from it. In effect, we are supplying the Serbs, even though there is supposed to be an embargo. That same humiliation extends to British troops supplying Gorazde. Supplies are taken through with the permission of the Serbs, who decide what our troops can or cannot have.
  That position should never have been allowed to arise, and it should be brought to an end. We should insist that, when we take supplies through to Gorazde, the Serbs will not be allowed to inspect them. I understand that there are inadequate medical supplies to cope if anything happened to our troops in Gorazde, because the Serbs will allow only certain supplies to go through. That is intolerable.
  I believe that, after the taking of the hostages and the shooting down of an American plane, which were met with inaction by the west, the Serbs knew that they could take the safe areas. They knew that, even if they took our soldiers hostage, we would do nothing. Our inaction was a message of weakness, allowing the Serbs to go ahead and take the safe areas, because nothing would be done.
  We now have to decide what to do, and at this point I have to agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I do so with regret, because I should have liked the United Nations to take a more robust line at the
  1766
  start. I do not believe that the choices are all-out withdrawal, including the withdrawal of humanitarian aid, or allowing the Bosnians to fight. There is a middle way. We can, and should, defend Gorazde; we must get supplies to Sarajevo; and we must continue to supply humanitarian aid to central Bosnia. But we must allow the Bosnian people to fight for themselves. We will not protect them, and it is absolutely wrong to allow them to be slaughtered.
  The brave Bosnian army has absolutely no equipment, and a people who have been wronged as much as this people have must be entitled to fight for their own honour and future. It is unbearable and intolerable that we neither protect them nor allow them to fight. It is shameful, and I agree wholeheartedly, although with regret, with the right hon. Member for Guildford, that we must now move on and plan for the future, so that the Bosnian people can fight for themselves.
  Our interests are very much tied up with this problem. There is a real danger for the future of Europe. We shall have our own Gaza strip, with our own secular European Muslim people, who will be angry and bitter and who will engage in any form of protest and violence—quite rightly—to defend themselves against all the wrong that is being done to them. We shall have 2 million refugees, with all the consequences and destabilisation that flow from that. We shall have a humiliated United Nations, a humiliated British Government and a humiliated NATO. All that will encourage any other petty dictator to start on the same road.
  I appeal to the Government to adopt a more robust and honest strategy, and give up on the Greater Serbia strategy which I believe lies behind their rhetoric. I appeal to them to save Gorazde, supply Sarajevo, continue to supply humanitarian aid, and allow the Bosnian people to fight for their own future.
  9.46 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I want to deal with just three aspects of this horrendous problem. The first has been touched on a number of times and concerns the civilian population, especially the people remaining in the two enclaves and in Sarajevo.
  Surprise has been expressed in some quarters about what happened in Srebrenica, surprise at the speed of its collapse and some surprise about the degree of brutality in which the Bosnian Serb army subsequently engaged, although one has to say that, set against its recent history, it was acting true to form. If that was a matter of surprise, it was also the clearest and starkest possible warning to the civilian populations that remained in the other two eastern enclaves, and potentially also to the civilian population in Sarajevo itself, of what lies in store for them if the Bosnian Serb army is able to overrun those places.
  If it is the case—all realistic evidence suggests that it is—that the international community is not willing to deploy the military manpower, arms and equipment on the ground in order to defend the enclaves and, conceivably, possibly even to defend Sarajevo, we cannot simply walk away from our obligations towards the civilians remaining in those places. I am certain that everyone—inside and outside the House—has been utterly appalled at the systematic brutality of the Bosnian Serbs' treatment of the civilian population in Srebrenica and the way in which they separated the men and the boys from the women and

  1767
  children, taking the men and boys to an unknown fate and leaving the women and children prey to the depredations, violations and rape that then occurred. We have a profound obligation to the civilian population in those remaining places.
  If we cannot provide those people with the military force to enable the safe haven policy to stand up, there is an obligation on the UN and UNPROFOR to see whether we can at least develop the option of enabling a safe passage for those who wish to leave the enclaves for central Bosnia. The last possible thing that we should do is leave it until it is too late, and to leave those people at the mercy of the Serbs. We know what would happen to them.
  Of course I understand totally the difficulties, not least from the Bosnian Muslim Government, because they have been foremost in resisting any suggestion that the civilian population should leave the eastern enclaves, and indeed Sarajevo, but UNPROFOR cannot simply allow what happened to the civilian population in Srebrenica to be reproduced, in Gorazde certainly, and—I hope, if it is not too late—in Zepa. We must take steps to try to provide at least the option for those who want to take it of a safe passage back to the safer areas in central Bosnia.
  My second point, which has been dealt with by a number of hon. Members, and particularly by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who has an obviously strong constituency interest, relates to the position of the small British contingent in Gorazde. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that their safety was of paramount importance and I am sure that we were all extremely glad to hear him say that.
  I am also glad that, entirely rightly and properly, my right hon. Friend did not elaborate on the options that he has under consideration for ensuring the safety of that contingent. We have a very special obligation to them, not least because by being non-combatants they are in a more vulnerable position than they would have been if they had been combatants. If they had been deployed to Gorazde in a combatant role, they would never have been deployed as a contingent of a mere 200 people with simply their own personal weapons—basically—to protection them. They would have been deployed in hugely greater numbers and with proper fire power at their disposal.
  In circumstances where we have exposed our own service men to a huge degree of vulnerability and risk in a non-combatant role under the aegis of the United Nations, there is an overwhelming obligation on us to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure their safety. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friends will make certain that that happens. I hope that they will not place too much trust—or sole trust—in the repeated dictum that people will be held personally responsible on the Bosnian Serb side for what may happen to those who are taken hostage. Unhappily, there has been far too much evidence that that particular threat does not cut much ice. To back that up, I am sure that my right hon. Friends also have very positive measures in mind to protect the contingent involved.
  My final point, which was touched on tangentially by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), concerns the rules of engagement which are made available to the members of UNPROFOR and especially to our own
  1768
  forces. In any deteriorating military situation with a capacity to escalate—this clearly is such a situation—it is absolutely essential that our service men have rules of engagement that are sufficiently flexible, sufficiently quick to operate and sufficiently delegated to commanders in quite small localities to be able to be effective in protecting them and their equipment.
  Our service men clearly face a multitude of possible threats. They face the threat of being taken hostage. It is clear that they face the threat of being mined-in quite deliberately so that they are unable move with their protected vehicles. It is clear that they may at a future date face the risk of direct fire from automatic weapons, from mortars, from tanks and from artillery.
  In those circumstances, it is absolutely essential that our service men have the flexibility and strength of their own rules of engagement so that they can provide for their own protection. In this House and outside, it would be considered unforgivable if a situation arose in which British forces were deprived of their weapons, were deprived of their freedom and taken hostage or, worse still, were deprived of their lives as a result of not having rules of engagement that were adequate to provide for their own security and protection. I am sure that my right hon. Friends will address that issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
  This is clearly a situation of the utmost difficulty. We must deal with the realities of the fact that the international community has not put the military forces on the ground that are sufficient to impose the territorial safeguards that we in the House want. That is the inescapable reality. Unhappily, almost every country in the world has failed to deal with the problem with the strength and commitment that we have shown. I refer not least to the United States which, as a matter of policy, has refused to get committed on the ground.
  In those circumstances, I see no alternative but to continue to pursue our humanitarian endeavours. We should, however, certainly keep open the option that is undoubtedly available to us—we may be coming much closer to it if we have to make a significant withdrawal—of enabling much more military help and equipment to go to the Bosnian Muslims.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I never thought that I would find myself agreeing with the Secretary of State for Defence. I agree fully that the presence of UNPROFOR troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina has saved numerous lives. I also agreed with the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the former Foreign Secretary, when he pointed out—it needs to be pointed out to those who put forward the idea that all this is about a Greater Serbia—that the people who are fighting in Bosnia are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.
  The House and the international community are agonising tonight about whether we can save Gorazde and whether we can save Zepa. It is even argued that we shall have to give up Zepa.
  I remember that on 29 June, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the safe areas in Bosnia must be demilitarised. That was the agreement when the safe areas were established. On 17 July, only two days ago, President Izetbegovic proposed holding direct

  1769
  negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs on freeing civilians in Zepa. According to BBC Monitoring, although this has not been reported in our media, the Bosnian Serbs reacted immediately as follows:
  "The UN should deliver the proposal to us and we will respond to it officially. Following the events in Srebrenica the leadership of the Serb Republic would like to negotiate on Zepa with the aim of transforming it into a real demilitarised zone and to resolve all the contentious issues which caused the conflict."
  [Interruption.] I can hear the howling dervishes somewhere at the back. They want to get into war—
  Ms Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I will not give way; I have got only 10 minutes.
  Ms Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I will not give way. My hon. Friend has had her 10 minutes and she was not interrupted.
  My point is that it is possible to deal with the problems in Zepa and Gorazde by direct negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs. That was the aim of the United Nations resolution on safe havens and it should be carried out.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wareing: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Wicks: I understand that, but—
  Mr. Wareing: I have 10 minutes. My hon. Friends should allow free speech in this country if they want free speech in Bosnia.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) compared Bosnia with the republics of the former USSR. It is true that we are seeing the break-up of a country, but the one essential difference is that the west brokered the change to an independent state in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We had nothing to do with what happened in Georgia or the central Asian republics of the former USSR. But we do bear some responsibility for allowing the Bosnia-Herzegovinan state to be established in the first place.
  The situation in Gorazde and Zepa could be resolved if there was a willingness to go ahead with the suggestion that Izetbegovic made two days ago to speak to the Bosnian Serbs. What worries me is that all the initiatives taking place in Bosnia are being made either by the Bosnian Serbs or the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims decided to break the ceasefire at the beginning of May this year, and the Bosnian Serbs decided to advance to take Srebrenica.
  I am afraid that we are engaged in snapshot diplomacy, and we are not looking at the full picture. We talk about the safe havens in eastern Bosnia when they are attacked and when pressure is being put on them. We do not look months ahead at what we may be discussing in this House about the situation in the former Yugoslavia. President Tudjman is at this moment preparing for an attack upon the Serbs in Krajina.
  Nobody looks at the full picture and asks themselves why the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina are involved in the conflict at all. We must learn from the facts. It is no use trying to forget what happened in 1991. The fact is that whereas the Croats in Zagreb and the Muslims in Sarajevo
  1770
  do not want to be ruled from Belgrade, the Serbs in Bosnia and the Serbs in Croatia do not want to be ruled either from Zagreb or Sarajevo. We must accept that fact.
  Miss Kate Hoey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I have made it clear that I am not giving way. We must accept that if it is right to grant the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims the right to self-determination, what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If the Serbs in Bosnia do not wish to be a part of the Bosnian state, we should look at the whole situation with that very much in mind.
  Many of us have been shocked by the dreadful and bestial scenes in Srebrenica, and I share that shock with everyone else. But the television cameras were there, so we could see those events. But when a few months ago, the Croats decided to drive out the indigenous Serb population of western Slavonia—committing crimes as they went—it was not portrayed on television because the cameras were not there. If those events had been seen, we would have been just as appalled.
  Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the UN human rights rapporteur, said that UN peacekeepers had seen numerous civilian bodies strewn along the road between Okucani and Novi Varos. The Croats denied access to international observers, and we did not see that. What I am suggesting and maintaining is that all of the crimes are certainly not going all the one way. We have to bear many things in mind.
  It is no use talking about a Greater Serbia. All the Croats, all the Slovenes and all the Muslims once lived in the state of Yugoslavia. On 13 February 1991, long before people took any interest in the situation, I put questions about the rising nationalisms in Yugoslavia, as it then was. I was told—as I was told in a letter from the Prime Minister in April 1991—that Britain stood by the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. As we know, that position was maintained until the time of the Maastricht treaty.
  It is unfortunate, to say the least, that in order to secure concessions on the Maastricht treaty we were willing to give in to pressure from the German Foreign Office—and many people in Germany now admit that they were wrong—to accept recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. Slovenia did not matter too much; but even the Badinter report, commissioned by Lord Carrington, reported in December 1991 that if recognition was to be given to any of the republics of the former Yugoslavia, Croatia certainly should not be one of them.
  It is the suppression of the Serbian population—a very large population—by the Croatian Government that has caused much of the present conflict. I will venture a bet that it will not be long before the House is debating—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.
  10.6 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am profoundly concerned about our peacekeeping role in Bosnia. It is a very difficult role to play, and it exposes our troops to all kinds of danger. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, that peacekeeping role is dependent on the consent of the parties—and, in Bosnia, that consent is far from complete.

  1771
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) pressed for the restoration of frontiers and the raising of the siege of Sarajevo, among other things. All those objectives can hardly be attained by our troops in their peacekeeping role; they can be secured only by troops in their military role. I never thought that we would become so involved in Bosnia—"we" meaning both the British and the Welsh—but involved we are: very deeply involved. There are thousands of British troops in Bosnia, and about 200 members of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) observed, the position of the Royal Welch Fusiliers is fraught with danger and difficulty.
  Let us be realistic: Gorazde is probably the next so-called safe haven to be attacked by the Serbian forces. I am appalled at the prospect. We have seen what the Serbs have done in Srebrenica, where the Dutch forces were so dreadfully humiliated; we also know what has happened in Zepa, where the Ukrainians were robbed of their arms. I understand from today's tapes that their lives are now being threatened. There is not much doubt in my mind that Gorazde is next, with those 200 Welshmen there. They are not there to defend it; that is not their role. They are simply there, as far as I can make out, to mark it out as a safe haven.
  I ask myself, what can those 200 Fusiliers possibly do? They are caught between opposing forces who do not even want them there, so I believe that there is nothing much that they can do. I put nothing past my young compatriots in courage and bravery, but there is very little on their side apart from the firepower of the prayers of those at home. I wish that they had more support, and I understand that the French will offer such support on Friday, but that will be military support, and their role will automatically change. I also gather from the tapes that the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has already said that he will attack any forces that may be brought in to Gorazde.
  That is the nub of the problem. We cannot rely on any of our allies to come to our aid, despite the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The United States and France are benevolent but undecided, so let us be absolutely clear in our minds that the buck stops here. The buck stops with the Government, and they will be held responsible for what happens to our troops in Gorazde.
  As I have said, I am full of foreboding. My advice is to get our troops in Gorazde out to a safer area, because we have the precedent of what has happened in Zepa and Srebrenica, where other United Nations forces have been involved. I would move them to a safer place if no sufficient reinforcements are available to support them, and it does not appear that such support will be available in time.
  I shall not press my right hon. Friend on any withdrawal plan, but I hope that there is one and, if there is not, I have to say that someone is grievously at fault.
  1772
  I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's analysis at Question Time yesterday of the overall position and the alternatives available to us, but I was especially struck by one sentence in his reply. He said:
  "What is clear…is that it is not practical to mix war fighting with peacekeeping."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1447.]
  I could not agree more. That is precisely what is happening. We are changing from a peacekeeping role to war fighting mode, and we are being drawn progressively deeper into the Bosnian war situation.
  That is precisely what has happened in the safe havens. The United Nations is trying to do its peacekeeping, but the combatants are determined to fight and are doing so. In the course of fighting, they are threatening our troops. We have given strong assurances about the safety of those troops. Nevertheless there is little that we can do to stop the fighting and reduce the hazard.
  Against that background, I urge the Government to regard Gorazde as a special situation. I believe that it will become a special situation shortly, if the precedents of Srebrenica and Zepa are anything to go by. We should therefore regard it as a special situation, requiring very special treatment within the overall policy. I am not talking about a withdrawal policy for the whole of Bosnia. I am discussing the specific position in Gorazde, which is under imminent threat. It is quite clear to me that the United Nations peacekeeping role has failed in the safe havens and the sooner we recognise that reality, the better it will be for us all.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: While listening to the debate, I have scribbled down some notes to try to structure a reasoned statement, but it has taken a turn that almost compels me to throw them away.
  First, I shall establish my credentials for commenting on the situation in Bosnia. I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence, which has visited Bosnia three times in the past two and a half years—the last time about two months ago. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who I suppose will wind up the debate, knows all about those visits because he led them as Chairman of the Committee.
  The Committee visited many military units. I must associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) because my son was in charge of maintaining the armoured personnel vehicles that went in with the Duke of Wellington's regiment when it made a dash from Vitez to Gorazde to lift the first Serb seige. If we had time—and if you would lift the rules on parliamentary language, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I could tell hon. Members exactly what my son thought about the Bosnian situation.
  I have also discussed the Bosnian situation with delegates from many nations in my capacity as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly and of the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe states, so I am as reasonably well versed about the situation as any hon. Member might claim to be. Bearing that in mind, I must comment on some of the observations made by what I would call couch

  1773
  commentators who may not have visited Bosnia, who do not know the terrain and who do not understand the complexities of the situation.
  We tend to sit here judging the situation with the Geneva convention at the back of our minds. It is not like that. The Bosnian forces do not behave in that manner. The lack of chivalry in Bosnia has to be seen to be believed. Unless we are prepared to take that on board and accept what kind of adversaries we are dealing with among all of the combatants, we are spitting against the wind.
  Two months ago, 400 hostages—many of them manacled to lamp posts and telegraph poles—were used to deter an air strike. I put it to the House that, in Gorazde, the Bosniac—hon. Members will note that I do not say "Muslim"—army has threatened to use the Ukrainians as hostages and as bodyguards against Serbian fire unless the United Nations authorises NATO air strikes against the Serb forces. What can one do in the face of that sort of treachery? It is an absolutely crazy situation.
  We talk about insisting on the re-establishment of frontiers and safe havens that were never safe in the first place. The so-called safe havens were never adequately staffed and the staff were never adequately equipped. When those so-called safe havens are infiltrated by Bosniac elements and used as springboards for launching attacks against encircling Serbian troops, how safe can we expect them to be? The whole situation is fraught with such mendacity that we do ourselves a disservice by trying to make sense of it in terms of the standards that we applied previously according to the Geneva convention.
  What should we do? I tried to hint at one option in the very limited time for debate following the statement the other day. When the hostages were held last time, the most effective ally we had—pressured by the Russians—
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Milosevic.
  Mr. Cook: Yes, Milosevic; my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He dragged Karadzic to the negotiations and when Karadzic left the negotiations, having been forced to climb down, he had a face like a boy with a smacked bottom. Instead of considering Milosevic's reported claim that he will help if we ease the sanctions, we must make the sanctions ever more stringent and tell Milosevic in clear terms what will happen unless he co-operates to the full in bringing the situation to an end.
  We have already broken a federation between the Croats and the Bosniacs in central Bosnia, for which we should give the UN credit. I am not talking only about Britain's part, but that played by the other 41 nations. If we could succeed with the Croats and Bosniacs, who were tearing themselves apart two years ago, there is no reason—given the right approach, pressures and sanctions—why we can not do so with the others. Milosevic helped two months ago, and he can help this week.
  What sickens me is the amount of criticism that is levelled at the United Nations. Members of both Front Benches have made the valid point that the UN is us. Having visited Bosnia three times during the past two years, I can tell the House that the United Nations is coming of age through this bloody awful mess. Two years ago, it was chaotic. Twelve months ago, huge improvements were to be seen. This year, the UN is a very good organisation. It is not perfect, but it has real determination and high morale. Instead of using the UN—and Britain is a member of the
  1774
  Security Council—as some kind of whipping boy to expunge our feelings of guilt and shame, we ought to give it credit for doing a first-class job.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) based much of his argument on three principles learnt in Vietnam. They are a defined objective, sufficient forces equipped more than adequately, and a clearly defined escape route. We have none of those principles operating in Bosnia. Even if we had, they would not have been workable because we have not in the past come into conflict with the standards operating in Bosnia. Until we learn that lesson, we do not have much chance of resolving the problem. I hope that we will learn the lessons by Friday, when the summit is to be held. I wish the Government well; they have the prayers of all of us.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I join him in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who was previously Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, on which I serve.
  The House is right to debate Bosnia today, before it rises for the summer recess and in advance of the Lancaster house summit this Friday. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) that we may well return during the summer recess for a renewed debate.
  Although we are debating Bosnia, the broader issue of the former Yugoslavia is foremost in our minds. The United Nations was first involved in the former Yugoslavia when it established UNPROFOR 1, now renamed UNPRO. There is much unfinished business in Croatia, and it will have to be resolved before the pieces of Bosnia can be reassembled in a way that provides any chance of lasting peace. Large areas of Croatia are still unlawfully occupied by Serbia. The uneasy truce in that country has been broken because Zagreb was shelled by the Serbs. That situation must be resolved before peace can come to the former Yugoslavia.
  We supported the establishment of UNPROFOR 2, but its mandate has run its course and requires redefining in light of the current situation. It is easy to say that the United Nations is faced with mission impossible. Without UNPROFOR, however, the situation would have been much worse. Fatalities have fallen from about 130,000 in 1992 to only 2,500 in 1994. That is thanks to the efforts of the UN, the aid agencies, other organisations and many volunteers who deliver humanitarian aid. Nor let us forget the work that is done by the Overseas Development Agency. Humanitarian aid has saved tens of thousands of lives. The so-called safe enclaves may not have succeeded entirely, but there is no doubt that they have substantially reduced ethnic cleansing.
  We have been told that the safe enclaves required 36,000 troops to implement them and that only 7,500 were forthcoming from UN members. The first lesson is that it is no use the UN passing resolutions without first agreeing how the proposals are to be executed. It is greatly to the credit of the Government that we fulfilled our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council by doing our bit so readily.

  1775
  The UN is faced with several options. I join those who say that it would be wrong to speculate on which one should be followed. There is no doubt that an all-out NATO offensive is entirely out of the question. That has been forgotten time back. A complete withdrawal is probably wrong. Perhaps moving our troops out of Gorazde is a possibility. I know only that whichever of the options we act upon, reinforcements will be needed quickly.
  Total withdrawal could well mean all-out war in former Yugoslavia. It would mean bringing Serbia, and probably Croatia, back in on opposite sides. Such a war could spread to Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. An all-out Balkan war would ensue. Even Greece and Turkey might be involved, as might the whole of the eastern Mediterranean. I am sure that the House agrees that, in that way, lies chaos. I hope that the United States Senate has the sense not to pass Senator Bob Dole's resolution with a two-thirds majority that enables it to veto the President.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it is extremely expensive in terms of manpower to carry out a total withdrawal. It has been estimated that it would take 22 weeks to complete the exercise and that 60,000 more troops would be required. I should be interested to know the current estimates. Besides being morally wrong, total withdrawal would be entirely impracticable.
  Whatever the UN, and the Government as a member of it do, some reinforcements are required at once. That will be a real test of how rapidly NATO's rapid reaction force can react. We know that 1,300 additional British troops are already in Bosnia. What about the remaining 4,000 from the 24 Air Mobile Brigade? Why do we have to wait until the end of August for them to arrive? Is the brigade really as air mobile as its name implies? Surely there are heavy lift air transports available on the open market that could be hired to convey these troops. Or are we waiting for a free lift from our American allies? If lives are at stake, which they are, I regret that the troops of the 24 Air Mobile Brigade have not already been flown out to Bosnia to reinforce our troops there.
  Members of the Select Committee on Defence met our troops when we visited Bosnia under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister earlier this year. On behalf of my colleagues, I put on record our tribute to the British troops deployed in Bosnia and the British UN commander, General Rupert Smith. Their professionalism, courage and ability to cope with ever-changing and dangerous situations are to be admired—as they are by everyone who has seen them operate. Put simply, we have the best troops in the world. Their morale is high and their leadership is second to none.
  There is, however, one matter that causes concern. I refer to the rules of engagement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) dealt with that fully and I support everything that he said.
  What about public opinion? Last night, Jeremy Paxman, whom I never thought I would would be complimenting in this place, compered the BBC programme "You Decide—With Paxman". A large
  1776
  invited audience, with many experts present, debated whether we should withdraw from Bosnia or stay in support of the United Nations.
  Before the debate, 30,000 people voted by telephone; 57 per cent. were in favour of pulling out and only 43 per cent. wanted to stay. Following an intensive and well-informed debate lasting nearly an hour, the views of those who had voted changed to 69 per cent. in favour of staying in and only 31 per cent. in favour of pulling out.
  During the debate, phrases such as, "aggression must not pay", "pulling out would be apocalyptic" and "we must reinforce the principles of the United Nations charter" were used. Those statements all seem to echo the public mood in Britain today. But best of all were the words of a mother of a British soldier serving in Gorazde. She said, "There is no shortage of military courage. What is now needed is political courage." I hope that the House will endorse that view.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am always suspicious when people such as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) talk about other people's courage. My Front Bench and some of my other colleagues will forgive me if I offer a dissenting view.
  I am older than most people here and, for that reason, did national service and was tank crew. I hold the passionate belief that those of us who have the privilege to sit on green Benches in the House of Commons should not commit our fellow countrymen to hazardous situations unless they are properly protected. The fact is that they are now in a combatant role.
  I am not complaining to the Secretary of State for Defence, but he was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that these people are not abiding by anything like the Queensberry rules. It is a brutal situation. If our fellow countrymen are to be committed to a brutal situation, they really must have covering defence. That means, I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), some kind of armoured protection.
  If further action is to be taken, will there be armoured cover? If so, it is easy to put in forces, but we must be clear about the kind of circumstances in which they will be pulled out. We found that in Northern Ireland and the Russians found it in Afghanistan. Pulling out forces is a delicate, difficult matter.
  Once we go into the Bosnian mire—it may be right or it may be wrong, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short)—pulling out will not only be in my lifetime but in the lifetime, if we are not careful, of the youngest among us. That might seem like Cassandra, but I believe that that is the situation.
  If more forces are put in and their role develops, whether they like it or not, into a combatant one, what is the Government's estimate of how long they will be there—we are talking in terms of decades—and are we sure that the British people have the will to carry on for decades? I do not think so. I was invited to a mess night at Catterick of my old regiment, the Scots Greys, now the Scots Dragoon Guards. Those people are serious soldiers and they would in all circumstances do their duty wherever they were sent, but they and the parachute officers who were there asked me as a politician how much support they would receive if their role became a

  1777
  combatant one. After what we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, who is to say that it is not now, de facto, a combatant role?
  My second question involves the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. I do not want to misquote him—he will interrupt me if I have in any way misinterpreted him or done him an injustice. I understood him to say that the Government were still contemplating the use of air power and that it might well be necessary. Indeed, when in Question Time I asked a direct question on air power, there was no denial. I take it from the Secretary of State's silence that the air option is open.
  If the air option were used, what would happen to those of our fellow countrymen in uniform who are pursuing a humanitarian role? As soon as those aircraft began to drop bombs, what would happen to the men in blue berets on the ground? Slit throats? In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, I think that they would meet a possibly brutal end. What would the House of Commons say then? In such situations, one has to look from the other side of the hill to see the dreadful scenarios that might develop.
  By taking this attitude towards the Serbs—however brutal they may have been—we are risking defying reality. One of the realities was that Tito, during his troubles with Stalin, decided to have a deterrent. It was not a nuclear deterrent; it was training the most formidable, expert, tough guerilla army in the world. That is what had been learnt from the German occupation. In that terrain, how on earth are we ever going to have military success against people who feel that they have great causes? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North explained, that is true of both sides in the conflict.
  The option I have described may seem not so much craven as that we are not fulfilling our duty, but we have many duties and international obligations. I wonder whether such wealth as we have to devote internationally should not be devoted to the drought in Zambia, which is creating terrible problems, or to the appalling situation that is developing in Malawi and Mozambique. If we are talking about saving lives, there are other places in the world where, instead of becoming involved in a civil war, we may be more effective in relieving great and equal hardship.
  10.37 pm
  Dr. David Clark: As I look around the Chamber this evening, I see many familiar faces and one or two new faces on the Government Front Bench, which I am pleased to see. We listened to the words of the Secretary of State for Defence with great care today, and understood that he spoke with great moderation. I shall perhaps return to one or two of the things he said and question him in a moment or so.
  I recognise faces because this is one of the many debates that we have had on the subject of Bosnia—from the days back in 1992, when we were talking about whether troops should be committed and whether we should play a part in UNPROFOR. We were pleased that the Government decided—we felt, rather belatedly—to play their part, and have done so fully.
  Every one of the debates has shown the fervour and the passion across both sides of the House. There are those who feel that we should be doing more. If I may say so
  1778
  to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there are those with more cautious heads who, based on experience, tell us to think twice. They have the experience of being in the military, and know how difficult it is when one takes such action. The Government have to try to put matters in the balance and work out the risks to which we are prepared to expose our troops, our men and women. They must also place in the balance the gains for the world.
  I know that the House will appreciate that the Opposition have not tried to make political capital out of this matter. There is far too much at stake for that: we are debating the lives of our people. It is right for us to take that view, because, in a sense, we are fighting to try to ensure that the values of the House and of our country can be brought about in the troubled country of Bosnia.
  Those are the values of tolerance and understanding, of living together free from religious persecution and ethnic intolerance. Therefore, although we have our disagreements and feel strongly about many matters, we should remember that we are fighting for values and to try to get aid through and create a stable society in Bosnia so that those values, which once almost existed, can flourish in a true democracy.
  Anyone would have to have a hard heart not to be moved by the telling pictures on television of the refugees streaming out of Srebrenica into the airport at Tuzla. Those refugees are wretched, emotionally broken and in utter and complete despair. I am not making a racist point when I say that those people are like most of us—Europeans. They had saved for their houses, washing machines and cars, but suddenly they found themselves with a bundle of clothes—if they were lucky. Everything had gone, and one could not but recognise the dreams that had been shattered.
  I hope that our intelligence forces and military personnel in UNPROFOR in the vicinity of Tuzla will collect evidence to make sure that the war criminals who have perpetrated such crimes will ultimately have it used against them. I urge that important point upon the Secretary of State, and hope that such action will be taken.
  In a sense, the haunting television pictures showed the need for UNPROFOR. I watched television over the weekend, and saw the despair of people living rough. Then we saw the order of 48 hours later. A tented village around the airport enabled people to at least live under some cover, protected from the night and the midday sun. Only one organisation could provide such help, and that is the UNHCR working with the non-governmental organisations.
  I can think of no better reason for being in Bosnia than the fact that the UNHCR provided succour for those refugees, and that UNPROFOR provided cover for the UNHCR. That was brought home to me when I spoke today to the representative of Oxfam. He was speaking to me at midday from a Land Rover at the runway in Tuzla.
  I asked him to explain the situation, and he said, "There are thousands of people and hundreds of tents. When I look round, I see one group giving vaccinations and another providing food for mothers." They were keeping people alive, and that representative said, "Please tell the

  1779
  House of Commons to keep the British troops in UNPROFOR and in Bosnia, because most of us in the NGOs will have to withdraw if UNPROFOR withdraws."
  Ms Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Clark: I am short of time, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to make one or two military points.
  It is important to keep UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Perhaps I could develop that. We should remind ourselves of the debt that we and the world owe UNPROFOR. We owe a debt to the men and women of 29 nations who have gone to Bosnia, risked their lives, and, in some cases, lost them—14 of them from our country. I am full of admiration for them.
  People talk about armchair generals, and I guess that we have some of them, but how can one have anything but admiration for the Bangladeshis who were sent up to Bihac? They had to fight against the rebels and the Serbs. On occasion, they had to resist the BiH, and they had one rifle between four of them. That takes some bravery. Many other ordinary soldiers have had similar experiences. We should remind ourselves that the grief of a family in Bangladesh is just as great as the grief of a family in Wrexham.
  We have a particular and especial responsibility towards Gorazde, and in particular to the Royal Welch Fusiliers stationed there. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) referred to those troops. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) repeated his grave concern about whether those soldiers have adequate protection, and have been adequately protected. That concern extended to the Government's responsibility towards them.
  I spoke to someone only today who came out of Gorazde recently. The Secretary of State for Defence knows how he and an entire group achieved that, but it would not be right and proper to go into details, because we do not telegraph our military operations to the other side. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that, and I shall not press him on operational matters.
  We know that morale of the troops is still high; they are trained professional soldiers, and can cope with the problems they face. Their families in Wales and in other parts of Britain, however, are worried sick. Despite the brave words of brave people, most of the ordinary families of those 200 soldiers are looking to the Government to ensure that those soldiers are either sent reinforcements or relieved of their duties. Whatever the Government can do to ensure their safety and that of the refugees they are there to protect will have our full support.
  I have no intention of discussing operational matters. I am more aware than most of the dangers in Gorazde. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and I spent some time with the Muslims in that safe haven. We know about the configuration of the mountains and the bluffs. We know that the access roads are mined, and that the main access to the town is through tunnels controlled by the Serbs. We know that any helicopter that flies in is a sitting duck for any artillery on the hillsides. We know about all those difficulties, but we must work out ways to get the troops stationed there out or to send others in to protect them.
  1780
  Many of us were delighted when the Prime Minister announced on 31 May that a more robust contingent of soldiers would be sent to Bosnia, which would be able to react quickly if our troops or any other UNPROFOR troops were under threat. Some of them went, but for many hon. Members and members of the public, the conundrum is what has happened to 24 Airmobile.
  We were told that that elite force of 5,000 self-contained personnel from two or all three services would be a rapid reaction force. That was six weeks ago, but we understand that it will be at least another four weeks before that force is operational. We understand the difficulties. We understand that some of the engineers in that force are already in Ploce making the hard stands for helicopters.
  Most of us cannot understand why it will take nearly eight weeks for one of our ace elite corps, which has a prime role as a rapid reaction force, to be deployed. Why has that deployment been so slow?
  Will the Minister give us some information about, or will he deny, the story that it is now planned not to deploy the full complement? Will he deny that there are plans to deploy only a half or two thirds of 24 Airmobile? The House expects to have an answer to that, without the Minister having to go into any operational difficulties.
  I think that we have made our view fairly clear. We still believe that our troops and those of the other 28 nations that have personnel in the former Yugoslavia are doing a worthwhile job. We believe that, if at all possible, they should remain there.
  We equally believe that, if there is one cardinal lesson that we must learn from Bosnia, it is that we do not issue ultimatums, we do not issue threats, unless we have the capability and the intention to carry them out. We must create a state in which the Bosnian Serbs will go to the table with the Bosnian Government and come to a negotiated settlement. Until they do that, there will not be peace in that country. We believe that the presence of UNPROFOR is helpful in achieving that purpose.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): It is obviously a great privilege for me to stand at the Dispatch Box; I only wish that there was a happier occasion on which I could do so. I hope that that will arise in due course.
  The matter that we are discussing is obviously of great concern to both sides of the House and to every Member of it. I very much welcome the approach taken by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and the support that they have given the Government's policies. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, this is not a proper occasion for party political differences. We must unite as a House to find the solution to this extraordinarily difficult problem.
  Before I discuss that in more detail, I want to knock on the head something said by the hon. Member for South Shields. I assure him that there is absolutely no ground for any rumour that he might have heard that we plan to deploy anything less than the full 24 Airmobile Brigade. It is already being deployed. The plan is to deploy all the

  1781
  troops that were originally announced, and that will be done as fast as is possible in the rather difficult circumstances that we face.
  As the House knows, there is no easy answer to the problem. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, at present there are only three options. The first is escalation of the conflict, into a war in which we become directly involved. I do not believe that either the House or the British people wish us to take that course.
  The danger to our troops and to the humanitarian aid people would be out of all proportion to any impact that we could make in finding a proper solution to the conflict. The second option is that we continue with the United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping activities to the best of our ability. The third option is that we withdraw our troops.
  The Government's preference is clear and unequivocal—we remain convinced that UNPROFOR has a key role to play, and we want it to stay. For as long as we are able, we must do all we can to alleviate suffering by ensuring that humanitarian aid gets through to those who need it. We must pursue vigorously all avenues towards a political settlement. The Government's efforts will be dedicated to that end.
  In the rather short time remaining, I want to deal with the point that have been raised in the debate. First, however, I want to set out clearly why we believe that we should stay in Bosnia to do what we can.
  First, the value of the work being done by our troops and those of our allies in the areas where they are deployed is invaluable. I had the great privilege, as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, to go to Bosnia on three occasions. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, our Committee went there and looked at the problem closely on the ground.
  One of the things that struck me most was the value of the work being done, not only by our troops but by the Overseas Development Administration and all the volunteers who are working in that field. We went to several towns where the water and electricity would not have been working were it not for the British input to ensure that it did.
  I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the British-controlled area, it is only the presence of our troops that prevents the renewal of the conflict between the Croat and Bosniac sides. Were that conflict to break out again—which it inevitably would if we were to withdraw—the bloodshed would escalate once again to the kind of levels that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned—130,000 dead in 1992, as opposed to 2,500 in 1994. We have a responsibility—the international community and we as a member of the Security Council have a duty—to do everything in our power to prevent such a tragedy from recurring.
  The consequences that were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Livingston go beyond our activities in Bosnia. I have no doubt that, if the international troops withdraw, we shall find ourselves with a rapidly worsening problem in Croatia, where the Krajina Serbs are under continuing pressure from the Croatian forces. I believe that that would break out again into a major conflict.
  Of course, we all know, and have discussed many times, the real danger of the conflict spreading well beyond the boundaries even of the former Yugoslavia, and
  1782
  threatening the whole of the eastern region of NATO. I do not think that that is a likely outcome, but it is one that the House must take into account when deciding what we should do.
  I also believe that, were we to withdraw, Serb aggression would be greatly encouraged. I have no doubt that the presence of the Dutch, difficult though it was for them, in Srebrenica prevented a much worse massacre than that which I fear may have taken place. I think that our presence around Bosnia prevents not only the Serbs but all participants in the conflict from inflicting horrific injury and torture on each other.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made a very good point: this is not a one-sided conflict in which there are white hats and black hats at war. It is a conflict in which the depth of bestiality is incomprehensible in a civilised world, and it is not confined wholly to the Serbs.
  Having said all that, it may be that we shall have to withdraw from Bosnia because there is a limit to the risk to which it would be right for us to expose our troops. That has been said by hon. Members of all parties, and it is a point which I can assure the House the Government consider seriously when trying to find a route ahead.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who until recently was our Foreign Secretary, pointed out that we can operate in this theatre only with the consent of the parties. As the House will know, Mr. Sacirbey has recently indicated that he may wish us to withdraw. Whether that turns out to be a diplomatic manoeuvre or a genuine request, time will tell. Certainly, were we to be requested to withdraw, the Government's position and that of the international troops on the ground would become untenable.
  As the hon. Member for Livingston also said, if it becomes too dangerous for whatever reason for our troops to remain in theatre, or especially if the embargo is lifted—meaning that the Bosnians could get an unlimited supply of weapons and thus escalate the conflict—it would not be possible for us to remain in theatre.
  I deal now with four specific points that the hon. Member for Livingston raised. First, he asked whether there had been any intelligence report about what was happening in Srebrenica and, if so, why did we not respond to it? I am sure that Opposition Members know and understand that it would be wrong for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on intelligence or other information that we might or might not have received.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Dutch troops had requested air support. I believe that that is the case; certainly it is essential and well recognised by the Government that we should rapidly review the procedures whereby air support can be called on. While I cannot tell the House the outcome of those discussions, I can assure the House that they are being pursued vigorously, and particularly with the potential need to call it in in support of the British position if necessary.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I cannot. I have only four more minutes, and I have a great deal to get through.
  The hon. Member for Livingston asked why our troops are in such an exposed position without contingency plans. Again, I have to say to him, and I am sure that he will understand, that I cannot possibly discuss

  1783
  contingency plans—which may or may not have been arranged—in detail and in public. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary already have, that the safety of our troops is and will remain of paramount importance to our country, and the Government are deeply aware of our duty to protect our soldiers in the positions in which they find themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what use the rapid reaction force would have specifically, as it is clearly not there as a fighting force. There are two particular reasons why the rapid reaction force is there, to improve the protection of the convoys and the routes along which they travel, and indeed to improve the security of those areas in which our troops are deployed; secondly, to strengthen the position and safety of our own troops. As I said before the hon. Gentleman was able to return to the Chamber, we are deploying the full complement of 24 Airmobile Brigade and all those support troops which were mentioned in the original plan.
  I turn now to matters raised by some other hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) raised the question of the safety of the Welch Fusiliers, something on which several other hon. Members commented—not least the hon. Member for Stockton, North, whose son has served in Gorazde, and who knows it well. I understand that the right hon. Member for Llanelli has been briefed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Services, and I hope that he found what he was told reassuring. I cannot go into the detail, any more than I could before, about the plans being made in that part of the world, but I reiterate the concern of the Government for the safety of those soldiers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has apologised to me for not being able to be in the House at the moment, raised the need for strategic thinking. He is, of course, quite right. The meeting on 21 July is aimed specifically at finding such a strategy, and it is very important that we do so.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made much the same point, when he said that there was a need for clear political objectives, and that we must ensure that the military capability is matched to those objectives. That was undoubtedly a failing of the United Nations plan, and it must not be allowed to recur. I fear that I am running out of time, so I apologise to those hon. Members whose speeches I have not been able to deal with.
  These are complex and difficult issues, greatly exacerbated by the tragedy and the appalling level of civilian suffering that we watch. We are determined to try to find a way to move matters forward, both on the diplomatic track and with regard to UNPROFOR's mission. It is to that end that we shall be working strenuously with our partners, not only in the meeting on Friday, but thereafter. The ultimate solution must be a diplomatic and not a military one, and the international community, despite all the difficulties, must strive to find it.
  1784
  There is, however, a limit to what we can do. We have offered the parties to this conflict an opportunity—
  It being three hours after it was entered upon, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to order [17 July].

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts, and a measure:—

  Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995

  Merchant Shipping Act 1995

  Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Act 1995

  Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

  Crown Agents Act 1995

  Environment Act 1995

  Pensions Act 1995

  Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995

  Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995

  Insurance Companies Reserves Act 1995

  Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

  National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1995

  Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995

  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995

  Child Support Act 1995

  Criminal Appeal Act 1995

  Children (Scotland) Act 1995

  Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1995

  Sheffield Assay Office Act 1995

  Birmingham Assay Office Act 1995

  Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I will put motions 11 and 12 together.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7514/95, relating to the second phase of the financial instrument for the environment; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that the programme incorporates measures for monitoring, evaluation and dissemination to improve value for money.—[Mr. Wood.]
  RELATIONS WITH MEXICO
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4966/95, on relations between the European Union and Mexico; and supports the Government's view that this is a welcome development in relations between the European Union and Mexico.—[Mr. Wood.]
PETITIONS

  Road Safety (Leicester)
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: The first petition concerns a crossing in my constituency on the junction of Hungarton boulevard and Steins lane. For many years, a crossing patrol operated on this dangerous junction. The local county council provided the resources for that crossing patrol. That crossing patrol was stopped but, as a result of a number of protests by local residents, including myself, there has been a temporary reinstatement of the crossing. Schoolchildren have to go past that junction every day to a number of local schools.
  One thousand local residents have signed the petition, which concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Education to allow Leicestershire county council to re-appoint a crossing guide on a permanent basis on this site, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Payphones (Leicester)
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Vaz: The second petition has been prepared by a number of local residents, especially pensioners, in the Goodwood area of my constituency. They have been trying to get British Telecom to provide a payphone service in the Goodwood area because they do not have a telephone service in their homes and they feel that it is an important local amenity. More than 200 people have signed this petition, which ends:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House calls on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to provide this service, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Housing (Hampshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  11.6 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I thank the Minister for remaining at this late hour because I want to raise the matter of housing in Hampshire, principally because of the widespread and continuing concern in my constituency about the housing plans of Hampshire county council for 2001 to 2011. The county plan envisages 48,000 extra houses, which the county claims are required to meet need arising within the county, mainly because of the welcome fact that people are living longer and the unwelcome fact of an increase in the divorce rate, involving the division of households.
  I do not want to make a party point, but I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that since political control of Hampshire county council changed, there seems to have been a sea change in attitude. The previous Conservative-controlled county council resisted the figures offered by SERPLAN—the south-east regional plan—covering the period ending 2001. Now the county seems gung-ho for higher numbers.
  There are, however, new factors which should in some measure limit the need for so many new houses. First, there are approximately 26,000 empty houses in the county, many in military establishments. The Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 27 June, at column 689, plans to sell off surplus empty houses within six months of them becoming vacant. I warmly welcome that and congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Ministers on bringing forward the proposal. It should make an unexpected addition to the number of houses available in the county.
  Secondly, the Labour party's abandonment of its threats against shorthold tenancies means that many more landlords can now feel reassured that they can get repossession if needed, without a political risk if there were to be a change of Government. This should encourage the owners of empty private accommodation to let it, knowing that if they need to, they can get it back.
  Thirdly, I was delighted that the Secretary of State announced help for the Empty Homes Agency, which helps local authorities with schemes to secure the use of previously empty houses. These three measures should shrink that total of 26,000 empty properties significantly. It is little known, but there is an important allowance that provides encouragement to people to let a spare room to a lodger. Up to £3,250 can be charged, and that income is entirely free from income tax. May I encourage the Minister to take this concession off the secret list and publicise it widely? It has considerable potential for increasing the availability of accommodation for those in need.
  There are factors which bear on the overall figures of housing needed in Hampshire. For example, the proposed concentration of new housing in northern Hampshire that is planned for Basingstoke and Andover. That development is concentrated on the northern part of the Test valley. The area is due to have 3,700 houses completed by 2001. By March this year, only 699 had been built. No one believes that 3,000 houses will be built in this area by 2001.

  1787
  More land has been allocated to that area under the existing plan than is needed. I shall deal with the reasons for that, but the same reasons will continue to apply. That indicates that too much land is to be allocated for the period between 2001 and 2011 in this part of the county. There are important and serious side-effects from this allocation of land. If developers have a choice between urban renewal and a green-field site, they will choose what is for them the lower cost option of the green-field site.
  The Government have a target that half of all new housing should be built in re-used sites. But if there is an excess of green-field sites on offer, that urban renewal will not take place. I make a plea to the Minister to give a lead. He must encourage not just demolition and rebuild in urban areas or infill building—building a second house in a garden—but the division of existing houses to cater for smaller households.
  It is no use providing additional houses in one part of the county to meet a demand which arises at the other end of the county. There is no way in which Andover and the northern Test valley will generate the demand for the numbers envisaged in the proposed county plan. It is self-evident that extra households generated in the north-east of the county will not move some 20 or 30 miles west. So we shall have no pressure for urban renewal when there is an excess of green-field sites on offer. A new settlement further east—preferably with a rail connection—would be a more effective way of meeting the demand that will arise in that area.
  Modern planning is based on the concept of people living near to their employment or near to a rail link. That employment—in Andover's economy—is good, although it is less buoyant than in Basingstoke. We still have more than 200,000 sq ft of empty industrial buildings, which reinforces the indication that new housing on the scale suggested for Andover is excessive and wrongly placed.
  Finally, I turn to the environment, that most precious heritage that we have received and which we have a duty to pass on to future generations with the minimum of damage. We have north of Andover some particularly attractive villages. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is in the Chamber, lives at Tangley, but I was referring particularly to the villages immediately adjacent to the north of Andover—Penton Mewsey, Little London, Picket Piece and Smannell. They lie at the edge of an area of high landscape value, and it has always been understood and entrenched in the Test valley plan that there should be a strategic gap between these villages and the encroachment of Andover town. Alas, the gaps have been whittled away to next to nothing, and the green lungs of the estates of northern Andover and Charlton have been moved further away. I recognise the limit of the Minister's powers in relation to the plans of Hampshire county council from 2000 to 2011, but I hope that the county will rethink this part of its proposals and that such action will be endorsed by my hon. Friend the Minister.
  There is another matter about which my hon. Friend can do something. I refer to research conducted by Leicester university on the housing needs of elderly people in rural areas. Retired people account for some 30 per cent. of rural households, and a substantial proportion have been living in rural areas for more than 20 years. Many, as they get
  1788
  older, will welcome the availability of sheltered accommodation; but very few want to move to such accommodation in towns or urban areas.
  The answer lies in using the planning system to give those people what they want, which is sheltered accommodation in rural villages. There seems to be a planning policy vacuum. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate this opportunity to release family-sized rural housing for the younger generation. Perhaps he would like to discuss the matter with some of the housing associations that specialise in such issues: he might find it well worth talking to the English Courtyard association, a non-profit-making organisation, in view of its extensive research into the opportunity to help to deal with the housing needs of people in rural areas.
  11.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for raising an important subject. Experience shows that he is not the only person who is concerned about it; housing provision in structure plans always seems to be contentious in one way or another, both with regard to the amount of provision to be made and, more particularly, with regard to the location of new housing. Those who are likely to be affected directly by housing development may not be aware of, or may doubt, the need for such development.
  My hon. Friend mentioned four ways of using vacant properties, and of making greater use of properties that are not fully used. They are no secret. I was well aware of the one with which he was particularly concerned some time ago; in fact it has been taken up, particularly in urban areas. I shall check the research done by specialist housing associations. I was very aware of those associations when I wore my previous hat; they have been very useful, and have provided opportunities in both rural and urban areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ensure that we have taken those points into account in the rural White Paper.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which reflects the anxieties of many of his constituents. They arise from the proposals outlined in Hampshire county council's consultation document, "Hampshire 2011", which reviews the Hampshire county structure plan. It identifies four areas of the county as the principal locations for major new housing development in the period up to the year 2011.
  It would, I think, be useful for me to touch on the reasoning behind the figures, and the opportunities for protest and the making of adjustments. First, it is necessary for the county council to review the structure plan. The present plan, which was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at the end of 1993, makes provision for development only up to the year 2001. That means that there is uncertainty about the planning strategy for Hampshire after 2001. If the plan-led system is to operate successfully in Hampshire, there needs to be a clear, up-to-date strategic planning framework for the necessary development over a reasonably long time scale, as I believe that my hon. Friend accepts.
  The starting point for the county council, in determining the level of housing and other provision to make in its structure plan, is the Government's Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, nicknamed RPG9, published in March 1994. The guidance covers the period 1991 to the

  1789
  year 2006, and sets out indicative figures for the level of housing provision for Hampshire. That is given as 6,133 new houses per annum over the guidance period.
  The calculation of the regional guidance housing requirement starts with my Department's household projections, which in turn derive from forecasts of the number of people likely to be living in the region during the period in question. The calculations made by my Department, in consultation with county councils, take into account such factors as the rate at which people are expected to form households, and social changes—which were recognised with what I would describe as a black look by my hon. Friend. There is a trend towards smaller houses. To be fair, the greatest trend is in the years from age 40 to demise, so it may not necessarily be a result of the divorce changes that my hon. Friend suggests. I wondered for a moment whether he was going to suggest that the county council had a hand in that, but he resisted it.
  The level of housing currently proposed for Hampshire in the regional guidance reflects the need arising primarily from natural population growth in the county and is therefore largely aimed at accommodating the population already in Hampshire, plus their children. The household projections form the basis for assessing the total number of dwellings that will be needed in the region, and county councils are able to contribute to the process through SERPLAN.
  Once there is a figure for the housing requirement, we ask SERPLAN to advise on how that requirement should be distributed throughout the region. We also take account of local opinions about the desirable balance between development and restraint. That was emphasised by my hon. Friend. We consider such matters as environmental constraints and the need to balance housing growth with the provision of jobs and services, in addition to market and economic demands and the broad aims of regional strategy.
  All that shows that the housing requirement that county councils are asked to consider is neither an arbitrary figure imposed on them nor a matter of meeting unconstrained demand. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we do emphasise that the Government are firmly committed to the preservation of the countryside—obviously a matter of great importance, as emphasised by my hon. Friend.
  We shall continue to emphasise the importance of making the best use of urban land for new development. When new land for development has to be found, local planning authorities must try to ensure that it is accommodated in ways that are sustainable and do not conflict seriously with the objectives of protecting and enhancing the countryside.
  That is the process on which Hampshire county council is now embarked through the review of the county structure plan. In reviewing the plan, the county council needs to have regard to the regional guidance and also to other Government planning policy guidance set out in the planning policy guidance notes, but it will have its own opinions and will need also to take account of local opinions about appropriate locations for development.
  The county council's initial consultation document has indicated what it considers to be the level of housing needed in the county up to the year 2011 and the way in which that can be best provided. At the same time, it must safeguard important environmental and other constraints. Those who disagree with the proposed strategy have been able to make their comments to the county council. The county council
  1790
  is now considering those comments and preparing a full consultation draft plan, which, I understand, is expected to be published in October. I suggest that a copy of today's Hansard may not do the council any harm.
  When that draft is published, my hon. Friend and his constituents will have a full opportunity to make comments to the county council before the council makes its final proposals in the formal deposited draft plan, which is expected to be in spring 1996. At that stage, anyone who remains uneasy about the proposals will be able to make formal objections to the county council.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is no longer required to approve county structure plans, as those are now adopted by the county councils in the same way that the district councils adopt local plans, the Department will carry out a careful scrutiny of the structure plan proposals to ensure that they are broadly in line with Government policy guidance.
  As well as considering the overall levels of development proposed, we shall want to see how far the strategy and proposals for the main areas of development reflect the principles in PPG13 for sustainable development, and especially the way in which it is proposed that major development will be located in relation to existing or proposed new public transport infrastructure, so that reliance on the private car can be minimised. I emphasise the importance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches to that aspect of planning land use.
  In addition to consultations that I have already mentioned, at the first draft and deposit draft stages there will be discussion of the key issues at what is called an examination in public. There will also be an opportunity for comment to be made at the modifications stage of the process, when the county council publishes the modifications it proposes to make to the plan in the light of any recommendations made by the examination in public panel. Those concerned about the proposals at any stage of the plan can take advantage of all of those opportunities for constructive comment to make sure that their points of concern are put to the county council.
  I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend that there is a proper process and that there will be an opportunity to influence the figures and the location of future developments. There will also be ample opportunity to ensure that the points that he raised tonight and his constituent's concerns are fully aired and considered.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Adjournment debate usually runs for half an hour, the time for debate is not due to expire until 11.33 pm. I did not seek to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) or my hon. Friend the Minister, but as the debate has concluded eight minutes before it was due to end I wonder whether it would be in order for me to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It would not be in order unless the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and the Minister had agreed to that course of action.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the monthly cost to the Exchequer of aid and military costs in Bosnia after the full deployment of the rapid reaction force. [34493]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  After the full deployment of the rapid reaction force, the monthly cost to the United Kingdom of our military contributions to UNPROFOR, and our financial contributions to the UNPROFOR budget will be about £26.1 million. Total UK aid for the current financial year is projected to total some £38.5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estiamte of the proportion of food and medical supplies used in the recent offensives by Bosnian Muslim Government troops supplied and paid for by the United Nations as humanitarian aid. [35268]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have no way of knowing. The food and medical supplies being carried by ODA convoys, which represent a significant proportion of total UN deliveries, are being delivered to their proper destinations. There is no way that the UN can stop legitimate recipients of aid from sharing it with relatives who may also be combatants.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received as to the use of the safe areas in Bosnia by the Bosnian Government for launching attacks against Bosnian Serbs. [36227]

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what estimate the European Union has been able to make of civilian casualties in Srebrenica, during the taking of the town by the Bosnian Serbs; [36321]

  (2) what information he has about the involvement of the Yugoslav Government in the military activities of the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Krajina; and if he will make a statement. [36320]

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he now has as to the whereabouts and circumstances of those people detained by the Bosnian Serbs in their capture of Srebrenica. [36230]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I shall write to the hon. Members shortly.
  1228

  Unfair Dismissal Cases
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [34593]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Two unfair dismissal cases have been brought against the FCO in the last 12 months, neither of which has so far been resolved.

  Overseas Development Administration and the Natural Resources Institute

  There were no unfair dismissal cases brought against the ODA in the last 12 months. The Natural Resources Institute chief executive will write direct to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Redundancies
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34595]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  In the year 1994–95 there no redundancies.

  Overseas Development Administration and the Natural Resources Institute.

  In the year 1994–95 there were 49 redundancies, all compulsory, at a total cost of £1,311,335.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy in respect of issuing guidance to British tourists visiting Kashmir; if the two Britons held captive recently in Kashmir received such guidance; and what measures have been taken to ensure the safe return of the kidnapped Britons. [35372]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have advised visitors not to travel to the states of Jammu and Kashmir for a number of years. The kidnapping of two Britons travelling in Kashmir in 1994 has been pointed out in the travel advice notice for India since it occurred. Travel advice notices are widely distributed throughout the travel industry via electronic information and ticketing systems. They are also available on BBC2 Ceefax and can be accessed on Internet. Advice on travelling to India is available on an automated telephone answering service and members of the public may also contact the FCO's travel advice unit direct
  1229
  between 09.30 and 16.00 hours Monday to Friday. We do not know whether the two Britons being held in Kashmir received advice not to travel there. We are co-operating closely with the Indian and other Governments concerned to secure the early and safe release of the hostages. We will continue to work, largely behind the scenes, through contacts with all those we think may be able to help resolve this situation.

  Mr. Max Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further inquiries to ascertain the timetable for the introduction by the Government of Azad-Kashmir of an ordinance whereby those held in prison for two years without trial may apply for release; and if he will make a statement. [36262]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  English Language Training
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of funding for English language training in eastern Europe which has been dispensed by Her Majesty's Government to the British Council; what proportion of these resources has been used to finance facilities of services directly managed by the British Council; and what proportion has been put out for competitive tender to other private sector commercial firms or suppliers in the years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [35623]

  Mr. Hanley
  The council's grant-in-aid from the FCO was enhanced from 1991–92 to support a co-ordinated strategy to promote English teaching and learning in central and eastern Europe. The total operational funding over the period 1991–92 to 1993–94 was £12.2 million. Funding was at a similar level in 1994–95 but detailed figures are not yet available. This initiative supports 43 resource centres, maintains 120 specialist posts in 98 key ministries, reaches 37,000 teachers of English, and supports 400 senior English language professionals.

  The council has additionally managed know-how fund projects to a total value of £700,000 over the period and administered English language teaching for the armed forces of 13 countries on behalf of the ECU to a value of £350,000.

  Forty per cent. of total expenditure in 1991–92 to 1993–94 consisted of the appointment on contract of freelance ELT specialists.

  Activity worth £3.17 million was subcontracted through open tendering. The council estimate that up to 85 per cent. of all grant-in-aid expenditure was devoted to the procurement of British goods and services, particularly books, training and freelance support.

  Civil Service
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35457]
  1230
  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of permanent industrial and non-industrial staff in the FCO on 1 April 1995 were:

  Male Full time

  Male Part Time

  Female Full time

  Female Part time

  Open Structure

  HCS1A

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HCS2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HCS3

  12

  —

  —

  —

  HCS4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HCS5

  55

  —

  11

  2

  HCS6

  69

  —

  8

  —

  HCS7

  252

  8

  48

  1

  Occupational Groups

  SEO

  80

  1

  19

  2

  HEO(D)

  6

  —

  1

  —

  HEO

  163

  —

  71

  6

  AT

  2

  —

  1

  —

  EO

  223

  —

  174

  24

  AO

  335

  4

  414

  36

  AA

  45

  —

  42

  2

  Senior Economic Assistant

  13

  —

  2

  —

  Economic Assistant

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  5

  —

  7

  —

  Information Officer

  19

  —

  18

  —

  Assistant Information Officer

  3

  —

  8

  —

  Senior Librarian

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Librarian

  3

  —

  5

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  8

  —

  14

  1

  Museum D

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Museum E

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Higher Mapping and Charter Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mapping and Charter Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior P and T Officer

  43

  —

  1

  —

  Higher P and T Officer

  44

  —

  1

  —

  P and T Officer

  17

  —

  —

  —

  Technical Grade 1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Research Officer (S)

  12

  —

  5

  1

  Typing Manager

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  —

  117

  13

  Typist

  —

  —

  59

  9

  Senior Scientific Officer

  45

  —

  16

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  34

  —

  10

  1

  Scientific Officer

  19

  —

  10

  1

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  6

  —

  8

  1

  Catering Manager 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Catering Manager 2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Catering Manager 3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Chef 2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Photo Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Photo Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  PGSB

  2

  —

  —

  —

  PGSC

  5

  —

  —

  —

  PGSD

  8

  —

  —

  —

  PGSE

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Stores Officer B

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stores Officer C

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Stores Officer D

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Support Manager 1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Support Manager 2

  3

  —

  5

  —

  Support Manager 3

  18

  —

  9

  —

  Support Grade B1

  101

  —

  54

  2

  Support Grade B2

  151

  4

  80

  22

  Senior Telecom Tech. Officer

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Telecom Tech. Officer

  22

  —

  1

  —

  Telecom Tech. Officer

  47

  —

  1

  —

  Assistant Telecom Tech. Officer

  72

  —

  5

  —

  1231

  Male Full lime

  Male Part Time

  Female Full time

  Female Part time

  Departmental Groups

  Diplomatic Service 1

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 2

  26

  —

  1

  —

  Diplomatic Service 3

  102

  —

  4

  —

  Diplomatic Service 4

  259

  —

  12

  —

  Diplomatic Service 5

  390

  1

  54

  3

  Diplomatic Service 6

  216

  —

  34

  —

  Diplomatic Service 7M

  352

  —

  90

  4

  Diplomatic Service 7D

  87

  —

  27

  —

  Diplomatic Service 8

  22

  —

  10

  —

  Diplomatic Service 9

  419

  —

  356

  10

  Diplomatic Service 10

  216

  —

  125

  —

  Executive Assistant

  16

  —

  29

  —

  Legal Adviser

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Second Legal Adviser

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Legal Adviser

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Legal Counsellor

  6

  —

  4

  —

  Senior Assistant Legal Adviser

  4

  —

  4

  —

  Assistant Legal Adviser

  3

  —

  2

  —

  Chief Security Officer

  38

  —

  —

  —

  Security Officer

  135

  —

  2

  —

  Medical Officer

  5

  —

  1

  —

  Nurse

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Senior Lecturer

  3

  —

  6

  —

  Senior Field Invest. Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Field Invest. Officer

  13

  —

  2

  —

  Translator 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Translator 2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Translator 3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Queens Messenger

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Queens Messenger Escort

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Cypher Supervisor

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Cypher Supervisor

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Cypher Supervisor

  37

  —

  1

  —

  Telecom and Cypher Officer

  92

  —

  6

  —

  Operator Technician

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Conference Adviser

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Sensitivity Reviewer

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Research Coun.

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Prin. Research Coun.

  9

  —

  3

  —

  Prin. Research Officer

  17

  1

  10

  1

  Senior Research Officer

  7

  1

  6

  —

  Research Officer

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Diplomatic Service 8 Comm.

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 9 Comm.

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 5 Tech.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 6 Tech.

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 7 Tech.

  66

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service 8 Tech.

  85

  —

  1

  —

  Diplomatic Service 9 Tech.

  31

  —

  —

  —

  Diplomatic Service Secretary 1

  —

  —

  120

  1

  Diplomatic Service Secretary 2

  1

  —

  428

  3

  Industrial

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Totals

  4,759

  20

  2,594

  150

  EU Foreign Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will veto the proposed appointment of an EC foreign affairs supremo to promote an EC foreign policy. [35196]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government will oppose any measures that have the effect of undermining the principle of intergovernmentalism in the conduct of the EU's common foreign and security policy—CFSP. Any proposals to appoint a senior figure to promote CFSP would need to be judged in this light. Responsibility for the formulation and execution of EU foreign policy is and must remain a matter for EU member states.
  1232

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35674]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO is committed to equality of opportunity for all its employees. Women make up 35 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants employed by the FCO and the proportion of women is increasing at all management levels. The proportion of women at executive officer level—first management level—has increased from 30 per cent. in 1985 to cover 44 per cent. in 1995. Numbers of women at DS5—middle management level—have risen by 30 per cent. in the last four years. There are six female heads of mission.

  The FCO has an active programme of measures to encourage promotion of women into senior grades.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the number of (i) male (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35663]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested by the hon. Member for 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Men

  5,302

  5,157

  4,851

  4,759

  Women

  2,988

  2,907

  2,754

  2,595

  Total

  8,290

  8,064

  7,605

  7,354

  The information for 1985–1991 is not available.

  1992

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of women

  Open structure

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  10

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  58.5

  11

  19

  Grade 6

  90

  9

  10

  Grade 7

  327.5

  16.5

  5

  Total open structure

  489

  36.5

  7

  Administrative group

  Senior Executive Officer

  97.5

  21.5

  22

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  8

  3

  38

  Higher Executive Officer

  217

  52

  24

  Administration Trainee

  1

  1

  100

  Executive Officer

  435

  181.5

  42

  Administrative Officer

  753

  463

  61

  Administrative Assistant

  150.5

  64

  43

  Total administrative group

  1,662

  786

  47

  Diplomatic service

  DS1–3

  149

  5

  3

  DS4

  280

  8

  3

  1233

  1992

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of women

  DS5

  456

  51

  11

  DS6

  280

  30

  11

  DS7M

  425

  79

  19

  DS7D

  121

  39

  32

  DS8

  42

  13

  31

  DS9

  789

  379

  48

  DS10

  573

  233

  41

  Total Diplomatic service

  3,115

  837

  27

  Economist Group

  14

  3

  21

  Information Officer Group

  54

  32

  59

  Librarian Group

  29

  20

  69

  P and T Group and related grades

  116

  4

  3

  Secretarial Group

  231.5

  230.5

  100

  Support grades

  600.5

  266.5

  44

  Other groups and grades

  1,979

  772.5

  39

  Total

  8,290

  2,988

  36

  Part time staff counted as half in 1992.

  1993

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of women

  Open structure

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  12

  1

  8

  Grade 4

  2

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  80

  6

  8

  Grade 6

  92

  8

  9

  Grade 7

  309

  24

  8

  Total open structure

  498

  39

  8

  Administrative group

  Senior executive officer

  91

  18

  20

  Higher executive officer (D)

  9

  3

  33

  Higher executive officer

  242

  75

  31

  Executive officer

  461

  204

  44

  Administrative officer

  724

  442

  61

  Administrative assistant

  130

  63

  48

  Total administrative group

  1,657

  805

  49

  Diplomatic service

  DS1–3

  139

  4

  3

  DS4

  265

  11

  4

  DS5

  432

  54

  12

  DS6

  262

  31

  12

  DS7M

  428

  94

  22

  DS7D

  112

  36

  32

  DS8

  57

  9

  16

  DS9

  790

  395

  50

  DS10

  445

  184

  41

  Total diplomatic service

  2,930

  818

  28

  Economist group

  15

  1

  7

  Information officer group

  59

  37

  63

  Librarian group

  32

  26

  81

  P and T group and related grades

  132

  3

  2

  Secretarial group

  243

  242

  100

  Support grades

  617

  258

  42

  Other groups and grades

  1,881

  678

  36

  Total

  8,064

  2,907

  36

  1234

  1994

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of Women

  Open Structure

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  11

  1

  9

  Grade 4

  5

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  69

  10

  14

  Grade 6

  93

  9

  10

  Grade 7

  317

  28

  9

  Total open structure

  498

  48

  10

  Administrative Group

  Senior Executive Officer

  94

  22

  23

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  7

  0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  229

  51

  22

  Administration Trainee (HEO)

  1

  1

  100

  Executive Officer

  335

  201

  60

  Administrative Officer

  713

  427

  60

  Administrative Assistance

  108

  48

  44

  Total administrative group

  1,487

  750

  50

  Diplomatic service

  DS1–3

  145

  5

  3

  DS4

  275

  10

  4

  DS5

  442

  56

  13

  DS6

  273

  29

  11

  DS7M

  418

  98

  23

  DS7D

  123

  38

  31

  DS8

  45

  13

  29

  DS9

  794

  399

  50

  DS10

  558

  227

  41

  Total diplomatic service

  3,073

  875

  28

  Economist Group

  25

  6

  24

  Information officer group

  62

  36

  58

  Librarian group

  34

  27

  79

  P and T group and related grades

  121

  3

  2

  Secretarial Group

  251

  251

  100

  Support Grades

  534

  207

  39

  Other groups and grades

  1,520

  551

  36

  Total

  7,605

  2,754

  36

  1995

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of women

  Open structure

  Grade 1A

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  12

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  68

  13

  19

  Grade 6

  91

  8

  9

  Grade 7

  301

  43

  14

  Total open structure

  475

  64

  13

  Administrative group

  Senior executive officer

  101

  21

  21

  Higher executive officer (D)

  7

  1

  14

  Higher executive officer

  240

  74

  31

  Administration trainee (HEO)

  3

  1

  33

  Executive officer

  421

  198

  47

  Administrative officer

  786

  450

  57

  Administrative assistant

  89

  44

  49

  Total administrative group

  1,647

  789

  48

  1235

  1995

  Total

  Women

  Percentage of women

  Diplomatic service

  DS1–3

  143

  5

  3

  DS4

  271

  12

  4

  DS5

  446

  57

  13

  DS6

  250

  34

  14

  DS7M

  446

  94

  21

  DS7D

  114

  27

  24

  DS8

  32

  10

  31

  DS9

  785

  366

  47

  DS10

  341

  125

  37

  Executive assistant

  45

  29

  64

  Total diplomatic service

  2,873

  759

  26

  Economist group

  20

  2

  10

  Information officer group

  60

  33

  55

  Librarian group

  36

  23

  64

  P and T group and related grades

  112

  2

  2

  Secretarial group

  199

  199

  100

  Support grades

  448

  172

  38

  Other groups and grades

  1,484

  552

  37

  Total

  7,354

  2,595

  35

  Filipinos
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Filipino wives of United Kingdom husbands applied from Manila for settlement visas in the United Kingdom in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; and how many were refused. [35659]

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

  Application for settlement visas were received in Manila as follows:

  Received

  Refused

  1992

  917

  359

  1993

  702

  321

  1994

  807

  257

  These will include applications from wives and other settlement categories.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the number of refusals of applications for permanent settlement made from Manila is in line with refusals from other overseas posts. [35660]

  Mr. Hanley
  The settlement refusal rate for Manila in 1994 was 31.8 per cent. The global average was 21.6 per cent. and the average for south east Asia was 18.4 per cent.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of overseas posts takes place by his Department to ensure that particular posts are not refusing abnormally large numbers of applicants for either visitors' visas or permanent settlement visas. [35658]
  1236
  Mr. Hanley
  Statistics on both settlement and non-settlement entry clearance applications are monitored closely by the migration and visa department. Refusal rates are included in these statistics, which are published annually in the "Command Paper on Immigration Statistics". Applicants refused entry clearance for settlement or other long-term categories have a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities. Entry clearance refusals in categories which no longer have a right of appeal following passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, 1993 are reviewed, in all cases, by entry clearance managers in posts. Additionally a scientifically random sample of those refusals is reviewed by Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor of entry clearance refusals, who will present her next report in November.

  World Conference on Women
  Mr. Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what will be the membership and leadership of the Government's delegation to the fourth world conference on women in Beijing; [35760]

  (2) if the Government will support paragraph 97 of the draft platform of action at the fourth world conference on women in Beijing; [35761]

  (3) if the Government will support the draft programme of action at the fourth world conference on women in Beijing that there should be equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, with particular reference to (a) full respect for physical and mental integrity, (b) mutual respect and (c) shared responsibility for sexual behaviour. [35762]

  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if his Department will guarantee the safety of those attending the UN conference on women in Beijing; and if he will make a statement; [36084]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the US State Department's policy that they are unable to guarantee the safety of US citizens attending the UN conference on women in Beijing; [36085]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the threats by Sweden and Norway to boycott the UN International Women's Conference in Beijing. [36106]

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

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to support and assist the resumption of the peace process in Sri Lanka; [35966]

  (2) if it is his policy to support a permanent ceasefire between the Sri Lanka Government and the Tamil Tigers; [35959]
  1237
  (3) how much military assistance and training have been given to the Sri Lankan Government in the last year; [35964]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the ceasefire in Sri Lanka; [35957]

  (5) if he will make a statement on British Sri-Lankan relations; [35967]

  (6) what steps her Majesty's Government are taking to press for a peaceful solution to the war in Sri Lanka; [35963]

  (7) when the British ambassador to Sri Lanka or other British diplomats last visited Jaffna; [35958]

  (8) what representations have been made to the Government of Sri Lanka about human rights abuse in Sri Lanka in the last year. [35965]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what advice he will give to British citizens planning to attend the UN conference on women in Beijing with regard to their personal safety if they are known to have been critical of China's human rights record; [36086]

  (2) what advice his Department has issued in the last 10 years to British citizens, who are known to have been critical of China's human rights record, or human rights activists, when travelling to China. [36087]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Mrs. Resham Bi
  Mr. Max Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by the post in Islamabad on the application to enter the United Kingdom by Mrs. Resham Bi (Ref.IMM/C2414); and if he will make a statement. [36266]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Max Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the post in Islamabad to arrange to visit Mr. Ghazanfer Ali, a prisoner in Mirpur district prison, who has been admitted to a local hospital. [36265]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Iraq (UNSCOM Report)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British companies have been referred to in the UNSCOM report. [36328]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Lady shortly.
  1238
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prosecutions of British companies are pending subsequent to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq—UNSCOM—report [36329]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy in the Library.

  Wrong Doing
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 July, what is his definition of wrong doing. [36375]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Lady shortly.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council. [36380]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Council opened with a general debate on the presidency's programme for their term of office. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made a statement, the text of which is available in the Library of the House.
  The A points listed in document 8853/95, which will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as it is available, were adopted unanimously.The Council took note of the European Parliament resolutions in documents 8507/95 (PE-RE 49) and 8160/95 (PE-RE 45). Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as they are received.Members of the Council acting as an inter-governmental conference reappointed six judges and replaced one judge on the court of first instance.The EU/Tunisia Euro-Mediterranean Association agreement and the EC/Vietnam co-operation agreement were signed in the margins of the Council.The proposed EU/Croatia trade and co-operation agreement was referred to COREPER for further work.On Bosnia, future aid requirements were discussed, and Council conclusions agreed.The EC/Russia interim agreement was signed in the margins of the Council.Second meetings of association councils with Hungary and Poland took place. Discussions in both focused on the pre-accession process.Agreement was reached on terms for concluding the negotiations with Israel for a new agreement with the EU.The Commission gave a brief progress report on the negotiations for new agreements with Morocco and Egypt.The Council confirmed the appointment of Mr. Carl Lidbom, a former Swedish Minister, as head of the EU electoral unit for the Palestinian elections.The Commission presented a communication on the future of EU/Cuba relations, which was remitted to COREPER for further work.The presidency reported on an informal trilogue that had taken place on 12 July between themselves, the Commission, and the European Parliament.1239 The Council agreed that the presidency should acknowledge the requests for accession by Romania and Slovakia.The Council reached agreement in principle on a proposal to provide food aid to certain Republics of the Former Soviet Union.The Commission reported that it was working on a communication on EU/US relations, to be delivered at the October Council.The Council agreed conclusions on export credits which envisage a substantive debate at the October Council.Agreement was reached in principle on the EURATOM/US agreement on nuclear trade.Finally, the Council agreed unanimously that the Commission should pursue an interim agreement in the WTO financial services negotiations.
  A copy of the Council conclusions will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Embassies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 326, if he will provide a breakdown of the figures for vehicles bought for posts abroad, specifying where possible the post and type of vehicle. [34290]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: A list broken down by post and type, showing FCO, including ODA, purchases of official vehicles over the last five financial year is being placed in the House Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Michael John Smith
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the report of the Security Commission on the case of Michael John Smith. [36331]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Lord President announced on 11 January 1994 that after consultation with the late leader of the Opposition, I had asked the Security Commission to investigate the circumstances in which breaches of security had, or might have, occurred arising out of the case of Michael John Smith, who was convicted on 18 November 1993 of offences under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911; and to advise in the light of that investigation whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.

  An appeal by Smith against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 8 June 1995, but his appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. The Commission has now submitted its report to me and it is being published this afternoon as a Command Paper, with the exception of some technical and procedural details which it would not be in the public interest to publish on national security grounds. I am most grateful to the Chairman, Lord Lloyd, and to Sir John Blelloch. Sir Derek Boorman and Lord Tombs.

  The Commission has fully examined the period of Smith's career in defence-related work. The Commission was critical of the initial failure by the Security Service
  1240
  to match Smith's record as a communist with his application for security clearance at EMI in 1976. The Commission felt that there was an unwarranted delay between Smith's identification as a potential threat and these facts being communicated to the Ministry of Defence and Smith's employer. It was concerned about the Security Service's eventual decision to relax its recommendations about Smith when he was put forward for clearance for work at GEC in 1986. It was also unhappy with the way in which the Ministry of Defence agreed to Smith having access to confidential information at GEC.

  However, the Commission recognises that much has changed since these events took place. The threat from subversive organisations is much lower. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact no longer exist. In addition, the Commission has been called upon to investigate a number of other security breaches since 1978 when Smith's clearance was withdrawn and its recommendations have led to significant improvements in the areas of vetting, and more widely, in the field of protective security. Over the same period, Government Departments have also taken initiatives to improve protective security practices. In the light of all this, the Commission has made a number of recommendations. These, in summary, are:

  (a) that the Security Service should continue to keep its organisation and internal lines of communication under review;

  (b) that in cases where candidates lie during the security clearance procedure there should be a very strong presumption against the granting or reinstatement of a clearance;

  (c) that an interview with a subject should be used where appropriate to resolve doubts about a security clearance;

  (d) that the written levels of assessment of an individual should be unambiguous and that all relevant information should be made available to the relevant Government Department before a decision is made on an individual clearance;

  (e) that decisions on the clearance of individuals working on contracts involving access to protectively marked assets in an industrial concern should be taken by Government Departments only after appropriate consultation with the employer;

  (f) that levels of access granted to individuals in industry should be clear and capable of effective implementation;

  (g) that in any case where a security clearance is subject to any limitation, that individual's behaviour and performance should be monitored and reviewed regularly by the Security Service with the employing company;

  (h) that judgements based on experience should not be given excessive credence in work of the Security Service; and

  (i) that appeal arrangements against a decision to withhold or limit clearance both in the civil service and in industry may need to be strengthened.

  The recommendations of the Security Commission have been accepted in principle by the Government subject to further consideration of some detailed points: and work is now in hand to ensure that they are effectively implemented within government and in industry.

  I announced to the House on 15 December 1994 that following a comprehensive review of protective security arrangements generally, a new system for the security vetting of Government employees and contractors would be introduced from 1 January 1995. This will provide the opportunity to consider how best to implement the recommendations of the Security Commission.
  1241

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations led to the policy he adopted towards the ERM in October 1990. [35260]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to participate in the ERM from October 1990 was taken in order to reinforce the Government's counter-inflationary policy at that time.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopes 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, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33910]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department by(a) number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available; [33442]

  (2) how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has a been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33568]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July.

  'Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33931]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on Monday 17 July, Official Report, column 903.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [34696]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the forms of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.
  1242
  The recently announced White Paper "Forging Ahead" outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  Specific measures to assist small firms are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. For details of specific programmes, I refer the hon. Member to their replies today.

  Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will urge the Government of Azad-Kashmir to release from Mirpur district prison Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali to obtain medical treatment in the United Kingdom. [36263]

  The Prime Minister
  Ghanzanfer Ali was admitted to a civil hospital in Mirpur 10 days ago. Our High Commission in Islamabad is obtaining details of his medical condition.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister in what capacity the membership of the First Secretary of State of the Millennium Commission has now been confirmed. [25710]

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no change in the status of the First Secretary of State as a member of the Millennium Commission since his appointment by HM the Queen on 17 February 1994.

  Scottish Education Department
  Mr. John McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration was given to the role of the Scottish Office Education Department during the merger of the Department of Employment and the Department for Education. [34132]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has ensured that ministerial responsibility for education and training in the Scottish office are combined. In addition, he has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment arrangements to ensure close consultation on labour market issues, including agreement of the annual performance targets for the Employment Service and new initiatives to help unemployed people.

  Advertising of Government Posts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minster if it is his Government's policy to advertise posts in its employ on the basis of offering a salary but inviting applications from those willing to work on a volunteer, unpaid basis. [36605]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to write to the hon. Member.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his decision to hold open the possibility of the United Kingdom accepting a single currency in the future. [35204]
  1243
  The Prime Minister
  I believe that we should judge whether or not to join a single currency on the basis of our national interest, given the circumstances of the time. We do not know what those future circumstances might be. It is therefore too early for us to make a decision one way or the other. Furthermore, as I told the House on 28 June,Official Report, columns 893–94, I believe that it is essential for this country to participate fully in the debate over economic and monetary union, to make our practical views count and to stand up for our interests in Europe. We would forfeit our influence over the debate if we exercised our opt-out now. That would not be in our interests.

  Computer Equipment and Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) 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; [34549]

  (2) which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department or its agencies over the last five years, indicating the number of contracts per firm; [33929]

  (3) how much his Department or 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. [33930]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers Wednesday 12 July and Friday 14 July]: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July.

  Honours (Civil Service Secretaries)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many honours in the birthday list were awarded to personal secretaries in the civil list; [34390]

  (2) how many honours in the birthday list were awarded to (a) civil servants, (b) local government officials, (c) local authority councillors and (d) police officers. [34391]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer Monday 17 July 1995]: My recommendations for the birthday honours list contained 1,055 names. Of these 434 were given specifically for their voluntary service, and many others had also given voluntary service which supported their other claims. The list included 10 personal secretaries in the civil service out of a total of 171 civil servants at all grades, including many working for agencies. The list also included 11 local government officials, 13 local authority councillors and 28 police officers.

  Arms Sales (Iraq and Iran)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if any United Kingdom bank involved in the sale of arms to Iran or Iraq during the Scott inquiry acted during that time in the service of Her Majesty's Government; and in what capacity. [34320]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer Friday 14 July 1995]: I am not aware of any such involvement. If the
  1244
  right hon. Member has any relevant information on this subject he will wish to make it available to the appropriate authorities.

TREASURY

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many friendly societies have closed recently and how many of the closures were attributed to the regulatory requirements imposed by the Financial Services Act 1986. [34402]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  So far this year, to June 1995, 10 societies have closed. Two of these were LAUTRO members and therefore subject to the regulatory requirements of the Financial Services Act regime. The reasons for closure are for the societies themselves to determine.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the deficit on visible trade in the six months to April and of the likely effect on output, employment and investment in United Kingdom manufacturing; and if he will make a statement. [35197]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's latest assessment of the factors affecting the visible trade deficit was given in chapter 1 of the Treasury's summer economic forecast, published on 28 June 1995. Net trade directly accounted for over half of the growth of GDP in the year to the first quarter of 1995. It is not possible to isolate the overall effects of trade performance on output, employment and investment.

  Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the likely effect of his monetary and exchange rate policies on output, employment and investment in the manufacturing industry in 1996–97. [35199]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's macroeconomic policies are designed to maintain a stable macroeconomic environment and strengthen the long-term performance of the economy and outlook for jobs, in order to promote rising prosperity based on sustained economic growth.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the fall in the rate of exchange against the ecu which would be required to eliminate the visible trade deficit with EEC countries within a period of 12 months. [35201]
  1245
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The balance of trade with the EU depends on a variety of factors, including competitiveness. The key to sustained gains in competitiveness is control over costs, and policies directed at permanently low inflation and competitive markets provided the best environment in which to achieve this. A policy of deliberate devaluation would only raise inflation and be damaging to long-run economic performance.

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made for the reasons for the difference between the rate of return in the United Kingdom chemical industry and that in other industrial countries. [35203]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There are no internationally comparable official figures available on the rates of return specific to the chemical industry in the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.

  Company Returns
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for the UK, Germany and the USA the pre-tax rates of return for manufacturing and non-financial corporations in each year since 1980; [35360]

  (2) what has been the rate of return on manufacturing since 1970 (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other main industrial countries. [35256]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on United Kingdom net rates of return for manufacturing companies since 1970 is available from the CSO's shared database, which can be accessed through the Library of the House. Latest data were published on 11 July 1995 in the CSO "First Release" on 'Profitability of UK Companies' (CSO (95) 136). Information on rates of return in other main industrial countries since 1970 is published in Table 14 of the OECD's "National Accounts, Volume II".

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the accuracy of Bank of England forecasts of the effect on the balance of trade of increases in real interest rates over the past 12 months; [35257]

  (2) what has been the accuracy of (a) the Bank of England and (b) the Treasury forecast of the effect on output and employment of the changes of interest rates of the last 12 months. [35258]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Forecasts of output, employment and the balance of trade depend on many factors. It is not possible to isolate the effect of changes in interest rates.

  Visible Trade Balance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of monetary policy(a) in the last two years and (b) since the summer of 1994 on the visible trade balance. [35259]
  1246
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is not possible to isolate with any confidence the effects on the visible trade balance stemming from monetary policy. However, the Government's commitment to deliver permanently low inflation will provide a stable climate within which British industry can compete successfully, in both world and domestic markets.

  EU Common Currency
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the targets agreed for timing of a common currency for European Union members after the recent EU conference. [30642]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 June, during his statement to the House on the meeting of the European Council in Cannes,Official Report, columns 893–909.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations he has made on the implications for public expenditure if a national minimum wage of(a) £3 per hour, (b) £3.50 per hour and, (c) £4 per hour, (d) £4.50 per hour and (e) £5 per hour were to be introduced on 1 September and for the fiscal year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [32872]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A national minimum wage would destroy private sector jobs, leading to an increase in public expenditure on social security benefits for the unemployed. In the public sector, aggregate control of running costs in the civil service and our wider approach to pay means that higher spending on pay would have to be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he was consulted by the European Commission about the contents of the Green Paper on the practical arrangements for the introduction of the single currency prior to its publication on 31 May. [33530]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The European Commission's Green Paper was discussed at ECOFIN on 22 May.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are seconded to work with the European Commission on single currency issues. [33529]

  Mrs. Knight
  As of 3 July 1995 there was one United Kingdom civil servant seconded to the European Commission and working in Directorate-General II, Economic and Financial Affairs, the responsibilities of which include work on economic and monetary union.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33450]
  1247
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information prior to 1991 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information for 1991 to date is as follows:

  £000

  1991–92

  8.891

  1992–93

  1,429

  1993–94

  5,019

  1994–95

  4,500

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33499]

  Mrs. Knight
  I regret that information prior to 1991 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table gives the number and value of consultancy contracts awarded by HM Treasury by financial year from 1991–92 to 1994–95. In addition the Department has also incurred expenditure on professional fees in connection with the privatisation programme. These are shown separately.

  Consultancy contracts

  Privatisation contracts

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Value (excluding VAT) £000

  Number of contracts

  Value (excluding VAT) £000

  1991–92

  14

  1258

  10

  8,891

  1992–93

  92

  1,029

  14

  1,429

  1993–94

  70

  1,404

  12

  5,019

  1994–95

  37

  997

  13

  4,500

  1 August-March.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33869]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The information requested is not held in a form that is readily accessible and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [33431]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts and for what total sum were let out 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 and (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market-testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33917]
  1248
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that is has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Members shortly and place a copy of the letters in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) 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; [33864]

  (2) 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. [33896]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Details of consultancy contracts are held on the Treasury contracts database. But as the database cannot identify computer consultancy separately, the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost in a full year of charging individuals, companies and trusts at the rate of 25 per cent. on their capital gains while increasing the annual gross exemption and the chattels exemption to £10,000 in all cases. [34209]

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of charging individuals, companies and trusts at the rate of 25 per cent. on their capital gains while increasing the annual exempt amount for individuals to £10,000 and trusts to half this amount is estimated to be £450 million for 1996–97 liabilities, rising to £700 million in a full year in the medium term. It is not possible to estimate the cost of increasing the chattels exemption to £10,000, but this is likely to be very small in comparison with the figures of £450 million or £700 million.

  Estimates given take account of the likely effect of changes on the volume of disposals in a full year, caused by changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost in a full year of increasing the nil band of inheritance tax to £250,000, reducing the 40 per cent. band to 25 per cent. and exempting from tax all lifetime gifts except those made within three years of death. [34208]

  Mr. Jack
  The full year cost in 1996–97, measured against an indexed base, of increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £250,000, reducing the rate of tax from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent., and exempting from tax all lifetime gifts made more than three years before death is estimated to be just over £1 billion.

  Machinery and Plant Investment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which periods in the last 30 years 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment in machinery and plant have been available. [35070]
  1249
  Mr. Jack
  One hundred per cent. capital allowances were available for expenditure on machinery and plant incurred between 22 March 1972 and 13 March 1984.

  One hundred per cent. capital allowances were also available between 27 October 1970 and 21 March 1972 for expenditure on the provision of a new ship or on new non-mobile machinery or plant for use for industrial purposes in a development area or Northern Ireland. The requirement that the machinery or plant had to be used for industrial purposes was removed between 20 July 1971 and 21 March 1972.

  One hundred per cent. first year capital allowances were phased out as part of the Government's 1984 business tax reforms. The purpose of these reforms was to create a more neutral tax regime based on significantly lower rates of tax, with allowances for depreciation more closely reflecting useful asset life.

  As a result of these reforms, the main rate of corporation tax has been reduced from 45 per cent. to 33 per cent. and the small companies rate is down from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. since 1984.

  EU Unemployment
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he voted at the Council of Ministers on 10 July for sanctions to be applied to EC states which were not proceeding effectively towards the convergence criteria; what is the current level of unemployment in the states concerned; and what estimate he has made of the effect on unemployment if the convergence criteria were adhered to by the nations concerned. [35187]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The ECOFIN Council on 10 July made confidential recommendations to each of the member states with an excessive deficit. No sanctions have been applied to any member state. Member states which receive support form the cohesion fund and also have an excessive deficit—Greece, Portugal and Spain—may be liable to have their cohesion funding suspended under article 6 of the cohesion fund regulation, but this is a decision for the Commission, not the Council.

  The latest OECD standardised estimate of the unemployment rate in Greece in November 1994 is 4.7 per cent., in Portugal in April 1995 is 7.2 per cent., and in Spain in the first quarter of 1995 is 22.8 per cent. The Government believe that the best way to reduce unemployment is by increasing labour market flexibility and creating a stable macro-economic environment. Thus, adhering to the convergence criteria would be consistent with efforts to reduce unemployment in these countries.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of total unemployment within the European Union; and what assessment he has made of the effect on this total of the implementation of the convergence criteria. [35186]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The OECD's standardised estimate of the unemployment rate within the European Union in April 1995 is 9.6 per cent. The Government believe that the best way to reduce unemployment is by increasing labour market flexibility and creating a stable macroeconomic environment. The convergence criteria 1250
  are consistent with the creation of a stable macroeconomic environment.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firearms which had been purchase abroad were brought into the United Kingdom by private individuals in each year since 1992; and what were their categories, classes and types. [36125]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that the information is unavailable.

  Manual Workers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average wage for manual workers in each of the regions of the United Kingdom. [36109]

  Mr. Angela Knight
  Analysis of average earnings for full-time manual workers in the regions of Great Britain is published in part A, table X5.1 of the "New Earnings Survey" report. Information for part-time manual females within the regions is contained in part F, table 180.1. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the percentage of males aged 50 to 65 in full-time employment and (b) the percentage of females aged 50 to 60 years in full time employment. [36122]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Over the quarter ending February 1995 56 per cent. of males aged 50 to 65 were in full-time employment compared with 28 per cent. of females aged 50 to 60 years.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the three-year review of the Valuation Office as a next steps agency is now complete; and if he will make a statement. [36342]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Following the decision earlier this year that the Valuation Office should continue as a next steps agency in the public sector and within the Inland Revenue, the second and final stage of the three year review of the Valuation Office has been concerned with an evaluation of its performance to date, of the framework within which it operates and of the appropriate senior management structure for it.

  The review is now complete. It has found that the Valuation Office has established an impressive track record since its formation as an agency in 1991. successfully completing a number of important operational tasks. The review has identified a number of areas where further improvements would be possible and proposes a comprehensive set of measures to enhance standards of customer service and increase the Valuation Office's overall efficiency and value for money. Details of these are described in an Inland Revenue press release published today.

  I congratulate the Valuation Office on its work to date and I welcome and endorse the review's recommendations.
  1251
  The review has also examined the potential for greater involvement of the private sector in the Valuation Office's work. In the light of this, it is proposed to undertake some carefully controlled experiments to use the private sector on rating and council tax work. The first pilots will take place during the early part of 1996–97. Details of the pilots will be developed in consultation with representatives of the valuation profession, and of other organisations and bodies directly interested.

  As a result of a number of recent changes the senior management structure of the Valuation Office has been reduced from 25 posts at 1 January 1994 to 18 now. No further changes are currently proposed but it is planned to invite a non-executive member to join its management board. An appointment will be announced later this year.

  No immediate changes to the Valuation Office's financial framework are proposed—but its suitability for establishment as a trading fund will be further considered.

  No fundamental changes are proposed to the Valuation Office's operating framework, but some updating of its framework document is desirable. A new edition, together with a summary of the review, will be published later this summer.

  There will be a period of consultation with staff and the trade unions to consider the detailed implementation of the proposals.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information given in the July 1994 "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" booklet. [36343]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Treasury is today publishing a booklet containing estimates of the effects of various illustrative tax changes on tax receipts in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and estimates of the costs of the main tax reliefs in 1994–95 and 1995–96. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Debt Management Review
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the debt management review. [36381]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The debt management review was announced by the then Minister of State to the Treasury on 10 November 1994. It had the following terms of reference:"To review the existing arrangements for the setting of debt management policy, the selling of Government debt and the management of outstanding debt."

  The review was conducted by the Treasury and involved an extensive process of consultation. It was conducted in close co-ordination with the Bank of England. The review covered gilt issuance only. It did not cover national savings.

  The report of the review which I am today publishing jointly with the Bank of England contains the conclusions of the review and discusses a number of other current developments in the gilts market. In particular, the report outlines a number of proposals which represent a further move to an open, predictable and transparent gilts
  1252
  issuance policy, and which promote the liquidity and efficiency of the gilts market.

  The Government and the Bank of England believe that, taken together, these changes will reduce funding costs, to the ultimate benefit of taxpayers. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Oil Installations
  Mr. Alistair Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to change the taxation of oil companies operating in the North sea; and what proposals he has to alter current rules governing reliefs companies may claim in respect of decommissioning or scrapping of oil installations. [31225]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: A number of structural changes to the rules for petroleum revenue tax were made in 1993 and my right hon. and learned Friend has no proposals for further major changes to that tax. The cost of decommissioning North sea oil installations is one of the costs of extracting oil in the North sea. As it is the profits of North sea oil companies that are taxed, it is right that tax reliefs should be given for relevant decommissioning costs.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was, for each company privatised since 1979, the highest number on the share register indicating the date, the date of the privatisation and the present size of the share register. [35093]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The current size of individual company share registers is a matter for the companies themselves and their registrars.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29416]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, column 576, if he will update the figures on fraud in Government Departments. [35515]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Departmental returns on frauds and suspected frauds committed by departmental and agency staff in 1994–95, including cases where staff have colluded with outsiders, are being collated at present. The 1994–95 figures are expected to be available in early autumn.
  1253

  Legislation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35316]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–96 Session.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the number of individuals who paid income tax at a top marginal rate of 40 per cent. or above in each year since 1979–80. [35359]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Information was given in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 July.

  Female Employees
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35461]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The numbers of permanent non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995—before the recent machinery of government changes—for HM Treasury, by grade, on a head count basis were as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 1A

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Chief Accountancy Adviser

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  17

  0

  2

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  54

  0

  10

  2

  Grade 6

  21

  0

  3

  0

  Grade 7

  123

  0

  30

  6

  Graduate Trainee

  0

  0

  2

  0

  AT/HEO(D)

  22

  0

  9

  0

  EA

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant Economist

  27

  0

  6

  0

  SEO

  50

  0

  14

  6

  HEO

  76

  0

  42

  2

  EO

  93

  1

  52

  8

  HSO

  0

  0

  2

  0

  SO

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant Statitician

  6

  0

  3

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Information Officer

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Senior Librarian

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Librarian

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  0

  2

  0

  AO

  91

  4

  81

  5

  AA

  28

  0

  31

  2

  SPS

  0

  0

  19

  2

  PS

  0

  0

  85

  16

  Ch Typing Manager

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Typing Manager

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Typist

  1

  0

  26

  4

  Support Grade B1

  6

  0

  15

  0

  Support Grade B2

  16

  0

  29

  1

  Support Manager 2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Support Manager 3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Student

  8

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  653

  5

  478

  55

  1254

  Taxation (Self-assessment)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards exist to ensure that tax details on people about to begin self-assessment tax returns do not fall into the hands of(a) General Motors, (b) Mr. Ross Perot and (c) American-based employees of the EDS computer company. [33524]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue is responsible for the confidentiality of taxpayer records. Under the terms of its IT services contract with EDS Ltd. that company is required to maintain the Department's security and confidentiality standards while the Inland Revenue will monitor performance against those standards.

  EDS does not process, handle or store taxpayer information outside the United Kingdom without the Department's consent;

  EDS's employees and its agents and subcontractors sign the appropriate statutory undertaking not to disclose taxpayer information;

  EDS reminds its employees, agents and subcontractors every six months of their obligations under the non-disclosure arrangements, and monitors compliance.

  The Inland Revenue has the following safeguards built into the contract and will regularly inspect to ensure:

  EDS reports to Inland Revenue all breaches of undertakings and the disciplinary action taken;

  EDS maintains the security standards set out in the Inland Revenue's security manual;

  EDS observes any departmental requirement not to use specified individuals on Revenue business;

  EDS obtains security clearance for all personnel handling classified information; and

  EDS ensures that all persons involved in delivering the Department's business are aware of their obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1911.

  Legal sanctions—section 182 of Finance Act 1989, on conviction, a fine or imprisonment or both—apply to unauthorised disclosure of personal tax data whether for civil servant or private sector staff.

  Mr. Ross Perot does not own EDS Ltd. It is a subsidiary of a US parent company, EDS Corporation, which is owned by General Motors.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the job losses envisaged as arising under the system of assessment will be redeployed to the fields of compliance and customer service under the change agreement signed between the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and the department of Inland Revenue; and if he will give the figures(a) in total and (b) by region and district. [36213]

  Mr. Jack
  When self-assessment is bedded down the Inland Revenue currently expects to employ around 3,000 fewer staff. This will be achieved only after implementation and is net after the expected deployment of staff into customer service and compliance work.

  As the Inland Revenue gains a better understanding of the way self-assessment will work in practice, it is constantly reviewing those net savings. At present, the figures are not sufficiently developed to permit an estimate to be provided on the basis requested.

  But in accordance with the change agreement, the Inland Revenue has offered to share the detail of that thinking with the main trade union involved—the Inland

  1255
  Revenue Staff Federation. The Inland Revenue remain committed to avoiding compulsory redundancies wherever possible.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional costs in excess of original estimates have been incurred in connection with the introduction of self-assessment of taxation. [36219]

  Mr. Jack
  No additional costs have been incurred to date.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department expects to have identified every taxpayer to whom self-assessment will apply by the start date for the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [36214]

  Mr. Jack
  Yes, the Inland Revenue aims to identify all taxpayers to whom self-assessment will apply by the start date of its scheme.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to how the system of self-assessment will comply with the(a) compliance, (b) cost efficiency, (c) customer services and (d) caring for staff elements of the taxpayer's charter. [36212]

  Mr. Jack
  Self-assessment will be a clearer, more straightforward system. It has been designed following extensive consultation so that taxpayers will find it straightforward to understand and easier to meet their obligations. This will reduce costs for both taxpayers and the Revenue, provide a better customer service and improve compliance. The new arrangements will enable the Inland Revenue to focus its staff more on skilled customer service and compliance activity and less on routine processing activity, thereby enriching jobs under self-assessment.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish details of the costs and savings involved in the introduction of self-assessment of taxation; [36217]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the overall costs involved in the introduction of self-assessment. [36211]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has undertaken in the last five years into systems of self-assessment of taxation in other countries. [36211]

  Mr. Jack
  In preparing for self-assessment the Inland Revenue looked at the experience of the following countries:

  Austria

  Canada

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Ireland

  Italy

  USA

  More recently, visits by officials have been made to both Australia and New Zealand. Lessons from the practical experience in these countries has been built into
  1256
  planning for the implementation of self-assessment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33174]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that information prior to 1991 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. From 1991 onwards the Treasury has had only one contract with EDS for the supply and installation of a memory board.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected payment from public funds to the US-based EDS computer firm for running the self-assessment tax system for each year from 1994 to 2005. [33523]

  Mr. Jack
  The current estimate of the payment form public funds to EDS for developing and running the self-assessment tax system for each year from 1994 to 2005 is, in constant prices:

  1994–95: £1 million

  1995–96: £15 million

  1996–97: £50 million

  1997–98: £45 million

  1998–99: onwards: £35 million

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the contract for providing the computer service to run the new tax self-assessment scheme was awarded to a foreign company. [33527]

  Mr. Jack
  The contract to provide all IT services to the Inland Revenue, not just for self-assessment, was awarded as a result of an open competition run under the EC and general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and advertised in the EC Official Journal. These rules open up to the bidding for Government contracts on a wide basis. The winner was EDS Ltd., a UK subsidiary of a US parent company, EDS Corporation. The EDS bid was evaluated as providing the Department with the best value for money with potential savings of £225 million over 10 years.

  More information on the procurement is available in the National Audit Office report "Inland Revenue—Market Testing the Information Technology Office" which was published on 8 March 1995.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates paid inheritance tax in 1992; what was the total amount of tax collected; and if he will show for each decile of tax-paying estates the amount collected. [36121]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information is in terms of tax liabilities rather than tax collected. The number of inheritance taxpayers—covering both death cases and lifetime gifts—with tax liabilities in 1992–93 and the tax accrual are provisionally estimated at 23,000 and £1.2 billion respectively. The estimated proportions accounted for by each decile of taxpayers—death cases only—are given in the table.
  1257

  Decile group of taxpayers in terms of tax liabilities Percentage

  Estimated proportion of total liabilities (per cent.)

  Top 10

  52

  Next 10

  17

  Next 10

  11

  Next 10

  7

  Next 10

  5

  Next 10

  3

  Next 10

  2

  Next 10

  2

  Next 10

  1

  Bottom 10

  negligible

  Total

  100

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in anonymised form all current recipients of inheritance tax relief for natural heritage reasons in respect of land or buildings under sections 30 and 31 of the Inheritance Taxes Act 1984 by(a) date first granted and (b) amount of relief. [34841]

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

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid capital gains tax in 1993; what was the total amount of tax collected; and if he will show for each decile of taxpayers the amount collected. [36118]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information is in terms of tax liabilities rather than tax collected. The number of capital gains taxpayers—covering individuals and trusts—with tax liabilities in 1993–94, and the tax accrual are provisionally estimated at 85,000 and around £1 billion respectively. The estimate proportions accounted for by each decile taxpayers are given in the table.

  Decile group of taxpayers in terms of tax liabilities Percentage

  Estimated proportion of total liabilities (per cent.)

  Top 10

  79

  Next 10

  10

  Next 10

  5

  Next 10

  3

  Next 10

  2

  Next 10

  1

  Next 10

  1

  Next 10

  1—

  Next 10

  1—

  Bottom 10

  1—

  Total

  100

  1 Negligible.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom competitiveness(a) the reduction and (b) the elimination of United Kingdom capital gains tax. [35804]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government keep the effect on competitiveness of all taxes under regular review.
  1258

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to ensue that Customs and Excise complies with the request from the Scott inquiry to provide copies of the public interest immunity certificates recently signed covering the appeal by the former directors of Ordtec; and if he will make a statement. [36124]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise sought the advice of the Court of Appeal regarding the request from the Scot inquiry to provide copies of the public interest immunity certificates and is following the guidance of the court which approved its course of action. Customs and Excise will therefore make arrangements for the delivery of the certificates to the Scott inquiry.

  Economic Inactivity Rates
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest economic inactivity rates for adult males of working age for each United Kingdom region. [35878]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The data requested can be obtained from the labour force survey, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  VAT (Public Transport)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy not to remove zero rating of VAT from public transport; and if he will make a statement. [34397]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Offshore Banking
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the different requirements relating to United Kingdom funds in respect of offshore banking in(a) the Mediterranean, (b) the Channel Islands and (c) the West Indies; and if he will make a statement. [30869]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [32279]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  1259

  Spirits (Duty)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the
  Exchequer what assessment he has made of whether the rise in duty on spirits imposed in December will deliver the increase in revenue the Treasury expected when it imposed the duty increase; and what estimates he has made of the extent of home releases in the current year. [34638]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the right hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Barings Bank
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what questions Jonathan Stone, head of the Barings Bondholder Action Group, has asked the Governor of the Bank of England; and on what grounds they have not been answered; [35482]

  (2) what assessment he has made of why the Bank of England, as supervisor of the banking system, did not detect warning signals showing that Barings was facing unsustainable losses of capital before it went into administration. [35481]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many firearms were legally imported in each year since 1992; and what were their categories, classes and types; [36127]

  (2) how many firearms are known to have been illegally imported in each year since 1992; and what were their categories, classes and types. [36126]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Taxation
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated increase in direct taxes, national insurance contributions and indirect taxes if all those currently unemployed were employed and in receipt of(a) £120 per week gross of tax and national insurance contributions, (b) £140 per week gross and (c) £160 per week gross. [36305]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the correlation between increases in tax
  1260
  rates and falls in tax yields; and if he will make a statement. [32944]

  Mr. Jack
  There are a large number of studies looking at the link between marginal tax rates, incentives and yields. We keep developments in the field under constant review. This Government's policy is to cut marginal tax rates, when it is prudent to do so, to encourage enterprise and reward innovation. The share of total income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of tax payers has risen from 35 per cent. in 1978–79 to 44 per cent. this year.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the 1995–96 fiscal year of the revenue raised from income tax in respect of(a) the 20 per cent. rate, (b) the 25 per cent. rate and (c) the 40 per cent. rate. [35356]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: It is estimated that in 1995–96 total tax liability before allowing for the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief at source will be about £14.8 billion at the 20 per cent. rate, £56.3 billion at the 25 per cent. rate and £6.5 billion at the 40 per cent rate.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimate of the number of taxpayers with a total taxable income in the fiscal year 1995–96 to include salaries, dividends, interest receivable and pensions, within each band of £1,000 up to £60,000, then £5,000 up to £100,000, then £25,000 up to £200,000, then £50,000, up to £500,000, then £100,000 up to £1 million, and above £1 million. [35516]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: It is to provide reliable estimates in the detail requested. Provisional estimates for 1995–96 of the number of taxpayers analysed by total income for income tax purposes is given in the table.

  Range of total income1 (lower limit) £

  Number of taxpayers in 1995–96 thousands

  3,525

  1,800

  5,000

  4,100

  7,500

  3,800

  10,000

  6,100

  15,000

  4,100

  20,000

  3,700

  30,000

  1,500

  50,000

  430

  100,000

  120

  Total

  25,700

  New Earnings Survey
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he will be giving the Department of the Environment about the discussions and meeting the hon. Member for Isle of Wight had with Mr. Orchard about the small database of the new earnings survey on the Isle of Wight and its effect on the area cost adjustment formulae. [35872]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  1261

  Capital Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the social and (b) the economic arguments for the abolition of capital taxes; [36222]

  (2) what are the implications of the abolition of capital taxes for (a) the rate of other taxes, (b) benefit levels and (c) expenditure on essential services. [36220]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the revenue raised in each year since 1994 as a result of freezing fuel duty rebate; and what estimate he has made of the level of increased fares as a result of the rebate being frozen. [34398]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  About £35 million in 1994–95. The level of fares in the industry is a matter for commercial consideration.

  Annual Season Coach Tickets
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make annual season coach tickets tax deductible; and if he will make a statement. [34400]

  Mr. Jack
  No. Under the current law, the cost of annual season coach tickets for home-to-work travel is not tax deductible. There are no plans to change the law.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake an immediate review of the effect of the regulatory requirements of the authorities established under the Financial Services Act 1986 on friendly societies. [34401]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have no plans to do so. In the first instance this is a matter for the Personal Investment Authority, which has a working group considering the regulatory regime for friendly societies.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission a full statistical survey of current wage values in the border region in Scotland to determine the percentage of full-time and part-time workers on low pay; and if he will make a statement. [34396]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No. Such a survey would place large form-filling burden on businesses in the area. The annual new earnings survey already provides some relevant information on average earnings.

  National Lottery
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the impact on the public balances of the income from the national lottery broken 1262
  down between moneys in taxation and moneys due to be allocated for good causes. [35532]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Latest outturn data show that the direct effects of the national lottery reduced the public sector borrowing requirement by £400 million in 1994–95. This was entirely on account of additional Government receipts of which lottery duty accounted for £100 million and the time delay between receipt of money for good causes into the national lottery distribution fund and its distribution accounted for a further £300 million. There may have been an indirect effect in the form of a small loss of tax yield, as a result of expenditure switching to the lottery, but this is difficult to quantify.

  Export Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the United Kingdom export prices relative to those of other EEC countries at current rates of exchange for each quarter since 1990. [35198]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Export price figures for the main manufacturing countries are published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". These figures are also available on the central database of the Central Statistical Office, which can be accessed through the Library of the House. Figures for the other EC countries can be found in "International Financial Statistics" published monthly by the International Monetary Fund.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the real rate of exchange relative to those of other EEC countries between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1994; and what assessment he has made of its effects on(a) the balance of visible trade with EEC and (b) output, employment and investment in the import-competing and export industries. [35200]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 7 March,Official Report, column 102, and on 3 April, Official Report, column 909, and on 10 May, Official Report, column 543.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the fall in the nominal rate against the deutschmark; and if he will indicate United Kingdom export prices for manufactures at current rates of exchange relative to those of the EEC Six and Sweden since the United Kingdom's entry into the exchange rate mechanism. [35212]

  Mrs. Knight
  Data for sterling's exchange rate against other EC members are published by the Central Statistical Office in "Financial Statistics", while export price figures for the main manufacturing countries are published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". These figures are also available on the central database of the Central Statistical Office, which can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of a rise of 5 pfennigs
  1263
  against the pound on the rate of inflation in United Kingdom manufacturing. [36291]

  Mrs. Knight
  Inflation in United Kingdom manufacturing depends on a number of factors, including sterling's exchange rate against the deutschmark. It is difficult to isolate the effects of one single factor.

  Imports (Manufactures)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United Kingdom percentage share of the import market for manufactures in 1970, 1979, 1985 and 1994 for(a) the EEC Six (b) the countries that were members of the European Free Trade Area in 1970, (c) the Irish Republic, (d) the Commonwealth and (e) the combined figures for (a), (b), and (c).

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information required to calculate these import shares is not readily available, and estimates could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Inward Direct Investment
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total Japanese and American direct investment in the European Community came to the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [35261]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The UK has attracted the lion's share of the stock of inward direct investment in the European Community. In 1993 the UK had about a third of all investment and over 40 per cent. of US and Japanese inward direct investment in the European Community.

  Comprehensive data for direct investment flows between 1983 and 1992 are published in the OECD's "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1994", which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35676]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  As part of a package of measures designed to ensure equality of opportunity within the department, the Treasury has set flow targets to measure the progress of women and ethnic minority staff. Among these targets are objectives (i) to achieve a pattern of promotion for men and women which is related to their representation in the field; (ii) to increase the proportion of women in the higher grades over time, and (iii) in the longer term, for women to be represented in the most senior grades in the same proportions as they are recruited into the Treasury in the "feeder grades".

  Further measures to encourage the promotion of women include: action to address the perceived "long hours culture" within the Treasury, which is seen as a potential barrier to women; the introduction of an open system of postings within the department up to grade 4 level with the presumption that all posts are open to alternative working patterns except where a valid case is made to the
  1264
  contrary; and flexible working hours made available to more than one third of the staff.

  The Treasury does not have any executive agencies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35665]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable income of households in(a) the lowest decile and (b) the highest decile in 1993 and 1994 for the households with (i) one adult, one child, (ii) one adult, two or more children, (iii) one man, one woman and one child, (iv) one man, one woman, two children (v) one man, one woman, three children, (vi) two adults, four or more children, (vii) three adults, one or more children and (viii) four adults, one or more children, following table 34 in the CSO family spending report for 1992. [34480]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The deciles for 1993 corresponding to those in table 34A of the report on the family expenditure survey for 1992 are given in the table. The figures are estimates from the FES, are subject to sampling variations, and have been rounded to the nearest pound. Data for 1994 are not available.

  Average weekly disposable income (£)

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  One adult, one child

  68

  255

  One adult, two or more children

  85

  279

  One man, one woman and one child

  119

  579

  One man, one woman, two children

  161

  649

  One man, one woman, three children

  149

  648

  Two adults, four or more children

  135

  536

  Three adults, one or more children

  198

  674

  Four adults, one or more children

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures are not available as there are too few households in the sample to provide reliable estimates.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable income of households in(a) the lowest decile and (b) the highest decile in 1993 and 1994 in actual terms per week, and as a percentage of the median for (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Greater London—following table 34 in the CSO family spending report for 1992. [34473]

  Mrs. Knight
  The figures for 1993 in the table of average weekly disposable income are from the family expenditure survey. The figures are subject to sampling variations and have been rounded to the nearest ten pence. Data for 1994 are not available.
  1265

  Average weekly disposable income (£)

  As a percentage of the median

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  Median

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  United Kingdom

  73.00

  553.50

  236.40

  30.9

  234.1

  Greater London

  71.70

  684.90

  257.30

  27.9

  266.2

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and percentage of the adult population in each region and nation with less than the average annual national income level in each year since 1992. [34181]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The average hourly earnings for employees in Great Britain on adult rates of pay were £7.56 in 1993 and £7.74 in 1994. The following tables show the numbers in the near earnings survey sample and percentages of those people earning less than the given amounts in the areas requested.

  Corresponding figures for 1992 cannot be produced without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Employees on adult rates whose average gross hourly earnings were less than £7.74: April 1994

  Standard Region

  Sample Number

  Percentage

  South East

  21,663

  54.0

  East Anglia

  3,370

  70.4

  South West

  6,769

  68.1

  West Midlands

  8,242

  70.3

  East Midlands

  6,505

  72.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,820

  71.3

  North West

  9,281

  68.3

  North

  4,583

  70.9

  England

  68,233

  64.1

  Wales

  3,798

  70.9

  Scotland

  8,420

  68.8

  Employees on adult rates whose average gross hourly earnings were less than £7.56: April 1993.

  Standard Region

  Sample Number

  Percentage

  South East

  22,630

  54.0

  East Anglia

  3,493

  72.0

  South West

  7,083

  68.1

  West Midlands

  8,645

  70.4

  East Midlands

  6,702

  72.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,239

  71.9

  North West

  9,675

  68.3

  North

  4,673

  71.2

  England

  71,140

  64.2

  Wales

  3,810

  71.3

  Scotland

  8,383

  68

  General Government Financial Deficits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each Budget since 1965, and for the first fiscal year for which each Budget is designed(a) the implied or actual Budget forecast for the general government financial deficit as a proportion
  1266
  of gross domestic product and (b) the net fiscal effect of all Budget tax measures on the economy, expressed as a positive or negative percentage of gross domestic product. [35375]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The following table sets out the information requested, where available. Forecasts for the general government financial deficit were not published before the 1970 Budget. The net fiscal effect of Budget tax changes was not calculated on the present indexed basis prior to the 1982 Budget.

  Budget forecasts of general government financial deficit and the net fiscal effect of Budget tax measures on the economy expressed as a per cent, of gross domestic product

  Percentage of GDP1

  Date of Budget

  Forecast for year

  GGFD

  Net fiscal effect of Budget tax measures2

  April 1970

  1970–71

  3.4

  —

  March 1971

  1971–72

  1.0

  —

  March 1972

  1972–73

  1.7

  —

  March 1973

  1973–74

  2.6

  —

  March 1974

  1974–75

  0.0

  —

  November 1974

  1974–75

  3.8

  —

  April 1975

  1975–76

  5.1

  —

  April 1976

  1976–77

  5.8

  —

  March 1977

  1977–78

  3.6

  —

  April 1978

  1978–79

  3.7

  —

  June 1979

  1979–80

  2.9

  —

  March 1980

  1980–81

  2.4

  —

  March 1981

  1981–82

  1.5

  —

  March 1982

  1982–83

  1.6

  -0.6

  March 1983

  1983–84

  2.6

  -0.5

  March 1984

  1984–85

  2.6

  0.0

  March 1985

  1985–86

  2.8

  -0.2

  March 1986

  1986–87

  3.4

  0.3

  March 1987

  1987–88

  2.4

  -0.6

  March 1988

  1988–89

  0.5

  -0.8

  March 1989

  1989–90

  -1.1

  -0.4

  March 1990

  1990–91

  -0.2

  0.1

  March 1991

  1991–92

  2.0

  0.1

  March 1992

  1992–93

  5.2

  -0.4

  March 1993

  1993–94

  8.7

  0.1

  November 1993

  1994–95

  6.3

  0.2

  November 1994

  1995–96

  3.7

  -0.2

  1 GDP figures: CSO outturns up to 1994–95 and HMT forecast for 1995–96.

  2 The net effect of tax changes from an indexed basis. [Yield(+)/cost(-)].

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on budget deficit measures used by the United Kingdom's European partners. [34198]

  Mr.Waldegrave
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The United Kingdom's European partners use a variety of budget deficit measures. Most are calculated on a cash basis. A common standardised measure of general government financial deficit is used in the excessive deficits procedure as set out in article 104c and the associated protocol of the treaty on European Union as amended as Maastricht.
  1267

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the inclusion of BNFL will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office following its inclusion in the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [36203]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The inclusion of BNFL in the public sector borrowing requirement statistics is unrelated to the question of scrutiny by the National Audit Office. As a public limited company, BNFL is subject to the normal Companies Act audit requirements, and is not audited by the National Audit Office.

  Pensioners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage and number of one adult pensioner households have an average weekly expenditure

  Amount (£ million) of venture capital invested by region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South east

  674 (512)

  513 (450)

  550 (412)

  650 (383)

  612 (387)

  South west

  34 (68)

  72 (60)

  125 (77)

  34 (54)

  143 (59)

  East Anglia

  51 (57)

  27 (50)

  33 (59)

  51 (35)

  40 (32)

  West Midlands

  64 (87)

  93 (102)

  88 (112)

  81 (70)

  216(103)

  East Midlands

  70 (81)

  47 (80)

  83 (64)

  46 (63)

  73 (66)

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  57 (75)

  74 (104)

  80 (104)

  37 (92)

  104 (89)

  North west

  38 (64)

  46 (66)

  106 (117)

  168 (95)

  225 (102)

  North

  23 (50)

  21 (45)

  25 (38)

  22 (54)

  79 (58)

  Scotland

  81 (174)

  73 (150)

  96 (98)

  119 (151)

  77 (138)

  Wales

  12 (39)

  17 (57)

  37 (41)

  16 (48)

  73 (37)

  Northern Ireland

  2 (14)

  6 (32)

  28 (25)

  7 (21)

  26 (30)

  Total

  1,106 (1,221)

  989 (1,196)

  1,251 (1,147)

  1,231 (1,066)

  1,668 (1,101)

  Number of companies in brackets.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many research projects commissioned by his Department were given to companies based in Scotland in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [31891]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The Treasury did not award any research contracts to companies based in Scotland during the years in question.

  Business Rating Appeals
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the waiting time for business rating appeals to be dealt with in central region. [32543]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: In line with Valuation Office agency national policy, the current aim is to clear the vast majority of rating appeals made before 1 April 1995 by 31 March 1996.

  It is expected that nationally, England and Wales, 330,000 1990 and 1995 rating list appeals will be cleared during this financial year.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1268
  of £74.26 or less according to the family expenditure survey 1993, table 4.1. [34823]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The percentage of one adult retired households who are mainly dependent on state pensions with average weekly expenditure of £74.26 or less is estimated, from the family expenditure survey 1993, to have been 65 per cent. This figure is subject to sampling variation.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the venture capital spent in each standard region and the number of companies assisted for each of the last available five years. [35411]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: On the basis of figures published by the British Venture Capital Association, the table shows the funds invested in the UK and the number of companies financed, analysed by region.

  what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of his Department. [34033]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  holding answer 13 July 1995]: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 11 July to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), Official Report, columns 496–97.

  Department of Employment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the former Department of Employment's responsibilities his Department has now taken on; and which Minister is in charge of each area of responsibility. [34042]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The Treasury has not taken on any of the former Department of Employment's responsibilities, but the Central Statistical Office has taken over responsibility for the production of employment statistics and labour market surveys. I am the Minister with responsibility for the Central Statistical Office.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making
  1269
  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. [34687]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury launched its own Internet service on 15 November 1994.

  Material is provided on the Treasury's own Internet server on the World Wide Web. In addition to the World Wide Web, the same information can be obtained by electronic mail or by file transfer, FTP.

  The addresses are:

  Email mailing lists: maillist@hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Email file transfer: ftpmail@hm-treasury.gov.uk

  File Transfer (FTP): ftp.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  World Wide Web: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  The service gives details of the Budget, including my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement and all the Budget news releases.

  Other documents that are available include Treasury news releases, speeches, minutes of my right hon. and learned Friend's monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, reports of the panel of independent forecasters and details of the fundamental expenditure review of Treasury running costs.

  There is a continuing programme to add more services including articles about specific topics of economic interest.

  It is anticipated that individual e-mail addresses will be allocated later this year and the dedicated post of Internet editor will shortly be filled.

  The Treasury's system can be accessed directly using any one of the addresses I have set out. In addition users can find the Treasury pages either on the "www.open.gov.uk" Government World Wide Web Server or through the server of the Central Office of Information. The Treasury's pages are, in both cases, linked by hypertext.

  At the moment, users can also obtain help about the service using electronic mail. The address is "info@hm-treasury.gov.uk".

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [34691]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government recognise the importance of the small firms sector and are firmly committed to supporting it. Policy centres around providing the right environment in which small firms can succeed by creating a favourable economic climate with low inflation and stable 1270
  interest rates, reducing administrative and regulatory burdens and providing direct assistance where required.

  Specific examples of measures to help small firms, announced in my right hon. and learned Friend's last Budget were:

  reduction in employers national insurance contributions to make it cheaper to take on new staff;

  an extension of the existing scheme of transitional arrangements to ease the impact of the revaluation in business rates;

  enhancements to venture capital trusts and the enterprise investment scheme to promote investment in growing firms;

  consultation on the development of a financial management certificate and a review of the loan guarantee scheme to widen small firms' access to finance;

  various measures to reduce the burdens on small businesses, including consultation on a move to annual VAT returns and payments for small businesses and a simplified scheme of VAT accounting for small traders, closer alignment of national insurance contributions and income tax, an increase in the VAT registration threshold and a reduction in the penalty for failing to register for VAT.

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

  Fuel and Power Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average household's expenditure on fuel and power in each year since 1985, by region. [34177]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: Estimates of the weekly average household expenditure by region are shown in successive published reports of the family expenditure survey.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34598]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: There have been 33 redundancies in the Treasury over the past 12 months. All were voluntary.

  The costs are a mixture of benefits payable immediately—which may include compensation lump sum and/or pension—plus costs arising over a longer term—that is, the annual compensation to staff under the age of 60. The total immediate cost is about £1.4 million and the longer-term costs are about £2.2 million spread over the next 10 years.

  Staff Sickness
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost in sickness 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. [34597]
  1271
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, 19,480 days were registered as being lost due to sickness in HM Treasury. Where absences fall both before and after a weekend or public holiday, the weekend or public holiday is counted as part of the absence even though they are not "working days". It has not been possible, in the time available, to adjust the figures to present these absences as a proportion of the total number of days worked. Information is not held centrally that would enable the cost of such absence to be calculated, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Fire Safety Legislation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the review team's report regarding fire safety legislation and enforcement matter arising from the deregulation proposals has now been considered; and when he expects to be able to make a statement on the outcome. [34237]

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the First Secretary of State when the fire safety legislation and enforcement review was published; when the consultation period ended; when the Government response will be published; and what factors have been responsible for any delay with publication. [34447]

  Mr. Freeman
  "The Interdepartmental Review of Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement" was published on 22 June 1994 and the consultation period ended on 31 October 1994. There were over 460 responses, many of them raising important and complex issues. The deregulation task force, set up to help the Government promote deregulation, is now being consulted about the way ahead on fire regulation and enforcement, including our emerging findings on the review. The Government's response will be announced as soon as this process is complete.

  Regional Offices (Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state for each regional Government office, the civil servant with overall responsibility, his department and his annual salary. [36112]

  Mr. Freeman
  The civil servants with overall responsibility for each integrated regional office are listed below:

  Integrated regional office

  Regional Director

  Parent department

  Grade

  London

  Mr. R. U. Young

  Department of the Environment

  Grade 2

  Eastern Region

  Mr. J. Turner

  Department for Education and Employment

  Grade 3

  East Midlands

  Mr. H. M. Lanyon

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Grade 3

  Merseyside

  Mr. J. F. Stoker

  Department of the Environment

  Grade 3

  North East

  Mrs. P. A. Denham

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Grade 3

  1272

  Integrated regional office

  Regional Director

  Parent department

  Grade

  North West

  Miss M. T. Neville-Rolfe

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Grade 3

  South East

  Mrs. G. M. Ashmore

  Department of Transport

  Grade 3

  South West

  Mr. B. H. Leonard

  Department of the Environment

  Grade 3

  West Midlands

  Mr. D. R. Ritchie

  Department of the Environment

  Grade 3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Mr. J. C. M. Walker

  Department for Education and Employment

  Grade 3

  The salary range for a grade 2 is from £67,500 to £98,000 and for a grade 3 from £55,000 to £82,500.

  St. Bride's Minor (Land Sale)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library the documentation relating to the sale of lands in the parish of Saint Bride's Minor, including Coiety Wallia common by the Duchy of Lancaster to the Dunraven estate. [35936]

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the question of title to the lands in the parish of St. Bride's Minor was discussed at some length with the hon. Member for Bridgend at a meeting attended by representatives of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Dunraven estate in the House earlier this year.

  If the hon. Member wishes to see the documents relating to the disposal of the Duchy's interest in that land, he is welcome to attend the Duchy of Lancaster Office at 1 Lancaster place, Strand where they will be made available to him.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what make and type of Government car will be allocated to the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what will be the cost of such a vehicle to the Exchequer, including the annual cost of the chauffeur. [34013]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State does not use a car or driver from the Government car service. However he uses a car, together with a driver, on cost terms to the public service fully equivalent to the usual ministerial transport arrangements provided by the GCS—currently £43,628 per annum, excluding VAT.

  The full terms of this arrangement are set out in a letter dated 16 March 1995, agreed when he was President of the Board of Trade. A copy of this letter has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35459]
  1273
  Mr. Horam
  The numbers of permanent industrial and non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995—before the recent machinery of Government changes—on a headcount basis were as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Office of Public Service and Science (excluding agencies)

  521

  4

  327

  49

  Chessington Computer Centre

  193

  2

  164

  59

  Civil Service College

  114

  5

  108

  53

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency

  22

  0

  71

  10

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  42

  1

  82

  12

  Central Office of Information

  298

  1

  200

  13

  HM Stationery Office

  1,982

  11

  857

  109

  Total

  3,172

  24

  1,809

  305

  The breakdown by grade of non-industrial staff is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade 1A

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 3

  8

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 4

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  29

  0

  12

  1

  Grade 6

  48

  1

  8

  1

  Grade 7

  213

  7

  55

  11

  SEO

  109

  0

  37

  6

  AT/HEO(D)

  49

  0

  18

  0

  HEO

  135

  0

  74

  13

  EO

  178

  2

  137

  33

  AO

  140

  0

  236

  61

  AA

  28

  1

  65

  24

  Assistant Economist

  12

  0

  2

  0

  Assistant Statistician

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  62

  0

  40

  3

  Information Officer

  71

  0

  43

  9

  Assistant Information Officer

  11

  0

  7

  0

  Senior Librarian

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Librarian

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Legal Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Legal Trainee

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Senior P and T Officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  0

  26

  1

  Personal Secretary

  0

  0

  64

  9

  Typist

  0

  0

  34

  13

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Psychologist

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Psychologist

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Support Manager 3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Support Grade Band 1

  11

  0

  6

  0

  Support Grade Band 2

  36

  2

  18

  1

  Senior Telecomms. Technical Officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Principal Occupational Health Advisor

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Senior Occupational Health Advisor

  1

  0

  8

  0

  Occupational Health Advisor

  3

  0

  15

  1

  Occupational Health Practitioner

  1

  0

  8

  2

  Occupational Health Nurse

  0

  0

  7

  3

  Office Administrator

  1

  0

  10

  2

  Principal Medical Officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Medical Officer

  3

  0

  2

  0

  Medical Officer

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1274

  The breakdown by grade of non-industrial staff is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Chief Occupational Hygiene Safety Officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Principal Hygiene and Safety Advisor

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Senior Safety and Hygiene Advisor

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Hygiene and Safety Advisor

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Ungraded Staff

  1,979

  11

  875

  109

  Total

  3,161

  24

  1,809

  305

  No breakdown of industrial staff by grade is available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the First Secretary of State (1) pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 712, how many times a behavioural condition has been applied to a civil servant leaving the Crown service in each of the last three years; and if he will break down the figures by Department; [35853]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 July, Official Report, column 712, if he will list the types of behavioural conditions applied during the last year to civil servants leaving the Crown service by Government Department; [35852]

  (3) how many civil servants have left the service of the Crown under the business appointment rules in each Government Department in each of the last three years. [35830]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide answers before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the number of civil servants in each Department who have either been made redundant or have sought early retirement; and if he will set out the pension and other public costs. [35821]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

HEALTH

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 them and the total cost to public funds in each case, including that of officials for each year since 1992. [32254]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, columns 222–24, for information covering the period April 1992 to mid-October 1993.
  1275
  Information on the dates, destinations and purpose of visits made by my right hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues since 14 October 1993 is shown in the table. The total cost of overseas travel by Ministers and private secretaries in each financial year is also shown.

  Information on officials accompanying Ministers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 1993 TO MARCH 1994

  Minister of State for Health—Dr. Mawhinney

  7–15 November 1993

  USA

  Fact finding visit in connection with Ministerial responsibilities

  13 December 1993

  Brussels

  EC Health Council

  Total spend for 7th November to March 1994

  £4,653

  FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 1994—MARCH 1995

  Secretary of State for Health

  17–18 November 1994

  Brussels

  To address OECD High Level Conference of National Experts on Health Reform

  1 December 1994

  Paris

  World AIDS Summit

  21–22 December 1994

  Brussels

  EC Health Council

  13–17 March 1995

  Japan

  Trade Mission to promote inward investment (Prescribe UK)

  Minister of State for Health—Dr. Mawhinney

  4 March 1994

  Dublin

  Meeting with Irish Health Minister

  30 March 1994

  Brussels

  EC Health Council—Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) meeting

  19 June 1994

  Helsinki

  European Conference on environmental health

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—

  Mr. Bowis OBE

  3 February 1994

  Strasburg

  European Council Meeting on Drugs

  13 May 1994

  Rhodes Island

  Greek Presidency Conference on heart disease

  2 June 1994

  Luxembourg

  EC Health Council

  30 June 1994

  Amsterdam

  EC Health Council

  18–24 September 1994

  Amsterdam; Germany; Hungary

  Fact finding visit on Child care, drug abuse,a nd AIDS. Also signing Health Co-operation plan in Hungary

  1 January 1995

  Lebanon

  Council for Advancement in Arab British Understanding

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—

  Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  3–4 May 1995

  Geneva

  World Health Assembly

  17–18 June 1994

  Paris

  AIDS Summit

  Total annual spend

  £20,507

  FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 1995 TO DATE

  Secretary of State for Health

  2–3 May 1995

  Geneva

  World Health Assembly

  29 May-2 June 1995

  USA

  Fact finding visit in connection with Ministerial responsibilities

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—

  Mr. Bowis OBE

  1–2 June 1995

  Luxembourg

  EC Health Council

  22 June 1995

  Copenhagen

  European Social Services Conference

  1276

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—

  Mr. Sackville

  25–28 April

  Hamburg; Hanover; Dresden

  Trade mission to promote health exports

  Total spend to end May 1995

  £17,710

  Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out(a) into women's nutrition and lifestyle, (b) in respect of an international stroke trial, (c) in respect of a randomised controlled trial of counselling and antidepressants in primary care and (d) into the use of the stroke test to examine monothematic delusional states; what were the findings; and if he will make a statement. [34046]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Title

  Researcher/Establishment

  (a) Research relating to women and lifestyle

  Further analysis of data from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (ends January 1996)

  Mrs. K. Wellings, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Mrs. J. Wordsworth, St. Mary's Hospital

  Evaluation of smoking cessation training pack for health care professionals working with young mothers (ends September 1995)

  Professor H. Graham, University of Warwick

  Protective factors in adolescent smokers (ends March 1996)

  Dr. J. Holland and Professor A. Oakley, University of London

  Quantative/behavioural study: why do adolescent girls smoke? (ends January 1996)

  Dr. Lloyd, University of Sussex

  A comparative study of the daily lives and smoking behaviour of working class women with children (ended December 1994)

  Professor H. Graham, University of Warwick

  Preventing relapses to smoking in pregnant women (ends December 1997)

  Dr. P. Hajar, London Hospital Medical School, and Dr. R. West, St. George's Hospital

  Health care delivery to drug-using pregnant women (ends December 1995)

  Dr. H. Klee, Metropolitan University Manchester

  The effects of passive smoking; analysis of data on the effects of mother and foetus in pregnancy (ended early 1994)

  Professor J. Golding, University of Bristol

  Prostitution and HIV related risk behaviour—a study of drug-using prostitutes, their clients and their health care needs (ended 1992)

  Mrs. J. Faugier, University of Warwick

  (b) International stroke trial

  International stroke trial to randomise 20,000 acute stroke patients between treatment with aspirin, heparin, both or neither—funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC—ends 1997)

  Dr. P. Sandercock and Professor C. Warlow, Edinburgh University

  1277

  Title

  Researcher/ Establishment

  (c) Randomised controlled trial of counselling and antidepressants in primary care

  Randomised controlled trial of counselling and antidepressants in primary care—funded by the MRC (ends 1997)

  Dr. Lewis, Institute of Psychiatry, London

  A comparison of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy, and usual treatment by general practitioner for patients with depression and mixed anxiety and depression

  National Health Service Research and Development Programme funding

  To establish the efficacy and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care for patients with chronic depression and anxiety

  National Health Service Research and Development Programme funding

  (d) Research into the use of stroop test to examine monothematic delusional states

  To examine the clinical features and nosological status of eating disorders of childhood onset—in addition to other measures stroop paradigm will be used to measure the extent of psychopathological disturbance in children with eating disorders—funded by the MRC (ends 1988)

  Professor Cooper, Institute of Child Health

  Note:

  1. In relation to (a), within a developing area of study, in collaboration with the MRC, the Department is undertaking several studies on the nutrition of adult men and women, and with children.

  2. In relation to (b), the Stroop paradigm or test is a psychological test of information processing. The classical Stroop paradigm consists of a colour word. These may be either congruent (eg the word RED with a red coloured patch) or incongruent (eg the word BLUE with a red patch). When subjects are asked to read the word of identify the colour of the patch, the reaction time is slowed in the incongruous situation; this is known as the Stroop effect and is related to a more general psychological effect known as latent inhibition.

  Radiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department is currently undertaking in respect of research relating to radiation tests on humans. [34463]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), gave the hon. Member for Blaenan Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 18 July.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South can expect to receive a reply to his letter of 24 May to the hon. Member for Winchester. [35330]

  Mr. Malone
  I replied today.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of savings made by fundholding general practitioners have been used to increase the value of premises(a) nationally, (b) in South Yorkshire FHSAs and (c) in Rotherham FHSA. [36174]
  1278
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost of general practice fundholding in management allowances and start-up costs of buying computers since it started. [35524]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is in the table.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Practice fundholding in management allowances

  6

  14

  29

  49

  66

  General practitioner fundholding computers1

  n/a

  12

  18

  19

  19

  The data are estimates based on information reported by family health services authorities.

  1 Information on expenditure incurred in 1994–95 is not yet available. The information given is the total sums allocated.

  2 Prior to 1993–94, centrally collected data did not differentiate between fundholding and general medical services computer costs. Therefore the data for years 1990–91 to 1992–93 for computers to support fundholding are estiamted from the total expenditure on computers to support general practitioners.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has on whether general practice fundholding has affected the principle of equal access to treatment. [35521]

  Mr. Malone
  The aim of resource allocation in the national health service is to ensure that purchasers are allocated their patients' fair share of local NHS resources. It is then for purchasers to secure the most appropriate balance of services to meet their patients' needs within patients charter guarantees and national guidelines—including the 1991 agreement with the medical profession, which made it clear that provider units may not offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of other purchasers.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will review the ability of general practitioner fundholders to retain savings for up to four years; and how much of the total savings have been so retained; [35525]

  (2) if he will review the rules affecting the savings made by general practitioner fundholders; and if he will make a statement. [35520]

  Mr. Malone
  The general practitioner fundholding scheme is kept under constant review, including how efficiency savings can be used for the benefit of patients.

  In the first three years of the scheme fundholders achieved efficiency savings of about 3.5 to 4 per cent. of budgets set amounting to around £110 million.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recommendations in the 27th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, HC264 of the present Session, on general practitioner fundholding. [35582]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government will respond to this report in the normal way.
  1279

  NHS Trusts (Pensions)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid in pensions to former directors of NHS trusts in each of the last three years. [35834]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid in pension contributions to NHS trust executive members in each of the last three years. [35832]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. Trust executive members are eligible for membership of the national health service pension scheme in the same way as other employees.

  Skin Conditions
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates have been made as to the extra financial costs incurred by an average family unit as a result of a child having eczema; [35929]

  (2) what studies his Department has undertaken to assess the disruption caused to an average family where one child has eczema. [35930]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received about poor quality gloves causing skin reactions between(a) 1990 to 1994 and (b) 1994–95. [35931]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of adverse incidents notified to the Medical Devices Agency from 1990 to 1994 were five and for 1994–95 three.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates his Department has made as to the number of surgeons' hours lost as a result of skin diseases contracted by the use of poor quality rubber gloves; [35800]

  (2) what estimates his Department has made as to the treatment costs of treating a child with eczema. [35928]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Brook Hospital
  Mr. John Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date services from the Brook hospital will transfer to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; what was the target date for transfer; and if he will make a statement. [25938]

  Mr. Sackville
  Greenwich Healthcare national health service trust intends to begin the transfer of services from the Brook Hospital to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital as close to the target of mid-August as possible. Clearly the highest priority is to ensure that local residents continue to have access to safe and effective health services.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of redundancies as a result of the impending closures of the Brook hospital and the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; if he will 1280
  provide a breakdown by occupation showing the numbers of NHS and MoD staff redundant; and if he will make a statement. [35939]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Greenwich Healthcare national health service trust, in discussion with the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Mr. Richard Baglin, for details.

  Chronic Disease Management
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of special illness clinics; and if he will list the reimbursements available to general practitioners for organising special illness clinics. [35862]

  Mr. Sackville
  Over 90 per cent. of general practitioners are running organised programmes of chronic disease management of £365 for patients with asthma or diabetes. Participating GPs receive an annual payment for setting up and overseeing a practice programme for either disease.

  Poisons Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1037, which reports produced by the poisons unit are in the public domain; against which product action has been recommended; and what action has been taken so far. [36323]

  Mr. Sackville
  The poisons unit produces reports for the Department of Health, European Community and World Health Organisation. Several of the case reports considered by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment were published in a scientific journal in 1994.

  Officials within the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing the best ways of taking the COT's advice forward.

  NHS Funding
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the real change in total health expenditure between 1979 and 1994; and what was the average cost of this expenditure per taxpayer over the period. [36308]

  Mr. Sackville
  Net Government expenditure on the national health service increased by 61.1 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1993–94, or £10,977 million at 1993–94 prices. This increase is equivalent to £523 per taxpayer.

  Remuneration of Auditors
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, columns 930–31, if he will provide 1992–93 regional data on the remuneration of auditors. [36177]
  1281
  Mr. Sackville
  The 1992–93 summarised accounts show the cost of the audit of the accounts as £16.2 million. This total cannot be reliably attributed to individual regions and is not comparable with figures for 1993–94.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the relative toxicity of(a) cannabis, (b) heroin/morphine and (c) cocaine and their capacity to create addition. [35877]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is significant morbidity and mortality associated with the misuse of drugs, the extent of which may vary according to the individual misuser and the drug misused. Heroin, morphine, cocaine, cannabis and other psychotropic drugs have the potential to create dependency, the severity of which will also vary.

  Scientology
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an investigation into the effects on the psychological health of young people in the United Kingdom of the methods used by the Church of Scientology; and if he will make a statement. [35828]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no current plans to do so.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and midwives and (b) doctors have worked in (i) the acute and (ii) the community sector of the NHS in each of the last three years. [35848]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Doctors as at 30 September each year (whole-time equivalents)

  Hospital

  Community

  1991

  41,430

  2,780

  1992

  42,290

  2,600

  1993

  43,800

  2,590

  Figures exclude locums, and are rounded to the nearest 10. General practitioners and dental staff are not included.

  Nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) working withinhospitals and the community sector of the NHS as at 30 Septembereach year (Whole time equivalents)

  Hospital

  Community

  1991

  339,300

  56,610

  1992

  325,370

  57,290

  1993

  307,870

  57,750

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. The decrease in hospital nursing and midwifery staff are mainly a result of the fall in the number of learners and the exclusion of Project 2000 students. Project 2000 students are bursary paid and are not employed by the NHS. There were around 10,500 Project 2000 students in 1991, 18,300 in 1992 and 28,000 in 1993.

  3. Figures exclude nursing and midwifery staff working in centrally based services, blood transfusion services, which are not based in hospitals, and administrative nursing and midwifery staff.

  4. Figures for community nursing and midwifery staff include practice nurses.
  1282

  Training in New Techniques
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the measures in place to ensure surgeons practising keyhole surgery have the proper training; and if he will make a statement. [35864]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health and the Wolfson Foundation have established two minimal access therapy training units, in London and Leeds, to improve and increase the availability of facilities for training clinicians and other health care professionals in this developing field of diagnosis and treatment. The medical royal colleges, which are responsible for the standards and content of training, have issued guidelines for training in the safe use of minimal access techniques.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that new treatments and techniques have been proved safe and effective and that doctors are properly trained to use them; and if he will make a statement. [35863]

  Mr. Malone
  The medical royal colleges are responsible for determining the content of training and the standard to be achieved. Clearly, this training must be up to date and include new treatments and techniques that have proved safe and effective. One example of good practice in this area is the guidance published by the surgical royal colleges for the safe introduction of new techniques into surgical clinical practice, including the new development of keyhole surgery.

  The national health service increasingly adopts an evidence-based approach to decisions about the treatment of patients. Discussions are taking place with the medical royal colleges about the development of a system for identifying major new technologies in the NHS and for ensuring that appropriate decisions are made about the sort of evaluations required before a procedure comes into wider use.

  Tower Hamlets (Population)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the current population usually resident in Tower Hamlets by enumeration district for the quinary age groups. [35772]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been taken from the 1991 "Census of Population for England and Wales Small Area Statistics" and will be placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 928, on early retirement of consultants, if he will provide such national information as is available for each quarter over the last five years; and if he will make its policy to collate regional information. [36207]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on early retirements of consultants by quarter, over the last five years, is not currently available centrally.

  I have no plans to collate information about consultant early retirements on a regional basis.
  1283

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid to trust board executive members in performance-related pay in each of the last three years. [35831]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which services currently provided by regional health authorities are being considered for provision by outside contractors when regional health authorities are abolished from April 1996; which services have already been put out to tender; and which companies won the tender in the case of contracts already awarded. [35829]

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of services formerly or currently provided by regional health authorities that have recently been sold or transferred to outside contractors, or whose future is still under consideration will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much compensation has been paid for loss of office to trust board members in each of the last three years. [35833]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1993–94, a total of £985,000 was paid as compensation for loss of office to executive members of national health service trust boards. Information relating to earlier years is not available. Information relating to 1994–95 will not be available until later this year.

  Chairmen and non-executive members of NHS trusts are not entitled to receive compensation payments for loss of office.

  Source:

  NHS trust summarisation schedules.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in the incidence of asthma attacks in Shropshire and surrounding areas in the past five weeks; and what factors are considered to have affected them; and if he will make a statement. [35865]

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member may wish to contact Councillor D. G. Lloyd, chairman of Shropshire health authority, for details.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comparative studies his Department has made of the effectiveness of prescribing methods adopted by(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners for asthma patients; and if he will make a statement. [34441]

  Mr. Malone
  No comparative studies have been carried out. However, at October 1994, around 90 per cent. both of fundholding and of non-fundholding general practitioners were providing chronic disease management programmes for asthma and diabetes.
  1284

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of money allocated for provision of secure units for young people in(a) England and Wales and (b) each region of England and Wales in 1995–96 and in the past four years. [36258]

  Mr. Bowis
  I will write to the hon. Member about the figures for England. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current costs per place of secure units for young offenders; and what is the current(a) average cost, (b) highest cost and (c) lowest weekly cost of placement in such a unit. [36259]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Purchasing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to guarantee that hospitals cannot offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of another purchaser; and if he will make a statement on the methods of detection and correction in place. [35523]

  Mr. Sackville
  Joint guidance issued by the Department of Health and the Joint Consultants Committee in 1991 said that provider units may not offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of other purchasers. Compliance with this, as with other departmental guidance, is secured through the normal performance management processes.

  Ranfall Nurses Residence, Sheffield
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the sale of Ranfall, a health authority nurses residence on Ranmoor Park road, Sheffield to Sheffield university without an offer for public sale by auction or tender. [36347]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Keith Ackroyd CBE, the regional chairman, for details.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report for 1994 of the Medicines Commission. [36554]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received the report, and copies have been today laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1994 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them warmly for the time

  1285
  and effort they contribute in the public interest to this most important field.

  National Health Service Pensions Agency
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve and publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [36630]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have approved the report and accounts which have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Telecommunication
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he will he making to the published survey of the provision in hospitals of telecommunication facilities for hard-of-hearing people, conducted for the Communication Workers Union by Hearing Concern, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [34873]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are pleased to note the improvements in provision.

  NHS Low Income Scheme
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to simplify the AC1 claim form for health benefits and the eligibility criteria for health benefits; [35527]

  (2) how many AC1 claim forms for health benefits were received in each of the last five years; how many were incorrectly filled in; and how much each one costs to process. [35528]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service low income scheme was reviewed during 1991 to 1993. As the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), stated on 15 February at column 669, a large number of proposals had been considered but none had been identified for immediate change within what could be afforded. Form AG1 is kept under review and improvements made as and when the opportunity arises. In 1994–95 the estimated cost of processing an AG1 claim form was about £4.60. The available information about the number of AG1 claims received is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of AG1 claim forms received

  1990–91

  1,017,739

  1991–92

  1,166,960

  1992–93

  1,203,825

  1993–94

  1,265,837

  1994–95

  1,300,963

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the health benefits scheme costs to run in total, and how much is expended in the benefits provided and to how many recipients in each benefit category. [35526]
  1286
  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  National health service low income scheme: operating costs andexpenditure/revenue foregone on health benefits inEngland in 1994–95

  Item

  Expenditure/revenue foregone [£ million]

  Operating costs1

  6.0

  Prescription charge revenue foregone2

  273.2

  Dental charge revenue foregone3

  193.3

  Expenditure on free/reduced cost sight tests4

  534.8

  Expenditure on optical vouchers4

  677.5

  Notes:

  1 Expenditure by the Prescription Pricing Authority. The expenditure includes the administration costs of the Authority's Health Benefits Division (HBD) in handling claims for health benefits under the NHS Low Income Scheme from people in Great Britain.

  2 In respect of prescribed items dispensed free of charge to recipients of Income Support and Family Credit, holders of AG2 NHS charges certificates for full help and their partners.

  3 In respect of treatment provided to recipients of Income Support and Family Credit, holders of AG2 NHS charges certificates for full help and holders of AG3 NHS charges certificates for limited help and their partners.

  4 For recipients of Income Support and Family Credit, holders of AG2 NHS charges certificates for full help and holders of AG3 NHS charges certificates for limited help and their partners.

  5Provisional figure. Includes the cost of domiciliary sight tests for housebound patients.

  6 Provisional figure. Includes the cost of vouchers for repairs and replacements.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public interest immunity certificates have been signed in each year since 1979 by the Secretary of State for Health. [35600]

  Mr. Sackville
  There was no Secretary of State for Health between 1968 and 1988. Two public interest immunity certificates were made by the Secretary of State for Health between then and 1995—one in 1993 and one in 1994.

  Listeria
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to pregnant women about the dangers of listeria. [35598]

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice to pregnant women about listeriosis is contained in the Department's free booklet, "While You Are Pregnant: Safe Eating and How to Avoid Infection From Food and Animals", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of listeriosis have been reported in each year since 1967. [35596]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cases of listeriosis reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales between 1967 and 1995 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1967

  25

  1968

  26

  1969

  23

  1970

  30

  1287

  Year

  Number

  1971

  21

  1972

  28

  1973

  25

  1974

  28

  1975

  39

  1976

  31

  1977

  47

  1978

  87

  1979

  70

  1980

  75

  1981

  86

  1982

  77

  1983

  115

  1984

  115

  1985

  149

  1986

  137

  1987

  259

  1988

  291

  1989

  250

  1990

  118

  1991

  130

  1992

  108

  1993

  106

  1994

  1113

  1995

  216

  These figures include a few cases from Northern Ireland.

  1Provisional data.

  2 Provisional data for first quarter.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to continue to make the public aware of the dangers of listeria in certain food. [35597]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department keeps the need for advice to the public on food safety issues under ongoing review.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what new information regarding the potential of listeria in certain foods became available in 1989 that was not available in 1987; [35716]

  (2) when the Chief Medical Officer first brought the dangers of listeria to the attention of his Department and the Secretary of State for Health. [35717]

  Mr. Sackville
  The timing of the Department's advice to the public on food borne listeriosis is being considered as part of a current court case, and I cannot comment further at present.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for the number of(a) miscarriages, (b) stillbirths, (c) neo-natal deaths, (d) maternal deaths and (e) birth defects which are known to have occurred relating to pregnancy associated cases of listeriosis since 1985; and if he will make a statement; [24224]

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases there have been in each year since 1967 of(a) stillbirths, (b) miscarriages, (c) congenital abnormalities and (d) child deaths that can be attributed to listeriosis. [35599]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I refer the right hon. Member and the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 18 July for information about stillbirths and infant deaths between 1 July 1985 and 31 January 1989 in England and Wales where
  1288
  listeriosis was mentioned on the stillbirth or death certificate. There have been no maternal deaths relating to pregnancy associated cases of listeriosis since 1985. There are no known congenital malformations in the new born associated with in utero listeria infection. Information about miscarriages is not collected centrally. The further information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been introduced to combat shortages of doctors with the NHS in the past 12 months. [35517]

  Mr. Malone
  We have supported a range of intiatives in the last 12 months to ensure an appropriate supply of doctors.

  The NHS Executive is encouraging part-time training to allow doctors to train flexibly to accommodate changes in their personal circumstances. To aid the expansion of flexible training, the quotas for training posts have been removed. The new deal on junior doctors' hours has continued to provide an impetus to increase the number of medical posts in the NHS.

  The specialist workforce advisory group, which includes representatives of the medical profession and the NHS, has conducted intense reviews of specialties and its recommendations will be presented to the advisory group on medical education, training and staffing.

  The medical workforce standing advisory committee recommended an increase of 500, or 11 per cent., in the target medical school intake. We have accepted this recommendation, and will be discussing its implementation with interested parties.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on shortages of staff within the NHS; and if he will make a statement on the impact of shortages on the provision of services within the health service. [35518]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for national health service employers to decide the numbers of staff and skills levels they require. There are no general indications of significant recruitment or retention problems. In certain specialist area, however there are known to be some local difficulties.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35553]

  Mr. Bowis
  During 1995–96 more than £1 million in grant aid has been made available by the Department to voluntary organisations to support day care services for young children which includes more than £500,000 specifically allocated to our out of school initiative. For 1995–96, almost £1.8 billion has been made available for all children's services but it is for local authorities themselves to decide the allocation of resources to
  1289
  particular services such as child care. In 1993–94, the latest period for which complete information is available, local authorities in England spent £136 million on day nurseries and play groups for the under-fives. A further £98 million was spent on childminding/day fostering and family centres; this figure includes expenditure on children of all ages.

  Information on the amount of day care provision for children under eight, including the type of facilities provided, was published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1994, England A/F 94/6", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Private Sector Purchasing)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 684, what has been the average expenditure per trust on purchasing care from the private sector in each year since 1990–91. [35586]

  Mr. Sackville
  The first national health service trusts were established in April 1991. The average expenditure per national health service trust on the purchase of healthcare from non-national health service providers is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of NHS trusts

  Average expenditure from non-NHS
  providers per NHS trust £000

  1991–92

  57

  214

  1992–93

  156

  291

  1993–94

  292

  173

  Hospital Bed Availability
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds in total and by acute, geriatric, maternity and mental illness or disability there were in each district health authority in each of the past five years. [35519]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times an ambulance has not arrived within the national charter standard time in each ambulance service area in 1994–95; and what percentage of all responses this number represents. [35530]

  Mr. Sackville
  The national patients charter standard provides that ambulances responding to an emergency call should arrive at the scene of an incident in 95 per cent. of cases, within 14 minutes for urban services and within 19 minutes of rural services. The figures will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Managers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is his Department's estimate of the number of doctors and nurses currently classified as managers or senior managers within the NHS. [35587]
  1290
  Mr. Malone
  Detailed information is not collected centrally. However we estimate that about two thirds of the increase in general and senior management numbers between 1991 and 1992 and almost half the increase between 1992 and 1993 may be due to the reclassification of staff from professional and administrative groups as managers.

  Primary Health Care
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have joint or locality commissioning procedures in place within their primary health care teams; what funds or other resources are available in support of such initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [35522]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. Health authorities are expected to work in partnership with all general practices in their locality in developing and implementing health and service strategies. It is for health authorities and general practices to determine locally what arrangements should be put in place to enable effective joint working.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library as soon as they are available the number of cancelled operations on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital by district health authority and/or region and the number not admitted within a month for the first quarter of 1995–96. [35529]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, columns 809–10, what factors account for the increase in the proportion of NHS expenditure on other items; and if he will give a breakdown of this category. [35624]

  Mr. Malone
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Female Staff
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35458]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shows the position on 1 April 1995.

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  UG1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  UG2

  7

  0

  7

  0

  UG3

  20

  7

  25

  2

  UG4

  19

  8

  27

  0

  UG5

  145

  56

  184

  17

  UG6

  73

  48

  118

  3

  UG7

  371

  192

  514

  49

  SEO

  246

  100

  332

  14

  AT/HEO(D)

  21

  10

  31

  0

  1291

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  HEO

  361

  350

  670

  41

  EO

  389

  733

  1,062

  60

  AO

  347

  663

  911

  99

  AA

  89

  190

  245

  34

  YTS1

  86

  49

  125

  8

  1 The youth treatment service grades do not easily equate to unified grades.

  Staff out on secondment or on loan to other Government Departments, on maternity leave of more than three months, or on unpaid career breaks or study leave are excluded.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35688]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table, which is available only from 1993 and not separately for each of the Department's agencies. Prior to 1993 the information was not collected in this format.

  Total

  Female

  Female Per cent.

  April 1993

  UG1

  3

  0

  0

  UG2

  9

  0

  0

  UG3

  24

  6

  25

  UG4

  27

  9

  33

  UG5

  221

  80

  36

  UG6

  122

  45

  37

  UG7

  559

  169

  30

  SEO

  390

  101

  26

  AT/HEO(D)

  24

  13

  54

  HEO

  728

  374

  51

  EO

  1,180

  760

  64

  AO

  1,209

  747

  62

  AA

  279

  185

  66

  YTS1

  149

  58

  39

  Total

  4,924

  2,547

  52

  April 1994

  UG1

  3

  0

  0

  UG2

  9

  1

  11

  UG3

  28

  7

  25

  UG4

  25

  10

  40

  UG5

  207

  63

  30

  UG6

  110

  39

  35

  UG7

  540

  184

  34

  SEO

  364

  114

  31

  AT/HEO(D)

  23

  9

  39

  HEO

  720

  350

  49

  EO

  1,196

  767

  64

  AO

  1,125

  765

  68

  AA

  306

  205

  67

  YTS1

  165

  70

  42

  Total

  4,821

  2,584

  54

  April 1995

  UG1

  3

  0

  0

  UG2

  7

  0

  0

  1292

  Total

  Female

  Female Per cent.

  UG3

  27

  7

  26

  UG4

  27

  8

  30

  UG5

  201

  56

  28

  UG6

  121

  48

  40

  UG7

  563

  192

  34

  SEO

  346

  100

  29

  AT/HEO(D)

  31

  10

  32

  HEO

  711

  350

  49

  EO

  1,122

  733

  65

  AO

  1,010

  663

  66

  AA

  279

  190

  68

  YTS1

  135

  49

  36

  Total

  4,583

  2,406

  52

  1 The youth treatment service grades do not easily equate to unified grades.

  Staff out on secondment or on loan to other Government Departments, on maternity leave of more than three months, or on unpaid career breaks or study leave are excluded.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35668]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department, including its agencies, is committed to equality of opportunity for all its employees regardless of gender. To increase the proportion of women in senior positions, the Department has adopted a number of measures, including:

  allowing career breaks and other flexible working patterns to enable women to combine their careers with domestic responsibilities;

  providing help to parents with children, including nursery places and holiday play schemes;

  providing, whenever possible, management development and training programmes which are suited to the needs of staff with domestic responsibilities for whom attendance at residential courses would not be possible;

  ensuring that most job opportunities are advertised and candidates are invited to indicate whether they wish to be considered on full-time, part-time or job-share basis;

  appointing whenever possible, at least, one woman on each selection/promotion board.

  Additional information on progress made by the Department on Equal Opportunities generally is contained in the Department's 1993–94 equal opportunities progress report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [34178]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The information requested for 1993 is shown in the table. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 November 1992, Official Report, columns 731–33, for information for the years 1990 and 1991, and to the reply that I gave him on 4 November 1993, Official Report, column 456 for 1992 information.
  1293

  Numbers of deaths which occurred in 1993 with a mention of hypothermia (ICD 991.61) on the death certificate by regional health authority of usual residence (including Wales), for: (1) males aged 65 years and over; and (2) females aged 60 years and over

  Regional health authority

  Males

  Females

  Northern

  13

  18

  Yorkshire

  7

  25

  Trent

  14

  18

  East Anglian

  15

  17

  North West Thames

  11

  16

  North East Thames

  15

  25

  South East Thames

  14

  21

  South West Thames

  4

  13

  Wessex

  6

  8

  Oxford

  7

  13

  South Western

  6

  16

  West Midlands

  18

  27

  Mersey

  4

  7

  Northern Western

  8

  19

  Wales

  9

  25

  Total

  151

  268

  1 ICD International Classification of Diseases: Ninth Revision.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35455]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of the number of staff in each civil service grade for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible by(a) male and (b) female, and by (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees are set out in the following tables.

  LCD headquarters: breakdown and non-industrial staff

  Grade

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  5

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  13

  0

  4

  3

  Grade 5 sol

  7

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 6 senior principal

  6

  0

  3

  0

  Grade 6 legal

  17

  0

  3

  1

  DP Registrar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7 principal

  32

  0

  28

  0

  Grade 7 legal

  8

  0

  13

  4

  Legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Legal officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SEO

  41

  0

  25

  2

  Senior assistant stats

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior information officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  HEO

  67

  0

  87

  8

  Information officer

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Assistant stats

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chief typing manager

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO D

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Admin trainee

  2

  0

  01

  0

  1294

  LCD headquarters: breakdown and non-industrial staff

  Grade

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  EO

  82

  0

  100

  6

  Assistant information officer

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Senior personal secretary

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Typing manager

  0

  0

  4

  0

  SMI

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SM2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SM3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  AO

  66

  0

  84

  2

  Personal secretary

  0

  0

  18

  1

  Interpreter

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AA

  10

  0

  13

  0

  SGB1

  1

  0

  5

  0

  SGB2

  22

  0

  11

  1

  Typist

  0

  0

  29

  5

  Total

  391

  0

  448

  33

  Court service: Breakdown of non-industrial staff

  Court service

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  Grade

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5 sol

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 6 senior principal

  19

  0

  5

  0

  Grade 6 legal

  4

  0

  2

  3

  DP Registrar

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Senior legal assistant

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Grade 7 principal

  70

  0

  17

  0

  Grade 7 legal

  14

  0

  14

  5

  Legal assistant

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Legal officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SEO

  150

  1

  88

  3

  Senior assistant stats

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO

  355

  1

  372

  44

  Information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant stats

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Chief typing manager

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Librarian

  3

  0

  5

  0

  HEOD

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Admin trainee

  0

  0

  1

  0

  EO

  754

  3

  1,018

  168

  Assistant information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior personal secretary

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Typing manager

  0

  0

  21

  0

  SMI

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant librarian

  0

  0

  10

  0

  SM2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  SM3

  17

  0

  23

  0

  AO

  1,620

  45

  2,572

  701

  Personal secretary

  0

  0

  34

  6

  Interpreter

  0

  0

  2

  0

  AA

  148

  3

  294

  72

  SGB 1

  52

  0

  70

  18

  SGB2

  421

  111

  436

  393

  Typist

  1

  0

  337

  249

  Total

  3,658

  164

  5,329

  1,663

  1295

  Public trust office: breakdown of non-industrial staff

  PTO

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  Grade

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5 sol

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 6 senior principal

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 6 legal

  2

  1

  1

  0

  DP Registrar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7 principal

  5

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 7 legal

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Legal officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SEO

  20

  0

  7

  0

  Senior assistant stats

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO

  49

  0

  34

  1

  Information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant stats

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chief typing manager

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO D

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Admin trainee

  0

  0

  0

  0

  EO

  76

  0

  68

  6

  Assistant information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior personal secretary

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Typing manager

  0

  0

  3

  0

  SM1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SM2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SM3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  AO

  85

  1

  92

  8

  Personal secretary

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Interpreter

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AA

  4

  0

  2

  0

  SGB1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  SGB2

  17

  0

  6

  0

  Typist

  0

  0

  25

  12

  Total

  264

  2

  248

  27

  Public record officer: Breakdown of non-industrial staff

  PRO

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part time

  Grade

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 5 sol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6 senior principal

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 6 legal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DP Registrar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7 principal

  13

  1

  10

  3

  Grade 7 legal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Legal assistant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Legal officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SEO

  14

  3

  15

  3

  Senior assistant statistician

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1296

  Public record officer: Breakdown of non-industrial staff

  PRO

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part time

  HEO

  22

  2

  13

  2

  Information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant statistician

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chief typing manager

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HEO D

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Administration trainee

  0

  0

  0

  0

  EO

  41

  1

  16

  8

  Assistant information officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior personal secretary

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Typing manager

  0

  0

  1

  0

  SM1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant librarian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SM2

  0

  0

  4

  0

  SM3

  14

  0

  2

  1

  AO

  23

  2

  34

  6

  Personal secretary

  0

  0

  4

  1

  Interpreter

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AA

  0

  0

  3

  0

  SGB1

  21

  1

  18

  3

  SGB2

  87

  4

  31

  4

  Conservation Officer Grade D

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Conservation Officer Grade E

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Conservation Officer Grade F

  11

  0

  7

  0

  Conservation Officer Grade G

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Museum support grade 2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Museum support grade 3

  2

  0

  3

  3

  Typist

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Total

  257

  14

  172

  36

  Her Majesty's Land Registry: Breakdown of non-industrial staff

  Grade

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  Grade 2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Land Registrar (grade 5 lawyer)

  15

  0

  2

  0

  Senior Registration Administrator 1 (grade 6)

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Assistant Land Registrar (grade 6 lawyer)

  18

  0

  2

  0

  Senior Registration Administrator 2 (grade 7)

  44

  0

  2

  0

  Assistant Land Registrar (grade 7 lawyer)

  49

  3

  21

  16

  Registration Executive 1 (Senior Executive Officer)

  230

  8

  38

  7

  Registration Executive 2 (Higher Executive Officer; Chief Typing
  Manager; Support
  Manager 1)

  391

  5

  138

  29

  1297

  Her Majesty's Land Registry: Breakdown of non-industrial staff

  Grade

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  Registration Executive 3 (Executive Officer; Senior Personal Secretary; Typing Manager; Support Manager 2; Support Manager 3)

  906

  26

  950

  370

  Registration Officer 2 (Administrative Officer; Personal
  Secretary; support grade band 1)

  992

  24

  1,718

  580

  Registration Assistant 1 (Administrative Assistant; Typist; Trainee Typist)

  280

  6

  1,073

  457

  Registration Assistant 2 (support grade band 2)

  298

  21

  211

  98

  Her Majesty's Land Registry totals

  3,251

  93

  4,156

  1,557

  County Courts
  Mr. Tim Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional legal expenditure has been made as a result of closing county courts since 1992. [35119]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. For civil legal aid, records are maintained by the Legal Aid Board by legal aid area, and not by court location.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) single people and (b) married couples refused an offer of contributory legal aid in each of the last five years. [35625]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of contributory civil legal aid offers made but not accepted in each of the last five years for which information is available are shown in the table. This information can not be broken down according to marital status.

  Year

  Contributory legal aid offers made but not taken up

  1990–91

  16,164

  1991–92

  19,179

  1992–93

  n/a

  1993–94

  26,399

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a—not available.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the level of weekly disposable income below which(a) free legal aid and (b) contributory legal aid was available in (i) 1979, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995; what was the percentage of the adult population eligible for (a) and (b) in each of those years; and what is the present day value in real terms of these disposable income levels. [85545]
  1298
  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available. I will reply as soon as possible and will also write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) single people and (b) married couples have been eligible for (i) free legal aid and (ii) contributory legal aid for each of the last five years; and what percentage of the adult population these figures represent for each of these years. [35543]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not make separate estimates of the financial eligibility of single and married people.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the value of the savings to the legal aid fund of the 1993 abolition of the contributory element of green form advice in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95. [35544]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is difficult to identify separately the effects of each element in the package of changes made in April 1993. However, it is estimated that the abolition of contributory green form advice and assistance resulted in savings of about £4 million in 1993–94 and £9 million in 1994–95.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the difference in the level of disposable income above which(a) free legal aid and (b) contributory legal aid was not available before and after the 1993 changes in financial eligibility. [35546]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Free limit

  Upper limit

  April 1992

  Civil

  £3,060 per annum

  £6,800 per annum

  Civil (personal injury)

  £3,060 per annum

  £7,500 per annum

  Criminal

  £65 per week

  no upper limit

  April 1993

  Civil

  £2,294 per annum

  £6,800

  Civil (personal injury)

  £2,294 per annum

  £7,500

  Criminal

  £45 per week

  no upper limit

  Family Mediation
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional funding he is making available for mediation work following his changes to divorce law. [35536]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's proposal is to ask the Legal Aid Board to take on responsibility for the funding of family mediation for those who are financially eligible. The Lord Chancellor hopes to bring forward legislation to implement this in due course.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department has spent on mediation services, directly and indirectly, through resources made available to other organisations in the last five years, by region. [35533]
  1299
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member providing the information requested in so far as is possible.

  Court Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy on the future of(a) magistrates courts and (b) county courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36135]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As far as the future of(a) magistrates courts in Wales is concerned, my policy is the same as that for England. That is, following implementation of part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, that magistrates courts will continue to be administered by magistrates courts committees made up mostly, if not entirely, of local magistrates. The powers and responsibilities of magistrates courts committees have been enhanced by the 1994 Act and they now have a clear statutory responsibility to conduct the administration of the magistrates' courts efficiently and effectively. So far as (b) the county courts in Wales are concerned, this is an operational matter for the Court Service. I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the future of the county courts in Wales.
  The Court Service must continually review its network of courts to ensure that the best use is made of resources. Factors taken into account in that process include workload levels, the accessibility of alternative courts and the cost of providing satisfactory standards of service. There is no separate policy on county courts in Wales, which are subject to the same process of individual review and assessment as courts elsewhere.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, 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. [34699]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy.

  Government continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative and taxation burdens. It also provides direct assistance when appropriate.

  The second competitiveness White Paper announced in May 1955 outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  My Department has improved its payment record to 93.5 per cent. of invoices paid on time, a fair proportion of which will be of benefit to small firms, and a target of 95 per cent. has been set for this financial year. Details of the special contracts arrangement have been sent to all my Department's purchasing officers.
  1300

  Inheritance Law
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ask the Law Commission to examine the law with regard to inheritance, with particular reference to its implications for those of Islamic faith. [34325]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to do so.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [34680]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has already published the current Courts Charter on the citizens charter pages of the Government world wide web server and the revised version will be made available in September. General information about the Department, with extracts from its strategic plan, and a summary of the recent legal aid consultation paper will be published in the next month. The Court Service is planning to make a wide range of explanatory material on how to use the courts available on its own section of the server in the near future. The Public Trust Office is planning a feasibility study to consider use of this service in the next year.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if legal aid is available to obtain child maintenance through the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [34296]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Full civil legal aid is only available for representation in proceedings through the courts and is not, therefore, available to obtain child maintenance through the Child Support Agency. However, if a person qualifies financially, he or she may obtain legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme.

  Working Group on Financial Penalties
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 398–400, if he will list the membership of the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties; when he expects the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties to report; and if he will make a statement. [36176]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The working group on the enforcement of financial penalties is chaired by a senior official from my Department and, as well as other members of the Department, includes representatives from the Home Office, Magistrates' Association, Justices' Clerks' Society, Central Council of Magistrates' Courts' Committees, Association of Magisterial Offices and the Magistrates' Courts' inspectorate. The working group is expected to continue for at least a year, but it hopes to be in a position to
  1301
  issue guidance to the magistrates courts as and when conclusions are reached during that period.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, columns 210–11, what proportion of without foundation asylum appeals were determined within the time-scale prescribed by the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules, in (a) 1994 and (b) 1995 to date. [35752]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In(a) and (b), no 'without foundation' appeals were determined within the time limit of seven days set out in the rules.

  The cases are usually listed for hearing within seven days. A proportion, however, are adjourned at the request of the appellants' representatives to a date outside the specified time limit.

  Defamation Law
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to reform defamation law and proceedings. [36382]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has today published a draft Defamation Bill which has been prepared to show in detail how the Government would implement proposals for a number of important reforms to bring defamation law up to date and to improve and simplify the procedures.

  The proposals include a new summary procedure to allow judges to dispose quickly of straightforward and less serious defamation claims; a new defence of offer of amends; and a reduction, from three years to one year, of the time within which defamation proceedings can begin.

  As drafted, most of these clauses would apply to England and Wales only. The Government will consider how far it may be appropriate for some or all of the reforms to be adopted in Northern Ireland and Scotland, taking into account the similarities as well as the differences which exist in the defamation laws and procedures applicable in those jurisdictions.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor expects to receive the report by the chief executive of the Court Service on his review of judges' lodgings. [36383]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's policy objective on judges' lodgings is to provide accommodation affording satisfactory working conditions and appropriate levels of security, privacy and comfort to High Court judges when they are on circuit; and to do so in an economic, efficient and accountable manner.

  Last July the Lord Chancellor instructed the chief executive of the Court Service to carry out a review of the current lodgings and to submit a report making recommendations concerning the optimum means of managing and staffing lodgings. Copies of the report have today been placed in the Library of the House.
  1302
  The Lord Chancellor will be considering the report in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the number of Labour and Conservative justices of the peace in(a) Grimsby and Cleethorpes, (b) Scunthorpe and (c) Hull and (d) Beverley. [36229]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of Labour and Conservative justices of the peace, based on the latest information available, is as follows:

  petty sessional division

  Conservative

  Labour

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  52

  36

  Scunthorpe, Bragg and Barton

  27

  8

  Hull

  80

  33

  Beverley

  3

  4

  Court Security
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to alter the security and security staffing arrangements at(a) London Crown court centres, (b) the Central Criminal Court and (c) the Royal Courts of Justice. [35741]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about plans to alter security and security staffing arrangements at:

  (a) London Crown Court Centres;

  (b) the Central Criminal Court; and

  (c) the Royal Courts of Justice

  I should begin by saying that security and security staffing arrangements at the Central Criminal Court are the responsibility of the Corporation of London, although they comply fully with the standards for all courts, which are laid down by the Department.
  There are no current plans to alter the security staffing arrangements at the other locations to which you referred.
  A general security review of all court buildings is being undertaken to ensure that current standards are appropriate and are being achieved. Following recommendations made in a separate review of security in the Royal Courts of Justice, a rolling programme of improvements is under way.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on the local county court system under the private finance initiative. [35744]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  1303
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about progress on the local county court system under the Private Finance Initiative.
  The Court Service's requirement for the provision of information system services to county courts was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community on 16 May 1995 under reference 95/S92–46794/EN. Potential suppliers were advised that the requirement was considered suitable for the application of the Private Finance Initiative. Thirty suppliers responded and were sent a detailed Statement of Operational Requirements. Initial proposals were subsequently received from a number of suppliers and these are being evaluated, prior to the announcement of a shortlist. The procurement exercise is being conducted under the EC Services Directive Negotiated Procedures. We expect to award a contract to commence in June 1996.

  Court Computer Systems
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many bids have been received for work on(a) the extension of the CASEMAN county court computer system and (b) the renewal of the CREST Crown court computer system; what is the likely cost to public funds of each of these projects; and if he will list the names of any companies, and the value of the contracts awarded to them, with respect to (i) value for money work and (ii) other consultancy work for these projects. [35740]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of bids that have been received and the likely cost of work on

  (a) the extension of the CASEMAN County Court computer system, and

  (b) the renewal of the CREST Crown Court computer system, with the names of any companies awarded consultancy contracts and the value of those contracts.

  The CASEMAN computer system forms part of the LOCCS project, which is designed to provide comprehensive computer support to local county courts. The project is subject to a Private Finance Initiative procurement exercise, which was advertised in the Official journal of the European Community on 16 May 1995.
  The following companies have been awarded contracts to provide consultancy advice and specialist skills to the procurement project:

  KERMON Ltd. of Amersham, Bucks

  AMTEC Consulting, of Farnham, Surrey

  CSS Trident, of Hemel Hempstead, Herts

  Charterhouse Bank Ltd.

  The value of these contracts is not fixed, but will be determined by the specific services delivered by each company. Since this is a competitive tendering exercise, I cannot, at this stage, give an estimate of the likely cost of the LOCCS project.
  There are no current plans to replace the CREST system. However, under the terms of the Private Finance Initiative, bidders are free to offer to provide other services, and it is possible that some might express an interest in the CREST system. If this is the case we will consider whether or not it should be included in the eventual contract.
  1304

  Court Functions
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representation he has received, and whether he has taken legal advice, as to whether some of the functions to be carried out by the local county court system are judicial in nature within the terms of schedule 16(2) to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [35775]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the functions to be carried out by the Local County Court Systems (LOCCS).
  The development of the system has not reached the point at which it covers any function which might be defined as judicial, under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This would become an issue only if the system was developed to cover such functions and if its operation were to be considered for contracting out, for example in the context of the Private Finance procurement exercise which is currently under way. In that event legal advice would be taken before any decision was made.

  County Court Hearings
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many of the total number of cases before the county court, excluding family law cases, an individual plaintiff or defendant was opposed by(a) the Government or its representatives or a public body or its representatives (b) a company for each of the past five years. [35547]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of cases in which an individual plaintiff or defendant was opposed by the Government or a company.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Court Buildings (Access)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has carried out in the last 10 years into disabled people's access to court buildings and courtrooms in England and Wales; and what plans he has to commission further research. [35539]
  1305
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about research into disabled people's access to court buildings and courtrooms in the last ten years.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department took over responsibility for the design of court buildings from the Property Services Agency (PSA) in 1992. Prior to 1992, the PSA consulted a number of groups representing disabled court users in developing its standards, which comply with statutory requirements including relevant Building Regulations. These standards have been maintained or improved since responsibility passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department. We plan to hold further consultations with disabled court users groups to discuss how best to meet the requirements of the Disability Bill, currently at committee stage in the House of Lords.

  Court Facilities
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts in England and Wales were equipped with(a) clearly marked signs using a minimum typeface of 12 points and materials in large print, (b) human aid to communications including sign language provision and (c) induction loops, for each of the last five years. [35541]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of courts, for each of the last five years, equipped with

  (a) clearly marked signs using a minimum typeface of 12 points and materials in large print,

  (b) human aid to communications including sign language provision, and

  (c) induction loops.

  I am afraid that, in the time available, it has not been possible to obtain the information sought under a) or to cover more than the current position under b) and c). The figures are as follows; b) 6 and c) 27.
  Courts in the Royal Courts of Justice and the Principal Registry of the Family Division do not have induction loops. However, four courtrooms have infrared hearing systems and there are also four portable hearing aid systems.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts in England and Wales were equipped with facilities, including toilet access for(a) blind and partially sighted people, (b) hard of hearing and deaf people and (c) wheelchair users for each of the last five years. [35542]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  1306
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of courts, for each of the last five years, equipped with facilities, including toilet access, for

  (a) blind and partially sighted people,

  (b) hard of hearing and deaf people, and

  (c) wheelchair users.

  I am afraid that in the time available it has not been possible to obtain the information sought under a) or to cover more than the current position under b) and c). The figures are as follows; b) 27 and c) 69.

  Litigants in Person
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many(a) matrimonial cases and (b) civil non-matrimonial cases in each of the last five years one of the parties was a litigant in person. [35540]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to his Question about the number of cases in which one of the parties was a litigant in person.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Liverpool Combined Court Centre
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional steps have been taken to ensure the personal safety and security of members of the public, the judiciary, the legal profession and court staff at Liverpool combined court centre; what additional powers of search and arrest have been given to court staff and private security contractual workers; on what legal authority those powers are to be exercised; and what steps are being taken to ensure that private security contractual workers are properly vetted, trained and equipped and that they comply fully with their contractual obligations. [35738]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about steps taken to ensure personal safety and security at the Liverpool Combined Court Centre.The Department sets minimum security standards, which apply to all courts, including Liverpool Combined Court. Neither court staff nor private security contractors have additional powers of search or arrest.1307 The Department's standard security contract requires contractors to demonstrate that they have effective systems in place for vetting and training their staff and that they will be properly equipped. Performance against the terms of each contract is closely monitored by local managers and is reviewed at regular meetings between the contractors and staff from the appropriate Circuit Office.

  Summons Production Centre
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of the work and the staff at the(a) Summons Production Centre and (b) County Court Bulk Centre in Northampton. [35743]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the future of the Summons Production Centre and the County Court Bulk Centre at Northampton.
  At present there are no plans affecting the future of the work and the staff at the Summons Production Centre. There are plans to extend the functions covered by the County Court Bulk Centre to provide for users to issue attachment of earnings applications. The centralisation of attachment of earnings payments is also under consideration. The work of both centres is supported by computer systems which have been included in the Local County Court System Private Finance Initiative project because of their link with local county courts.

  Civil Courts Recovery Programme
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the latest figures on his Department's full-cost recovery programme in the civil courts. [35739]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the full-cost recovery programme in the civil courts.
  I am able to let you know that the cost recovery targets for the civil courts for each of the next three years are as follows:

  1995/96: £244 million

  1996/97: £281 million

  1997/98: £291 million

  Bilingual Forms
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all standard forms commonly issued to the public by the Probate Office in Wales, indicating which are available bilingually and which are available in the English language only; if he will make it his policy to secure the use of bilingual forms by all probate offices in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [35484]
  1308
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the availability of bilingual forms in probate offices in Wales.
  At present the only bilingual form issued to the public by the Probate Office in Wales is the Grant of Probate. However, in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993, the Court Service is currently developing a Welsh Language Scheme which will set out its policy for accommodating the needs of Welsh speakers when delivering a service to all members of the public in Wales. This will build on the policy statement already in place for Welsh speakers who use the courts, and will include full details of the service which will be provided to welsh speakers using Probate Offices in Wales. It will set out a timetable for the provision of bilingual forms, concentrating on those which are most commonly used and taking account of the availability of resource. It is intended that the scheme will be in place by the end of the year.

  Local County Court System
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Woolf Commission recommendation of greater control of case progression by the judiciary will be achieved under the market testing of the County Courts LOCCS project. [35322]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about how greater judicial control of case progression will be achieved under the market testing of the county court Local County Court System (LOCCS) project.
  The Private Finance Initiative is not a market testing exercise but is a procurement project designed to obtain information technology services in support of the LOCCS project. Lord Woolf s interim report draws attention to the need for active judicial case management, supported by computer. The LOCCS system will provide a comprehensive electronic database to support a wide range of county court functions, including a case progression.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement in relation to the market test of the Department's county courts LOCCS project, on the judicial areas of work, or areas of work advising the judiciary, that will be prevented from being contracted out under the Courts Act 1991 as amended. [35332]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the market test of the Department's County Courts LOCCS project on the judicial areas of work, or areas of work advising the judiciary, that will be prevented from being contracted out under the Courts Act 1991, as amended.

  1309
  I should first say that the LOCCS project is not being market tested. It is however, the subject of a Private Finance Initiative procurement exercise, designed to obtain information technology services in support of the project.
  The Courts Act 1971, as amended by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 permits the Lord Chancellor to contract certain functions of court staff. However, such functions do not include judicial functions nor giving advice on judicial functions. Before exercising the power to contract out, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior Judiciary. The power is exercisable by order which is subject to Parliamentary Scrutiny.
  Any decision to contract out the function of LOCCS will be subject to the above limitations.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the 250 county courts in England and Wales following the market testing of the Department's LOCCS project and the need to retain local access to justice. [35321]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the future of county courts and the policy of retaining local access to justice, following the market testing of the Local County Court System (LOCCS) project.The Private Finance Initiative is not a market testing exercise, but it is a procurement project designed to obtain information technology services in support of the LOCCS project. The LOCCS computer system will provide high quality computer support to all local county courts and will improve both the quality of service we provide to court users and the efficiency with which that service is provided.

  County Court Bulk Centre
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the county court bulk centre and the summons production centre in Northampton, including the possibility of privatisation under the private finance initiative or any chance of location. [35331]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the future of the County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC) and Summons Production Centre (SPC).
  The Department has not specifically proposed that the functions of either the CCBC or SPC be contracted out under the LOCCS PFI project. However, one of the fundamental principles of the Private Finance Initiative is that the Department is obliged to offer scope for suppliers to make wide proposals for the provision of services.
  I am not, at this stage, able to say what services bidders may propose to provide.
  1310

  Litigants (Travelling Time)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the maximum time litigants should be expected to travel to a county court. [35110]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the maximum travel times for litigants.There is no maximum time limit for how long litigants can be expected to travel to a county court. However, this is taken into account, along with a number of other factors, when consideration is given to where a court is best located. These factors include, for example, the availability of public transport, the level of workload likely to be generated in a particular location and the cost of providing appropriate facilities for court users.

  Courts (Travelling Times)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Court Service business and corporation plan will include policies on the distribution of courts and travelling times to them. [35112]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about whether the Court Service Business and Corporate Plans will include policies for the distribution of courts and the travelling times to them.
  The purpose of the Court Service Business and Corporate Plans is to set out the aims and objectives of the Court Service, providing details of the activities through which it will seek to achieve them and the resources it has available to do so. There are no plans to include policy matters such as those you suggest. However, the Court Service Accommodation Plan, which is a published document, sets out the criteria to be considered in reviewing the location of a court, for example when considering the possibility of a closure. These include the availability of public transport, the location of the nearest alternative court and the cost of providing appropriate facilities for court users.

  County Court Closures
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what savings to his Department have accrued as a result of closing county courts since 1992. [35118]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about savings which have accrued as a result of closing county courts since 1992.

  1311
  At present day values the savings on accommodation costs amount to £196,000. There are still five properties in the process of being disposed of. In addition, there have been significant savings in terms of management overheads, maintenance, equipment rental. staff travel and general running costs which I am unable to quantify in the time available.

  Mr. Tim Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by year, all the county courts upon which consultation for possible closure was issued in each year since 1992. [35114]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the details of those courts that have been through the consultation process for possible closure since 1992.
  No separate record is kept of those courts that have been the subject of consultation but which did not proceed to closure. In the majority of cases where consultation has taken place it has led to the closure of the court. This is because any case for closure submitted by a Circuit Administrator must satisfy a series of stringent criteria before the Lord Chancellor will allow it to proceed to consultation. This means that only the strongest cases for closure ever reach the consultation stage.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the county courts closed in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995 to date. [35113]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the county courts closed during the years 1992–1995.
  The county courts closed since 1992 are:

  1992

  Northallerton

  Maldon

  Westminster

  Bloomsbury

  Gainsborough

  Great Malvern

  Beverley

  1993

  East Grinstead

  Whitby

  Malton

  Hexham

  Thorne

  1994

  Devizes

  Frome

  Clacton

  Sevenoaks

  Sheerness

  1312

  Sudbury

  Bangor

  Stroud

  Lampeter

  Liskeard

  Axminster and Chard

  Launceston

  Ellesmere Port

  Shaftesbury

  Porthmadog

  Stockton on Tees

  1995

  Amersham

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the county courts currently being considered for possible closure. [35115]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about county courts currently being considered for closure.
  Those county courts currently under consideration for possible closure and which are the subject of public consultation, are:

  Alfreton

  Ammanford

  Bargoed

  Barry

  Brentwood

  Cardigan

  Chippenham

  Dover

  Folkestone

  Gravesend

  Ilkeston

  Llandrindod Wells

  Market Drayton

  Matlock

  Newton Abbott

  Otley

  St. Austell

  Sittingbourne

  Sleaford

  Spalding

  Wisbech

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration was given to the report of Lord Woolf prior to the decision to close three county courts in Derbyshire. [35111]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  1313
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about what consideration was given to Lord Woolf s report prior to the decision to close three county courts in Derbyshire.
  I can confirm that no recent decisions have been made to close any county courts in Derbyshire. However, the Lord Chancellor has recently agreed to commence public consultation about the proposed closure of three courts in that County. These courts are at Alfreton, Ilkeston and Matlock. I should emphasise that no decision with regard to any of these proposed closures will be taken until after the public consultation exercise has been completed and responses analysed.
  Any implications flowing from Lord Woolf's report will be considered before a final decision is taken.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Gitarama Prison, Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prisoners have died at Gitarama prison in Rwanda since the end of the war; of what causes they have died; and what measures the international community is taking to reduce the number of deaths. [34368]

  Mr. Hanley
  The International Committee of the Red Cross believes that just over 2,000 people have died in 13 Rwandan prisons in the last year, most through health problems caused by overcrowding. Many of these were in Gitarama. The international community has committed $3.5 million through the United Nations Development Programme to improve prison conditions, including the construction of new facilities. Help is also being given to rebuild the judicial system to allow speedier processing of cases; Britain has committed over £750,000 for this purpose.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to improve communications with St. Helena with reference to(a) the purchase of a shuttle ship to Ascension and (b) the construction of an airstrip on the island. [34903]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  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, which consultants were employed in connection with the aid programme. [35489]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  China
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the People's Republic of China received from the overseas aid budget during financial year 1994–95; and if he will list the major projects funded. [36239]
  1314
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those Chinese provinces which(a) do not have systems of birth permits, birth quotas and birth targets and (b) do not have legislation limiting the right freely to found a family and decide the numbers and spacing of any children. [360901]

  (2) what steps he has taken to fulfil the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee to seek further information on population control in China; [36107]

  (3) what specific discussions wee held by the delegation led by Lord Howe on the subject of coercive population control during its visit to China in December 1992; [35980]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the role of the Chinese Family Planning Association in promoting the one child policy; [36103]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the humane population policies that have been adopted by the Chinese Government as a result of United Nations Population Fund assistance with China's censuses in (a)1980 and (b) 1990; [35985]

  (6) if his Department classifies the one child policy in China as a coercive population policy; and if he will make a statement; [36101]

  (7) what information he has on the number of female contraceptive acceptors in China (a) in total and (b) expressed as a percentage of the number of potential child hearing women; [35982]

  (8) what account he takes of the (a) absence or presence of child safety insurance, (b) housing, (c) employment provision and (d) nursery and elementary education provision for Chinese families with more than one child in allocating funding from his Department; [36100]

  (9) what account he takes of the methods used to ensure compliance with China's one child policy in allocating ODA funding; and if he will make a statement on the methods; [36092]

  (10) if he will make a statement on the practice in China of X-raying women using IUDs every three months; and if he will make a statement; [36108]

  (11) if the delegation led by Lord Howe visited (a) the Chinese State Family Planning Commission, (b) the Chinese Family Planning Association, (c) the UNFPA mission and (d) any population control facility or offices during its visit to China in 1992; [35981]

  (12) if he will make a statement on the humane population policies that the UNFPA advocated to the Chinese Government in connection with China's censuses of (a) 1980 and (b) 1990; [35986]

  (13) in what respects China's one child policy breaches the UN guaranteed human right freely to found a family and decide the number and spacing of children; [36102]

  (14) if the issue of coercive population control was raised with the Chinese Vice Premier and Foreign Minister at the meeting in New York on 18 April; and if he will make a statement; [35984]
  1315
  (15) what account he takes of the number of Chinese regional laws that specify obligatory contraception and their origins in a national draft law in allocating ODA funding; [36090]

  (16) if he will make a statement on the incident reported on page 14 of "People and Development Challenges" of 3 May, a copy of which he has received in respect of coercive population control regulations against families in Feixian county, Shandong province; and what assessment he has made of the reliability of (a) the Chinese Family Planning Association and (b) the International Planned Parenthood Federation statements on coercive population control. [35955]

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Members.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the government of Nigeria about the holding of political prisoners; and in respect of which individuals he has made representations; [35763]

  (2) what representations he has made to the government of Nigeria about the holding of secret trials; and which prisoners were involved; [35764]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth about the situation in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement; [35765]

  (4) if he supports the sanctions imposed by the United States of America on Nigeria; and if he will impose similar sanctions; [35766]

  (5) what representations he has made to British oil companies about their activities in Nigeria; [35767]

  (6) which military links and arms trading with Nigeria he intends to sustain; [35768]

  (7) what consideration he has given to the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth; [35769]

  (8) what action had been decided upon by the European Union in respect of the conduct by the Government of Nigeria; [35770]

  (9) what aid support is given by (a) the British Government and (b) the European Union to Nigeria; and what proposals he has to end such support. [35771]

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

  Arms Exports (Rwanda)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning the activities of British companies exporting arms to Rwandan exiles, with particular reference to former members of the Rwanda Government via third countries. [36309]

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

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the annual expenditure of his Department on the Bandung TV studio 1316
  project in Indonesia before it was withdrawn from the overseas aid programme; [36325]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to monitor the post-training careers of Indonesian police officers who have received any form of training paid for by his Department; [36327]

  (3) which Indonesian companies were involved in the Bali and Medan airport security project in Indonesia; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project referring to his Under-Secretary's letter of 31 May; what considerations made it necessary for the DTI to submit the project to the sub-committee for aid and trade, SCAT before his Department had appraised the project; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; who his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what date site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (i) the "present value" of the cost, (ii) the "present value" of the benefits of the project, and (iii) how the actual cost and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of the appraisal; when his Department carried out an institutional appraisal in respect of the directorate general of air communications and what was the outcome of that appraisal; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented "value for money"; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by SCAT; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; in what respect and to what extent the project benefited the poorest people in Indonesia; what was (a) the approved cash cost and (b) the actual cash cost of the project; what were (1) the projected completion dates and (2) the actual completion date of the project; and if he will place a copy of the project completion report in the Library. [36319]

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

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what performance targets he has set in the 1995–96 financial year for the Overseas Development Administration's executive agency, the Natural Resources Institute. [36609]

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a transitional year for the institute during which it will be undertaking a major restructuring exercise. It will be working during this period to the following principal targets:Restructuring. To implement, by the end of the 1995–96 financial year, an agreed programme of restructuring measures identified in the light of a recently completed study of the institute's future business prospects. Specifically:

  (a) to reorganise the institute's management commands;

  (b) to manage a voluntary severance programme aimed at reducing staff numbers to an indicative level of 360; and

  (c) to formulate an accommodation strategy for the smaller Institute.

  Unit revenue. While implementing this programme, to maintain an average revenue of £67,750 per operational year of time charged to clients for a minimum of 260 operational years.

  1317
  External business. To increase the number of operational years of work for non-ODA clients, and the value of retained income from this source, by 10 per cent.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up there has been to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the efficiency and costs of, and the service provided by, the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC). [36610]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's first response to the report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation by the MMC was reported to the House on 25 March 1993,Official Report, columns 653–54. I have today placed in the Library of the House a further and final response by the Government and the CDC. This reports on progress in implementation of MMC recommendations and updates earlier responses to these taking account of the outcome of the quinquennial review of the CDC as reported to Parliament on 3 May 1994 and the corporation's own reviews of strategy and management, and the passage of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been authorised to operate in additional countries. [36611]

  Mr. Hanley
  Following a request from the corporation, approval has been given for the CDC to operate in the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Cuba. In accordance with the strategic targets set out in the quinquennial review CDC will aim to give priority in the private sector.

TRANSPORT

  Child Pedestrian Accidents
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the recent Transport Research Laboratory reports on child pedestrian accidents. [35940]

  Mr. Norris
  The two TRL reports on this subject, project reports 116 and 117, have been published today and I have placed copies in the Library.

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision following the 1994 public inquiry into the proposed A41 Aston Clinton bypass; and if he will make a statement. [36384]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State for Transport has decided, jointly with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the supplementary orders of the scheme should be made, subject to minor modifications. The decision is in accordance with the recommendations of the inspector. A copy of his report and a letter notifying the decision will be sent to interested parties shortly.
  1318

  Coach Safety
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether coach safety was discussed at the informal Transport Council on 15 July. [36629]

  Mr. Watts
  The matter of coach safety was added to the agenda of the informal Transport Council following the recent tragic accidents in France and the United Kingdom.

  I stressed the good safety record of buses and coaches and the value of spot checks such as our recent Operation Tourist crackdown in enforcing both standards of maintenance and drivers' hours regulations.

  I called upon all member states to give a greater commitment to reaching agreement on the proposed directive to require the fitting of seat belts on all new coaches and minibuses and referred to the consultation on our proposed regulations covering the fitment of seat belts to minibuses and coaches used for the transportation of children.

  I acknowledged the need for further work on standards to be set for bus and coach construction but defended the British double decker against any suggestion that it had any inherent safety problems.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will restore fuel duty rebate for all buses and coaches which conform to the revised Euro-emission standards. [34399]

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans to do so.

  Transport Works
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to major transport works during the deliberations of the highway authorities and utilities committee working party before(a) the drafting and implementation of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and (b) before the drafting and implementation of the Street Works (Sharing of Cost of Works) Regulation 1992, SI No. 1690 of 1992. [34923]

  Mr. Norris
  The working party undertook its work in 1987 and 1988. It was concerned with highway works and bridge works, including cases where the works were initiated by a transport undertaking. Highway works carried out by a transport undertaking are "major transport works" in terms of the definition used in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he or his Ministers have met representatives of the national joint utilities group to discuss shared costs of diversionary transport works; and if he will make a statement. [34921]

  Mr. Norris
  Ministers from this Department have met representatives of the utilities, most recently in June 1994, to discuss the utilities' request for a change in the existing cost-sharing arrangements.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the application of section 85(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 as it applies to major transport works; [34933]
  1319
  (2) if he will make a statement on the application of the Street Works (Sharing of Cost of Works) Regulation 1992, SI No. 1690 of 1992 to major transport works. [34918]

  Mr. Norris
  Section 85(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 provides that, where an undertaker's apparatus in a street has to be moved or protected—actions commonly known as "diversionary works"—as a result of major highway works, major bridge works or major transport works, the allowable costs of the diversionary works are to be shared between the undertaker and the promoter in such manner as may be prescribed. The Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations 1992 prescribe that costs are to be shared in the proportion 18 per cent. to the undertaker and 82 per cent. to the promoter in all three cases.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the definition of major transport works used by his Department includes public transport developments. [34919]

  Mr. Norris
  The definition to be used for the purposes of parts III and IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is set out in sections 91(2) and 150(2) of that Act as follows:"'major transport works' means substantial works required for the purposes of a transport undertaking and executed in property held or used for the purposes of the undertaking".

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those representations he received during his Department's consideration of shared costs of diversionary transport works; and if he will make a statement. [34922]

  Mr. Norris
  Some 35 representations were received in response to the consultation letter issued in February 1993. Others have been received subsequently. The representations include a number both from public transport operators and from utilities.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he or his Ministers have met representatives of the passenger transport executives group to discuss shared costs of diversionary transport works; and if he will make a statement. [34920]

  Mr. Norris
  No, but I am aware of the passenger transport executives' views on the subject and will invite them to a meeting if this seems likely to help in reaching a decision on it.

  Coach Parking (London)
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to exclude the parking of commuter, tourist and shopping trip coaches within one mile of the Palace of Westminster. [34866]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls are currently exercised over the parking of commuter, tourist and shopping trip coaches in central London. [34861]

  Mr. Norris
  Commuter, tourist and shopping trip coaches in central London are subject to the on-street parking controls that apply within special parking areas and on priority (red) routes.
  1320

  Northern Cruiser (Sailing)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what action he proposes to take against the captain of the Northern Cruiser for sailing on 17 May. [34862]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the NORTHERN CRUISER.
  The NORTHERN CRUISER was inspected by surveyors from the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) on 10 January 1995 and detained due to a defective rescue boat. She was released on the same day after the deficiency had been rectified.
  I am not aware of a reason for the MSA to take action against the captain of the NORTHERN CRUISER for sailing on 17 May 1995.

  Common Shipping Policy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from the European Commission for the development of a common shipping policy; and what response he has made. [34931]

  Mr. Norris
  Over the last decade, the UK has supported Community legislation which seeks to ensure open access and fair competition on shipping routes both inside the Community and between member states and third countries. The Commission is currently preparing a strategy document on the future development of Community shipping policy which it intends to present to member states at the end of this year.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35454]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the grades employed by my Department, including executive agencies, as at 1 April 1995, broken down by gender and full/part-time working.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35689]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested but details by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including any executive agencies can be found in table 5 of civil service statistics for each year from 1985 and to 1994—copies available in the Library. Details for 1995 will be published later this year.
  1321

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35666]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has been actively pursuing the civil service programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women. The Department has implemented an extensive programme of equal opportunities training and has encouraged part-time working and flexible working patterns. The proportion of women in management positions has increased significantly and women now make up 14 per cent. of the Department's three top grades.

  British Airways (Consolidated Fares)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to encourage British Airways to increase the number of consolidators appointed on the Indian sub-continent route. [35708]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a commercial matter for British Airways.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his recommendations for the contours and size of road humps built to calm traffic and their positioning. [36178]

  Mr. Norris
  The rules for the design and location of road humps built to calm traffic are set out in the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990.

  Under the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, the Secretary of State may authorise the use of road humps which do not conform to the requirements of the regulations, and non-standard humps such as speed cushions have been authorised in this way. The Department has also issued traffic advisory leaflets on speed control humps—that is, standard road humps—(Leaflet 2/90); Fire and Ambulance Services Traffic Calming: a Code of Practice (3/94); Speed Cushions (9/94); and "Thumps" Thermoplastic Road Humps (7/94), all of which contain advice on various types of road hump. In addition, Department of Transport circular roads 3/90 contains general advice to local authorities. I am placing copies of these documents in the Library.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road humps for calming traffic have been built by Harrogate borough council; and what was the average cost of each. [36179]

  Accidents in England and Wales

  Accidents in Scotland

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Total

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Total

  1989

  4,411

  235,740

  240,151

  496

  20,112

  20,608

  1990

  4,258

  234,016

  238,274

  490

  19,677

  20,167

  1991

  3,718

  213,071

  216,789

  440

  18,569

  19,009

  1992

  3,432

  211,576

  215,008

  423

  17,594

  18,017

  1993

  3,111

  209,068

  212,179

  359

  16,327

  16,686

  1994

  3,007

  214,317

  217,324

  319

  16,458

  16,777

  1322
  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Rail Delays (King's Cross)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received about the nature and cause of delays in travelling by rail to King's Cross on 17 July; and if he will ensure that those responsible(a) announce some form of compensation to those affected and (b) offer relevant information during such journeys. [36237]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for British Rail and its train operating units and Railtrack. British Rail has advised that a West Anglian Great Northern train was discovered at Holloway at around 12.30 on Monday 17 July with a damaged pantograph, which had damaged overhead power lines in the area. Services were severely disrupted until the mid-evening, with some trains being delayed for three to four hours.

  Trains to London were stopped at Finsbury park and passengers were advised to take the underground to make connections.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has been given of changes in policy, of advertising, presenting and sale of bull bars and bull bar substitutes since he urged the industry to reduce its advertising of metal bull bars. [35873]

  Mr. Norris
  My predecessor wrote in April 1993 to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders urging it not to fit bull bars as standard and to avoid marketing of them.

  Although no official reply was received, we understand that some motor manufacturers are no longer, as a matter of general practice, advertising the availability of bull bars on their vehicles. There has also been a move towards the production of bull bars which would be significantly less aggressive if the vehicle were involved in an accident.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents there have been in each year since 1989(a) in England and Wales and (b) in Scotland (i) involving fatalities, (ii) involving injuries and (iii) in total. [35835]

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows for England and Wales, and for Scotland, the number of accidents involving fatalities, non-fatal injuries and the total number for each year 1989 to 1994.
  1323

  Isle of Skye Car Ferry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice which he gave to the acting chairman of the Scottish Rail Users Consultative Committee in respect of the procedures to be followed over the withdrawal of the existing Isle of Skye car ferry: and if he will make a statement. [35851]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. My letter of 21 April to the acting chairman of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland set out the Department's view of the duties and powers of the committee with regard to ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. A copy is being placed in the Library.

  Sudden Noise (Effect on Drivers)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been commissioned by his Department or by the Highways Agency into the effects of sudden noise on traffic; and if he will make a statement. [35823]

  Mr. Watts
  In response to concerns expressed by the Ministry of Defence, there is a research programme in progress at the Transport Research Laboratory on the effects on drivers of sudden noise from artillery ranges. When this has been completed I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Unsafe Vehicles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 707, if he will break down the figures on unsafe vehicles to show (a) the number in a dangerous or defective case and (b) the number of offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition and other related offences. [35855]

  Mr. Norris
  The available information does not permit us to break down the data to show separately offences relating to a vehicle or vehicle part found to be in a dangerous or defective condition and offences of using such a vehicle together with other related offences.

  My previous answer made it clear that the statistics are recorded in terms of offences and not vehicle numbers.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress has been made on the west coast main line reinvestment project under the private finance initiative; and whether he will make a statement about the contract to undertake the upgrading work. [36346]

  Mr. Watts
  The development of the signalling system will be within the framework of the private finance initiative. Railtrack informs me that the detailed tender documentation for the signalling system was issued on 14 July. It aims to let the contract by the end of the year.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the number of vehicles licensed for use in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [35657]
  1324
  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of vehicles licensed for use in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom since 1979 are as follows:

  Scotland

  Thousands United Kingdom

  1979

  1,353

  18,625

  1980

  1,398

  19,210

  1981

  1,397

  19,347

  1982

  1,416

  19,762

  1983

  1,464

  20,209

  1984

  1,524

  20,988

  1985

  1,528

  21,062

  1986

  1,560

  21,607

  1987

  1,599

  22,235

  1988

  1,678

  23,351

  1989

  1,736

  24,196

  1990

  1,811

  24,673

  1991

  1,845

  24,511

  1992

  1,900

  24,851

  1993

  1,929

  25,089

  1994

  1,962

  25,534

  British Rail Engineering Ltd., Swindon
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Swindon BREL works were closed; and how many people were employed at the works(a) one, (b) two and (c) three years before its closure. [34454]

  Mr. Watts
  The BREL works at Swindon closed in 1986. The BREL employee information was not contained in the BR central database and therefore is not readily available from BR and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Property (Discretionary Purchase)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to introduce new guidelines for the discretionary purchase of property seriously affected by a proposed trunk road, or motorway widening scheme. [35943]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has today issued new guidelines for considering applications for discretionary purchase of property seriously affected by proposed trunk road or motorway widening schemes.

  The new guidelines do not affect owner-occupiers' existing statutory rights under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and apply only to those who have a pressing need to sell their property in advance of these provisions coming into play. Owner-occupiers who do not qualify under the guidelines may, nevertheless, be eligible for noise insulation. The new guidelines indicate the general manner in which cases will be considered by the Highways Agency acting on the Secretary of State's behalf, but each application for discretionary purchase will be considered on its merits.

  I recommend detailed study of the guidelines for a full understanding of the way the new scheme will work. Briefly, the Highways Agency will consider eligible applications in two stages:

  1325
  first to see if, in the agency's opinion, enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected and, if the agency thinks it will be—
  second to decide whether to offer to buy, taking account of the information in the application.

  The agency must be of the opinion that the enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected by either the construction or the use of the road. Serious effect may be caused by a number of factors, including noise and medical conditions which are likely to be severely aggravated by physical effects from either the construction of the road or its use. To these, the new guidelines add diminution in the value of the property as a result of the road proposal. Other factors, or combination of factors, may cause serious effect and the agency will take these into account when considering the application.

  The agency's decision on whether or not to offer to buy the property will depend on whether the applicant:

  had foreknowledge of the proposed road scheme;

  has made reasonable efforts to sell the property; and

  has a pressing need to move and therefore to sell the property—which normally must not be connected with the scheme.

  I should emphasise that the agency will normally also need to be of the opinion that the enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected by both diminution in value and noise arising during the construction period or during the first year following the opening of the road to traffic.

  The Highways Agency will aim to arrive at a decision on a properly completed application within three months of its receipt.

  I have arranged for a copy of the guidelines to be placed in the Library.

  Comparable guidelines will be used for considering applications for discretionary purchase of property seriously affected by the proposed channel tunnel rail link. I have arranged for a copy of these guidelines to be placed in the Library also.

  Both sets of guidelines come into immediate effect.

  Departmental Efficiency Plan
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has for reporting efficiency achievements and reviews planned.

  Sir George Young
  Efficiency achievements and reviews planned are included in the Department of Transport efficiency plan 1995 summary report, which is published today. Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Euro-routes (Railways)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received in relation to the designation of the Holyhead-Felixstowe railway route as a preferred Euro-route for(a) freight and (b) passenger purposes; what consultations he has had with the European Union Transport Commissioner concerning the practical implications of such a designation; and if he will make a statement; [35236]
  1326
  (2) if he will make a statement on the designation of international Euro-routes as they effect (a) the United Kingdom railway system in general and (b) the Holyhead-Felixstowe railway route. [35235]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: We have received a number of representations. The Holyhead-Felixstowe rail route has always featured on the draft trans-European rail network map. Its inclusion was supported by the UK Government. The Transport Council approved the draft map at its last meeting. At the Council, the UK also supported the addition of this route to the draft combined transport network map.

  It is for Railtrack to decide whether to apply for funding for any such projects. The UK Government will consider carefully all applications before submitting its bid for network funding.

  Investment projects on routes included in the TEN maps are eligible in principle for financial support from the TEN's budget.

  A1 (Ferrybridge)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the length of delay in contractors carrying out work on the A1 at Ferrybridge, in meeting agreed timetables on slip road closures; and if he will make a statement; [36139]

  (2) what is the agreed contract time for the road works on the Al from Ferrybridge to Selby Fork; [36132]

  (3) what is the agreed start and finish date for the A 1 road works involving and affecting Ferrybridge; [36130]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the arrangements for traffic management and alternative routes available for vehicles using the A1 during the major road works north of Ferrybridge; [36129]

  (5) what is the average number of vehicles passing the road works on the A 1 in Ferrybridge per hour per day. [36133]

  (6) how many hours have been worked on the A 1 road improvements at Ferrybridge (a) at the weekends and (b) during the night. [36131]

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien,
  dated 19 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions numbered 337, 339, 343, 352, 355 and 358 on the Order Paper circulated on 17 July. All six questions are about the current roadworks on the Al at Ferrybridge.
  You asked (question 343) about the agreed start and finish date for the works and (question 339) the agreed contract time. The start date was 20 June, the agreed finish date is 9 August and the contract duration is 51 days. You also asked (question 355) the average number of vehicles passing these roadworks. It is about 3,400 vehicles per hour during the day (ie 7am to 7pm) but the number varies outside that period.
  In question 337 you asked about the length of delay in contractors carrying out the work in meeting agreed timetables on slip-road closures. The length of time that slip roads were originally planned to be closed for these works was 144 slip road days at Botherton/Ferrybridge and 50 slip road days at Fairburn. Due to

  1327
  having to carry out additional work at the River Aire Bridge the slip road closures at Botherton/Ferrybridge will now total 167 slip road days, but at Fairburn will become 80 slip road days. The effect on the overall contract period has been minimised by re-phasing some of the roadworks to be carried out concurrently with the additional bridgeworks.
  You also asked (question 358) how many hours have been worked at (a) weekends and (b) during the night, on this scheme. The contractor has worked all weekends and a number of nights. On 15 days, the contractor intends to work the full 24 hours and on 32 days he will work for 16 hours. On some phases of the work night operations are not possible due to noise restrictions imposed by the local environment health officer to avoid causing nuisance to adjacent residential properties.
  In question 352 you asked about the arrangements for traffic management and alternative routes available for vehicles using the A1 during the roadworks. The A1 north of Ferrybridge is a two lane dual carriageway without hard shoulders. In order to carry out the works to the River Aire Bridge and undertake resurfacing safely it has been necessary to close one carriageway at a time and keep open one lane in each direction on the other carriageway. There are no easy alternative routes for drivers to use to avoid this section of A1. In order to minimise delays and give drivers the opportunity to plan their journeys to avoid this section of Al, altogether or during peak periods, widespread publicity has been given to this scheme in advance of work starting and will continue until it has finished. Signs were erected at the site of the works about three weeks before lane restrictions were imposed and advertisements were placed in local newspapers during the week before work started. Leaflets have been printed and distributed throughout the north of England. Two of these give general information on planned roadworks, on motorways and on the Al. An additional leaflet gives specific details of this scheme. Local and national radio stations give frequent up to date reports about the traffic conditions in the vicinity of works.
  I should perhaps add that we fully understand the inconvenience caused to road users by the need to carry out essential maintenance works such as this to keep the A1 in a safe and serviceable condition. Whilst we do as much as possible to publicise likely delays, plan traffic management in advance, and minimise the duration of the contract, we cannot avoid the need to restrict the use of the existing road in the interests of the safety of both the workforce and the travelling public.

  A36T (South Newton)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what traffic calming measures will be installed on the A36(T) at South Newton; when this will occur, and if he will make a statement. [35822]

  Mr. Watts
  When I visited South Newton on 25 November, at my hon. Friend's invitation, I announced that we planned to install experimental electronic speed limit warning signs on the A36 at either end of the South Newton village. Traffic counting loops for monitoring traffic speeds have recently been installed in the carriageway. The Highways Agency is currently monitoring and recording vehicle speeds through the village so that the effectiveness of the signs in reducing speed can be properly assessed. The project is on line for completion in the autumn.

  Roads (Public Inquiries)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that objectors to public inquiries into road building projects should not have to supply to the Highways Agency copies of reference documents which have been referred to which can be obtained through the public library system. [36156]
  1328
  Mr. Watts
  Under the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1995, the Secretary of State is required to make available for inspection free of charge at a public inquiry every document which he intends to refer to or put in evidence.

  It is open to the Secretary of State to require an objector, or any other person who wishes to appear at the inquiry, to provide a copy of every document, or the relevant part of any document, to which such person intends to refer.

  Ebbsfleet Passenger Station
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies relating to the proposed international passenger station at Ebbsfleet were carried out between the announcement of the intermediate stations in August 1994 and the publication of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in November 1994. [35824]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the former Secretary of State, announced in January 1994 that Ebbsfleet was the preferred parkway station option, subject to a satisfactory offer of private finance. To meet the Bill timetable Union Railways started preliminary work for the environmental statement in May 1994. Work was stepped up in June when Ministers decided that the offer made by Blue Circle provided an acceptable basis for proceeding, subject to the negotiation of detailed heads of terms. By the time these negotiations were satisfactorily concluded and a decision announced at the end of August 1994, consultants had developed access road options and a comparative environmental appraisal of the results was nearly complete. Other work for the Ebbsfleet annexe to the ES started in late July. Work on this and on access arrangements, including validation of the appraisal of access options by external environmental specialists, continued after August. Despite the relative simplicity of the existing road network and the fact that Union Railways was able to draw on work already undertaken on behalf of Blue Circle, the highways arrangements were only finalised in October just in time for inclusion in the Bill.

  Road Schemes (Detective Agencies)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the contracts for employment of private detective agencies by his Department in relation to road schemes were put to tender. [35060]

  Mr. Watts
  The agency does not generally employ detective agencies directly. They are employed by Treasury Solicitors on our behalf. The means of securing their employment are therefore a matter for the Treasury Solicitor. On one occasion that a detective agency was employed directly, for the M3 Twyford Down scheme, single tender action was used.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to date of the employment by his Department of Bray's Detective Agency, breaking down the figures by the road schemes covered. [35057]
  1329
  Mr. Watts
  This information is being collected and I will write to the hon. Member again as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what allocation of funds has been made for the employment of Bray's Detective Agency in relation to the construction of the Newbury bypass. [35058]

  Mr. Watts
  No allocation of funds has been made for the employment of Bray's Detective Agency in relation to the construction of the Newbury bypass.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the terms of reference under which Bray's Detective Agency operates in the employment of his Department. [35062]

  Mr. Watts
  Bray's Detective Agency is employed by the Treasury Solicitor, not the Highways Agency, so the terms of reference for its employment are a matter for the Treasury Solicitor.

  Great Minster House
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of fitting out Great Minster house for use by his Department. [35779]

  Mr. Norris
  The estimated fitting out cost is £13,846,305 million, including VAT.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the rental charges and associated costs on his Department's new premises, Great Minster house, Horseferry road. [35781]

  Mr. Norris
  In a full year the Department will pay £4,228,000 in rent, including VAT, and an estimated £3,367,000 for the contribution in lieu of rates, management, maintenance and service charges.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the total costs of the transfer of his Department to Great Minster house, Horseferry road. [35780]

  Mr. Norris
  The total estimated cost of the transfer is £19,364,000 including VAT. This includes the fit-out cost, professional fees, IT systems, telecommunications, furniture and other client items.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [33443]

  The Attorney-General
  The information indicates, for each of the Departments for which I am responsible,(a) those consultancy firms with which the greatest number of consultancy contracts were concluded1 and (b) those consultancy firms with the contracts of greatest total monetary value2, in each case for the five years 1990–91 to 1994–95.
  1330

  Number of contracts

  Monetary value £ thousand

  Serious Fraud Office

  (a) 1. (ACT) Network SI Group Ltd.

  3

  2. Amtec Consulting Ltd.

  2

  Digitus Ltd.

  2

  Hedra Ltd.

  2

  Hoskyns Group plc3

  2

  Insight Consulting

  2

  Morgan Lovell Ltd.

  2

  SHL Systemhouse Inc.

  2

  (b) 1. Digitus Ltd.

  154

  2. Hoskyns Group plc

  121.2

  3. Hedra Ltd.

  73.4

  4. Ernst and Young

  58.8

  5. Central Office of Information

  56.3

  Crown Prosecution Service

  (a) 1. Shapes Graphic Design

  8

  2. PE International

  6

  3. Touche-Ross

  6

  4. Infact Ltd.

  4

  Sequelogic Ltd.

  4

  (b)4

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  (a) 1. BDO Consulting

  6

  2. Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  5

  3. J. Blair

  3

  4. Pannell Kerr Forster Associates

  2

  Recruitment Advisory Service

  2

  (b) 1. BDO Consulting

  601.3

  2. Pannell Kerr Forster Associates

  78.8

  3. Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  61.3

  4. J. Blair

  53.1

  5. Recruitment Advisory Service

  22.3

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Nil

  1 Figures in (a) give the number of contracts entered into.

  2 Figures in (b) give the total monetary value of the contracts concerned.

  3 Includes ABT International.

  4 This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33500]

  The Attorney-General
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ thousand

  Department

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  477(7)

  471(12)

  665(24)

  693(52)

  1699(52)

  Serious Fraud Office

  171(4)

  88(2)

  112(9)

  149(6)

  1242(10)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Not known

  54(6)

  335(8)

  428(14)

  125(8)

  1 Unaudited

  Note:

  Figures in brackets represent the number of contracts that year.
  1331
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33463]

  The Attorney-General
  Nil.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts and for what total sum were let out 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, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33920]

  The Attorney-General
  The information with respect to the firms used by the Departments and agency for which I am responsible is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Serious Fraud Office

  Cooper and Lybrand

  1,421 (0)

  361 (1)

  Peat Marwick

  612 (0)

  282 (1)

  Ernst and Young

  186 (1)

  217 (1)

  Price Waterhouse

  88 (2)

  48 (1)

  Grant Thornton

  59 (0)

  261 (0)

  Robson Rhodes

  8 (0)

  106 (2)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Arthur Anderson

  356 (3)

  8 (2)

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  —

  79 (2)

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Coopers and Lybrand

  —

  12 (1)

  Ernst and Young

  —

  37 (2)

  Price Waterhouse

  —

  17 (1)

  Government Property Lawyers

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 (1)

  —

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Nil

  Notes:

  1. Figures before the brackets represent expenditure in £000, to the nearest £1,000, on, contracts both new and continuing during the financial year in question.

  2. Figures in brackets represent the number of new contracts entered into during the financial year in question.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many wasted costs orders have been made against the Crown Prosecution Service over the past four periods of six months or such other periods as are convenient for statistical purposes. [34849]

  The Attorney-General
  I have taken the hon. Member's question to refer to orders made under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986. The numbers of such orders recorded against the Crown Prosecution Service are set out in the table.
  1332

  Costs against CPS

  Crown court

  Magistrates courts

  April to June 1993

  49

  148

  July to September 1993

  86

  200

  October to December 1993

  62

  102

  January to March 1994

  62

  89

  Total for year 1993–94

  259

  539

  April to June 1994

  57

  91

  July to September 1994

  40

  80

  October to December 1994

  68

  68

  January to March 1995

  54

  102

  Total for year 1994–95

  219

  341

  1. Information is not available to establish the enactment under which the orders were made and may include awards of costs made otherwise than in accordance with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  2. The information is limited to Crown court and magistrates court cases. It does not include costs awards made in the higher courts.

  3. The figures relate to all cases dealt with by the CPS areas but do not include any orders made in the specialist casework handled by CPS headquarters.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to monitor its treatment of defendants from different ethnic backgrounds to ensure that it is fair; and what is the Crown Prosecution Service's timetable for(a) collecting, (b) analysing and (b) publishing data. [34750]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is participating fully in the interdepartmental group co-ordinating ethnic monitoring in the criminal justice system and is exploring with the Commission for Racial Equality ways in which ethnic monitoring by the Crown Prosecution Service might be best introduced.

  Mr. Nick Leeson
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer on 22 May,Official Report, column 592, when he expects the Serious Fraud Office to complete its investigation into Mr. Nick Leeson. [34433]

  The Attorney-General
  Inquiries outstanding include the obtaining of information from Singapore. It is not possible at this stage to say when inquiries will be completed.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Attorney-General on what occasions representatives of(a) the Serious Fraud Office and (b) other investigative authorities have travelled to Germany to seek to interview Mr. Nick Leeson. [34418]

  The Attorney-General
  It is my practice not to give operational details about on-going criminal investigations being conducted by the Serious Fraud Office.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [34707]
  1333
  The Attorney-General
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy.

  The Government continue to help smaller businesses 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 the small firms sector.

  Of the Departments for which I am responsible, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor's Department provide services which are largely internal to Government. The functions of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office relate purely to the criminal justice system.

  As regards purchasing, the Law Officers' Departments have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of small businesses. However, no specific policies or performance indicators exist in those Department in this connection.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney General 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. [34672]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible do not at present make direct use of the World Wide Web and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. However, the possibility of participating is kept under consideration.

  The Crown Prosecution Service makes its press releases available to the public via the Internet using the Central Office of Information's experimental service of the World Wide Web. This service commenced in April 1995.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the number of full-time employees and (b) how many of these are (i) male and (ii) female. [35476]

  The Attorney-General
  The information with respect to the Departments for which I am responsible, as at 1 July 1995, is as follows:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  5

  0

  5

  4

  14

  0

  14

  5

  42

  2

  44

  6

  163

  23

  186

  7

  37

  8

  45

  Principal Crown Prosecutor

  356

  158

  514

  Senior Crown Prosecutor

  613

  472

  1,085

  Crown Prosecutor

  97

  133

  230

  Legal Trainee

  28

  55

  83

  1334

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Senior Executive Officer

  71

  28

  99

  Higher Executive Officer

  128

  142

  270

  Executive Officer

  382

  788

  1,170

  Administrative Officer

  331

  878

  1,209

  Administrative Assistant

  126

  330

  456

  Personal Secretary

  0

  79

  79

  Typing Manager

  0

  16

  16

  Typist

  2

  308

  310

  Support Manager 3

  0

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  37

  17

  54

  Support Grade Band 2

  40

  34

  74

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  2

  3

  6

  0

  6

  4

  2

  0

  2

  5

  28

  7

  35

  6

  35

  10

  45

  7

  39

  37

  76

  Senior Legal Assistant

  2

  1

  3

  Legal Officer

  2

  3

  5

  Legal Trainee

  0

  3

  3

  Senior Executive Officer

  10

  4

  14

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  13

  23

  Executive Officer

  29

  23

  52

  Divorce Enquiry Officer

  3

  0

  3

  Administrative Officer

  17

  20

  37

  Administrative Assistant

  0

  3

  3

  Librarian

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Typing Manager

  0

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  8

  8

  Personal Secretary

  0

  15

  15

  Typing Manager

  0

  1

  1

  Typist

  0

  3

  3

  Support Manager 3

  0

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  0

  4

  4

  Support Grade Band 2

  13

  3

  16

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  2

  0

  1

  1

  4

  1

  0

  1

  5

  5

  0

  5

  6

  4

  0

  4

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  0

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  0

  2

  Adminstrative Officer

  3

  1

  4

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  4

  4

  Support Grade Band 1

  0

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  3

  0

  3

  Government Property Lawyers

  3

  1

  0

  1

  5

  5

  0

  5

  6

  13

  0

  13

  7

  18

  2

  20

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  1

  5

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  4

  14

  Executive Officer

  4

  14

  18

  Administrative Officer

  8

  14

  22

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  0

  6

  6

  Typing Manager

  0

  1

  1

  Typist

  0

  6

  6

  Support Grade Band 2

  4

  3

  7

  Serious Fraud Office

  2

  1

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  1

  1335

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  5

  8

  1

  9

  6

  10

  4

  14

  7

  12

  2

  14

  Senior Executive Officer

  11

  1

  12

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  0

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  9

  4

  13

  Information Officer

  0

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  14

  13

  27

  Administrative Officer

  5

  13

  18

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  0

  6

  6

  Typing Manager

  0

  1

  1

  Typist

  0

  9

  9

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  2

  3

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  0

  2

  Notes:

  Figures relate only to full-time staff. Casual staff are not included.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Assisted Places
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost per pupil of an assisted place for each year since 1989. [35480]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The average cost to public funds of an assisted place in the Department's scheme in England for each academic year since 1989–90 is given in the table:

  Academic year

  Average cost of an assisted place1£

  1989–90

  2,364

  1990–91

  2,691

  1991–92

  3,101

  1992–93

  3,405

  1993–94

  3,544

  1994–95

  23,688

  1 Includes tuition fees and some incidental expenses such as uniform and travel grants.

  2 Estimate.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are employed in the management of the assisted places scheme. [35535]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The full-time equivalents of about 7.5 staff in the Department are directly engaged in the management of the assisted places scheme.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the different levels of nursery vouchers that the Government propose to introduce and on what basis the differential is to be calculated. [35538]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The expectation is that a voucher worth around £1,100 will be exchanged for either a part-time place in a nursery class, nursery school or private nursery establishment, or a full-time place in a reception class where that is on offer, or up to a full-time place in a playgroup. The detailed funding regime will be considered further.
  1336
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of administration of her voucher scheme for all four-year-olds(a) from April 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [35561]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The cost of issuing and redeeming vouchers is expected to be less than 1.5 per cent. of the value of the vouchers themselves.

  Mr. David Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–519, how much funding a voucher would provide to pay for a part-time place in a playgroup.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The detailed funding regime for playgroups is being considered.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the proposals to give parents of four-year-olds vouchers for nursery education will take into account the varying costs of local authority provision.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The proposed funding method will recoup from local authorities a sum equivalent to the voucher value multiplied by the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in each authority. This is only a part of total spending on under-fives, and allows local education authorities to continue to fund places as they judge appropriate.

  The need for regional variation in the value of the voucher will be tested in phase 1 of the voucher scheme.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which areas her voucher scheme will be tested in February 1996; and what consultations or discussions she has had with the teaching unions on these proposals/pilot schemes.

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has written to all leaders of county councils, metropolitan borough councils and new unitary authorities inviting them to volunteer their areas to participate in the first phase of the voucher scheme.

  My right hon. Friend discussed the voucher scheme with each of the teaching unions when the new policy was announced.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what account proposals to give parents of four-year-olds vouchers for nursery education will take of local authorities whose nursery provision is directed at three-year-olds and where children move to a receiving class at four years.

  Mr. Squire
  Pre-school education vouchers for four-year-olds will be redeemable at a wide range of establishments, including reception classes. The vouchers will allow parents to transfer their children from one establishment to another during the year, if they wish to do so.

  The proposed funding method for the voucher scheme will allow local education authorities to continue to spend on three year-olds as they judge appropriate.
  1337
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her press statement of 6 July, 143/95, concerning pre-school proposals, if she will name the private sector company which will administer the scheme, or the manner in which she expects to advertise the terms for tendering for the relevant contract; and if she will place a copy of the relevant document in the Library. [35560]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: My right hon. Friend announced on 6 July her decision to select, by competitive tender, a private sector company to issue and redeem the pre-school voucher. Advertisements inviting expressions of interest have been published. A copy of the detailed specifications will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what calculations her Department has undertaken in respect of the real cost of nursery education for four-year-olds in(a) the state sector and (b) the private sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  With respect to costs in the state sector, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 15 May at columns 11–12.

  The official task force on under-fives has consulted a wide range of representatives of the private and voluntary sectors about the cost of providing places for four-year-olds in their sectors.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates her Department has made of the operating costs of administering the scheme to give vouchers to parents of four-year-olds; and what level of profits the private company set up to administer the scheme is expected to make. [35281]

  Mr. Squire
  The cost of issuing and redeeming vouchers will be determined by a competitive tender. It is expected to be less than 1.5 per cent. of the value of the vouchers themselves.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in(a) city technology colleges, (b) grant-maintained secondary schools, (c) local education authority grammar schools, (d) local education authority secondary modern schools and (e) local education authority comprehensive secondary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information for January 1994 for the average size of one teacher classes in the various categories of secondary school is as follows:

  School type

  Average class size

  LEA maintained schools:

  Grammar

  19.9

  Modern

  21.5

  Comprehensive

  21.4

  Grant Maintained Secondary Schools

  20.9

  City Technology Colleges

  19.1

  1338
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in(a) grant maintained and (b) local education authority primary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994 the average size of one teacher classes in both grant maintained and local education authority maintained primary schools was 26.9.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Squire
  The average size of one teacher classes in maintained—including GM—primary and secondary for each LEA in England for January 1994 is given in the table.

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  City

  27.0

  0.0

  Camden

  27.1

  20.4

  Greenwich

  26.1

  21.9

  Hackney

  25.7

  21.9

  Hammersmith

  25.2

  21.0

  Islington

  25.9

  23.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24.9

  19.1

  Lambeth

  24.2

  21.6

  Lewisham

  26.0

  22.6

  Southwark

  26.9

  24.3

  Tower Hamlets

  26.4

  22.4

  Wandsworth

  25.0

  21.2

  Westminster

  24.0

  20.8

  Barking

  26.1

  21.8

  Barnet

  26.4

  19.8

  Bexley

  27.5

  22.0

  Brent

  27.0

  20.9

  Bromley

  28.1

  21.1

  Croydon

  27.6

  21.9

  Ealing

  26.6

  22.2

  Enfield

  27.8

  21.2

  Haringey

  26.7

  21.2

  Harrow

  26.8

  23.4

  Havering

  27.5

  22.2

  Hillingdon

  27.1

  21.0

  Hounslow

  26.2

  21.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  28.9

  20.5

  Merton

  27.2

  22.0

  Newham

  27.5

  24.5

  Redbridge

  29.3

  20.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  25.7

  23.3

  Sutton

  28.3

  21.4

  Waltham Forest

  26.8

  22.5

  Birmingham

  28.2

  22.1

  Coventry

  27.1

  22.9

  Dudley

  27.0

  22.7

  Sandwell

  27.9

  21.2

  Solihull

  27.3

  21.8

  Walsall

  25.7

  20.6

  Wolverhampton

  25.9

  20.5

  Knowsley

  27.7

  22.1

  Liverpool

  26.9

  20.4

  St. Helens

  26.8

  19.7

  Sefton

  27.2

  20.9

  Wirral

  25.9

  20.9

  Bolton

  28.1

  21.1

  Bury

  27.5

  22.7

  Manchester

  26.5

  22.4

  Oldham

  28.6

  22.5

  Rochdale

  29.5

  22.8

  Salford

  27.1

  22.3

  Stockport

  27.7

  21.6

  Tameside

  29.6

  23.7

  Trafford

  29.0

  21.6

  1339

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Wigan

  27.9

  21.4

  Barnsley

  27.4

  22.9

  Doncaster

  27.5

  21.1

  Rotherham

  25.1

  20.5

  Sheffield

  26.3

  22.4

  Bradford

  27.3

  22.5

  Calderdale

  27.9

  20.2

  Kirklees

  27.2

  21.4

  Leeds

  27.9

  20.5

  Wakefield

  27.5

  21.8

  Gateshead

  25.8

  20.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.3

  21.5

  North Tyneside

  26.5

  21.9

  South Tyneside

  26.3

  22.5

  Sunderland

  25.6

  20.9

  Isle of Scilly

  18.7

  24.0

  Avon

  27.7

  21.2

  Bedfordshire

  26.3

  22.0

  Berkshire

  27.1

  20.1

  Buckinghamshire

  27.2

  21.1

  Cambridgeshire

  27.4

  22.3

  Cheshire

  27.4

  21.1

  Cleveland

  26.8

  22.1

  Cornwall

  26.8

  22.2

  Cumbria

  25.7

  20.6

  Derbyshire

  27.3

  21.4

  Devon

  26.4

  21.1

  Dorset

  27.5

  21.9

  Durham

  27.5

  21.6

  East Sussex

  27.4

  21.0

  Essex

  26.9

  21.9

  Gloucestershire

  26.4

  21.5

  Hampshire

  27.4

  22.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.1

  21.7

  Hertfordshire

  26.4

  20.1

  Humberside

  27.5

  22.6

  Isle of Wight

  26.0

  22.2

  Kent

  27.6

  20.9

  Lancashire

  27.7

  21.4

  Leicestershire

  25.8

  21.5

  Lincolnshire

  26.5

  19.9

  Norfolk

  25.1

  20.2

  North Yorkshire

  25.7

  20.8

  Northamptonshire

  26.4

  20.6

  Northumberland

  27.0

  22.0

  Nottinghamshire

  27.0

  20.5

  Oxfordshire

  25.6

  21.0

  Shropshire

  26.4

  21.1

  Somerset

  26.9

  22.1

  Staffordshire

  27.7

  22.1

  Suffolk

  24.8

  20.7

  Surrey

  25.5

  21.6

  Warwickshire

  26.5

  20.3

  West Sussex

  26.2

  21.6

  Wiltshire

  26.6

  21.3

  England

  26.9

  21.4

  Exclusion from School
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will review her Department's policy on exclusion from school; and if she will make a statement following the recent comments by the Commissioner of Police at the Metropolis on the contribution to certain types of crime by young black males who may have been excluded from school. [35446]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Government policy is to ensure that permanent exclusion is used as a last resort and that pupils out of school by reason of exclusion do not drop through 1340
  the education net. To that end the Education Act 1993 made a number of changes to the law on exclusions and placed a new duty on local education authorities to provide education otherwise than at school where necessary to meet a pupil's needs. These provisions came into effect on 1 September 1994 and we are keeping their implementation under review.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information she has of the availability to students studying away from home, of satisfactory low cost housing, including that for which the student does not have to pay during the summer vacation; what trends in this matter have taken place since 1990; and what measures have been taken by her Department in conjunction with universities and similar institutions and local authorities. [35447]

  Mr. Forth
  We do not collect any information about the availability of student residential accommodation. This is a matter for universities and colleges which, as independent, autonomous bodies, are responsible for making their own decisions about residential accommodation requirements for their students, in the light of local circumstances. However, the Government introduced a package of measures in the Housing Act 1988 designed to encourage private landlords to bring more and better quality accommodation on to the market. In addition, the "Rent a Room" scheme is a tax incentive designed to encourage people to take in lodgers. These measures are of benefit to students among others.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which institutions are in receipt of non-formula funding. [32033]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: All higher education institutions with the exception of Chichester institute of higher education, Norwich school of art and Trinity college of music will receive non-formula funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1994–95. The following further education institutions will also receive HEFCE non-formula funding in 1994–95:

  Berkshire College of Art and Design

  Bracknell College

  Brooklands Technical College

  Chichester College

  Crawley College of Technology

  Croydon College

  Guildford College of Further and Higher Education

  Hammersmith and West London College

  Harlow College

  Havering College of Further and Higher Education

  North East Surrey College of Art and Technology

  Newham Community College

  College of North West London

  Thurrock College

  West Thames College

  Westminster College

  1341
  The Further Education Funding Council funds the following 11 designated institutions by non-formula methods:

  Adult Bursary Scheme for Long-term Residential Colleges

  The City Literary Institute

  Fircroft College of Adult Education

  Hereward College of Further Education

  Hilderstone College

  Hillcroft College

  The International Co-operative College

  The Marine Society College of the Sea

  Northern College for Residential AE Ltd

  Plater College

  Ruskin College

  Work Permits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permit applications have been made to her Department for Premier and Endsleigh league footballers from overseas(a) during the past four years and (b) for 1995 to date; which English football clubs were involved; which countries of origin were involved; and how many applications were refused. [34871]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The number of work permit applications for footballers from overseas, including those for extensions to existing permits, received by the Department from clubs in Great Britain is shown in the following table. Information about which clubs applied, the nationality of these overseas players involved and the number of these applications which were refused is not available.

  Year

  Number of applications

  1991

  32

  1992

  30

  1993

  35

  1994

  22

  1995

  136

  1 To date.

  Child Care Provision
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out of school provision for over fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35555]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Child care for the under-fives in England is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  For school-age children, we have allocated £45 million to the out-of-school child care initiative which will help create up to 50,000 additional child care places in Great Britain over the three years which began in April 1993. The initiative is being delivered by training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland. By the end of March 1995 some
  1342
  26,000 child care places had been created in England with a further 5,000 in development, well on course to meet the planned target.

  We do not hold information about the number of children who attend full or part-time, although attendance patterns are flexible to parents' needs.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35468]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of permanent non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995—before the recent machinery of Government changes—on a head count basis are shown in table 1 for the former Employment Department group and table 2 for the former Department for Education. There are staff in over 118 civil service grades employed in the former ED group and DfE. For convenience, the information has been grouped into grade equivalents.

  Table 1: Former Employment Department Group

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  AA

  899

  20

  1,889

  591

  AO

  7,413

  148

  16,594

  5,218

  EO

  4,577

  53

  6,992

  2,070

  HEO

  1,977

  9

  1,274

  187

  SEO

  1,468

  5

  434

  67

  G7

  913

  11

  176

  32

  G6

  174

  3

  27

  1

  G5

  113

  1

  18

  1

  G4

  13

  0

  1

  0

  G3

  25

  0

  2

  0

  G2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  Gl

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  17,579

  250

  27,408

  8,167

  Table 2: Former Department for Education

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  AA

  101

  2

  186

  26

  AO

  148

  1

  378

  61

  EO

  183

  0

  254

  39

  HEO

  176

  1

  155

  23

  SEO

  77

  4

  40

  8

  G7

  109

  1

  41

  3

  G6

  12

  0

  3

  0

  G5

  31

  0

  14

  1

  G4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  G3

  11

  0

  0

  0

  G2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Gl

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  854

  9

  1,071

  161

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each grade of the principal grades and

  1343
  the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in her Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35683]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures her Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within her Department and its executive agencies. [35661]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A wide range of measures have been taken. All parts of the Department and the Employment Service have equal opportunities action programmes, most of which include targets, and these are monitored on a regular basis. In addition, all promotion boards include at lease one woman member and training in equal opportunities issues is mandatory for board members.

  Development training is available for all staff, including optional training specifically for women. There are "fast track" management programmes available on which women are well represented. A career break scheme is available to help men and women to combine work and family responsibilities and eligible staff will be considered for promotion while on career breaks. Part-time working is available to all staff who want it and all jobs are open to job sharers wherever practicable. In addition, an advisory group has been set up to look at ways of addressing the under-representation of women in senior grades.

  Unemployment Benefits (Cost)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the current administration and overhead costs required to manage unemployment benefits including the current number of civil servants and job centres; and what was the figure in each year since 1980 at 1994 prices; [36304]

  (2) what is the latest total and average figure of the cost of spending on the jobless; and what were the figures in 1978–79 at constant prices. [36303]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Unemployment Assistance
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total annual cost of all programmes designed to assist the unemployed back into work or by way of training; and how much is allocated to each major programme. [36306]

  Mr. Paice
  Provision for all programmes to assist the unemployed back into work in 1995–96 is £811 million. Over 90 per cent. of this provision is allocated to the seven major training and employment programmes set out in the table:1344

  Programme

  £ million

  Training for Work

  574

  Community Action

  73

  Jobclubs

  56

  Jobplan

  26

  Job Interview Guarantee

  22

  1-2-1/Workwise

  16

  Restart Courses

  11

  1. Major programmes have been taken to mean those with expenditure of over £10 million.

  2. The list excludes Youth Training and Modern Apprenticeships.

  Barnsley-Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what performance level was reached by the Barnsley-Doncaster training and enterprise council for the year 1994–95; [35975]

  (2) how many trainees are currently in training by the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC; [35971]

  (3) what was the current expenditure per head of population in the area covered by Barnsley-Doncaster TEC; and if she will make a statement; [35977]

  (4) what contribution Barnsley-Doncaster TEC is making to improve the technology in its area of responsibility; and if she will make a statement on the work of Barnsley-Doncaster TEC; [35973]

  (5) when she last met with representatives from Barnsley-Doncaster TEC; and what items were discussed; [35972]

  (6) how many NVQs were achieved by trainees from the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC for each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [35956]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, if she will list the chairman and directors of the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC indicating their experience, qualifications and period of office. [35979]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested on the chairman and directors of the Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council is a matter for the TEC board. TECs are private limited companies who are free to appoint directors, including chairmen, as long as they meet the criteria set out on clause 7.1 of the licensing agreement.

  Mr Martin Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research is being undertaken by the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement; [35976]

  (2) how many organisations Barnsley-Doncaster TEC was involved with during the current financial year; [35970]

  (3) what is the amount of money spent by the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC on publicity and advertising during the last financial year and for each of the previous five years; and if she will make a statement; [35978]

  (4) what was the total cost incurred by the Barnsley-Doncaster TEC in travelling expenses for each of the last five financial years. [35974]
  1345
  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is operational information on the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council and the questions would be best addressed to it for answer.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial contribution the European Union made to Government-funded work or training schemes in Northern Ireland in 1994–95; to which schemes the European Union contributed; and what percentage of the publicly-funded costs the European Union's contribution constituted. [34026]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question.
  The financial contribution made by the European Union to Government-funded training places in Northern Ireland is affected by the allocation made to non-government schemes. Decisions on the latter have yet to be finalised. The final amounts that will be received therefore in respect of government and non-government schemes is not yet known. When the information you seek is available, I will send it to you.

DEFENCE

  Trident Missiles
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom proposes to order further quantities of Trident missiles; and if he will make a statement. [36608]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Over half our planned number of Trident missiles has been purchased. Orders for the remainder are likely to be placed within the next four years and we have recently begun to commit expenditure to this end. Overall the Trident programme remains well within its original estimate. Savings in real terms on the missile purchases exceed 30 per cent., partly due to intervening exchange rate movements.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Centre
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his plans for the joint air reconnaissance centre. [36385]

  Mr. Soames
  The joint air reconnaissance intelligence centre is a tri-service unit at Royal Air Force Brampton. The unit employs about 500 staff comprising military personnel from all three armed services and civil servants. The unit is the Department's centre of excellence for deriving intelligence from reconnaissance imagery. We have accepted a recommendation made by the defence costs study that the unit should be considered for Defence Agency status with a target launch date of 2 April 1996.
  1346

  Royal Navy (Manning, Pay and Pensions)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about possible defence agency status for the Royal Navy's manning and pay and pensions organisations. [36386]

  Mr. Soames
  I have decided that the Royal Navy's manning and pay and pensions organisations, with their supporting information systems should be considered as candidates for defence agency status under the "next steps" initiative. The above organisations, located in Portsmouth and Gosport, currently employ some 750 staff, of whom about a third are service personnel.

  A "prior options" study will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments form interested parties. Comments should be sent, by 15 September 1995, to:

  Mr. J. M. Moss

  Command Secretary to the Second Sea Lord and Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command, and Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Naval Personnel) (CS/AUS(NP))

  Ministry of Defence

  Victory Building

  HM Naval Base

  Portsmouth

  Hants PO1 3LS

  Defence Intelligence and Security Training
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for defence intelligence and security training in the armed forces. [36387]

  Mr. Soames
  Defence intelligence and security training is tri-service and carried out at units based at Ashford, Kent, and Garats Hay stations; Royal Air Force North Luffenham and Wyton; and HMS Mercury. The units currently employ about 650 staff comprising military personnel from all three armed services and civil servants. Their task is to provide training and advice on intelligence and security disciplines and policy to the armed forces. I have accepted a recommendation made by the defence costs study that these units be rationalised. A new defence intelligence and security centre is to be formed and considered as a candidate for defence agency status under the "next steps" initiative. This will start with a "prior options" review and, if agency status is approved, a target launch date of 1 October 1996 will he set.

  Service Children's Schools
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the key targets for the financial year 1995–96 which have been set for the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) defence agency. [36391]
  1347
  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) has been set the following key targets for 1995–96, the agency's fifth year of operation:

  1. Maintain percentage of pupils gaining A to C grades in five or more subjects at GCSE at not less than 45 per cent.

  2. Maintain the 'A' level pass rate at grades A to E at 84 per cent. whilst increasing the proportion in grades A to C to 50 per cent.

  3. Achieve an overall pass rate for BTEC first diploma of 85 per cent.

  4. For standard attainment tasks and tests (SATs) at ages 7, 11 and 14 achieve a position for the agency in the top 25 per cent. of published national league tables.

  5. Improved efficiency to the value of 2.5 per cent. of net expenditure for 1995–96 as set out in the agency's efficiency plan.

  6. For all children in key stage 2, by 31 March 1996 every school to have an educationally sound programme of contact with a host nation and/or partner school or community with predetermined educational objectives appropriate to the age of the children.

  7. Maintain the index of satisfaction with Service Children's Schools within the army wives continuous attitude survey at above 350.

  8. Parental response surveys to be conducted in three spheres of education, results published and follow up action initiated, where necessary by 31 March 1996.

  9. Introduce by 31 March 1996, and thereafter maintain, the new code of practice for assessing children's special educational needs set by the Department of Education.

  10. Achieve charter mark status by 1 December 1995.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence agency has reported its financial performance for the financial year 1994–95; and what targets have been agreed for 1995–96. [36392]

  Mr. Soames
  Copies of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence agency's annual report and accounts for financial year 1994–95 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In respect of financial year 1995–96 the Direct General Aircraft (Navy), acting as owner of the agency on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the agency's framework document, has set the following key targets:

  Quantity

  To complete 100 per cent. of the identified core task as detailed in DGA(N)'s Tri Service Schedule of Identified Repair Work.

  Quality

  To improve by four the NARO Quality Index, which represents the weighted number of AQAP non conformances.

  Timeliness

  To complete 93.5 per cent. of contracts on time.

  Productivity

  To improve annual productivity to 620 Direct Output Units per employee.

  Cost

  To reduce the cost of a Direct Output Unit by more than 7.5 per cent. below 1991–92 (pre Agency Launch) levels.

  1348

  Efficiency Index

  To improve the NARO Efficiency Index to 0.635.

  RAF Training Group
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the key targets for the financial year 1995–96 for the Royal Air Force Training Group defence agency. [36393]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Royal Air Force Training Group defence agency has been set the following targets for financial year 1995–96.

  1. By 31 March 1996 to take forward the recommendations of the Quality Management Workshop Report.

  2. By 31 March 1996 to achieve the planned elements of Future Flying Training Implementation and Group Training Rationalisation, including the associated Defence Costs Study measures, in accordance with the relevant schedules.

  3. By 31 March 1996 to deliver efficiency measures to achieve a 2.5 per cent. reduction in running costs.

  4. By 31 March 1996 to achieve the planned elements of the Agency's contribution to the RAF manpower savings programme.

  5. By 31 March 1996 to complete the planned work against the Agency's Competing for Quality programme.

  6. By 31 March 1996 to develop and implement the Agency's fixed asset management strategy, procedures and reporting systems.

  7. By 31 March 1996 to report on business process re-engineering and the development of associated financial and accounting systems required by the Department's move to Resource Accounting and Budgeting

  Personnel Security Vetting
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about possible defence agency status for personnel security vetting within his Department. [36394]

  Mr. Soames
  Defence costs studies conducted in my Department have concluded that the personnel security vetting function in the MOD should be considered for defence agency status under the "next steps" initiative. A "prior options" study will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or some other option is the more appropriate. The result of this study will be made known to the House in due course.

  Queen's Flight (Incident at Islay)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the incident at Islay in June 1994 involving an aircraft of the Queen's flight. [36349]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The inquiry into the incident on 29 June 1994 when a BAe 146 of the Queen's flight ran off the runway after landing at Islay has been completed and I have placed a summary in the Library of the House. The captain and navigator were responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the supervision of HRH the Prince of Wales, who was flying as a pilot under instruction. The inquiry judged that the captain and navigator had been negligent in failing adequately to plan and to correct the approach and landing. Procedures for appointments of aircrew to the Queen's Flight—now part of No. 32 (The Royal)
  1349
  Squadron—flight deck procedures and evaluation of standards have been reviewed as a result of this incident and changes have been made.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement detailing the key targets which have been set for the Disposal Sales Agency for financial year 1995–96.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The chief executive of the Disposal Sales Agency has been set the following targets for financial year 1995–96. The agency made significant efficiency savings in 1994–95 and the 1995–96 targets build on that achievement.

  1. To achieve disposal sales revenue of £53 million within budgetary cost allocation.

  2. To improve efficiency through the contractorisation of sales and introduction of further viable storage and marketing agreements (joint ventures with industry) to limit the Agency's direct selling to Government-to-Government sales and to those direct sales offering best value for money.

  3. To secure efficiency savings of 2.5 per cent. against the Agency's net annual budget.

  4. To achieve full recovery on non-MOD work.

  5. To achieve customer satisfaction as measured by satisfaction surveys.

  To implement Performance Indicators covering Timeliness, Financial Performance, Quality and Output.

  Swansea Symposium (Environment and Defence)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department, and of what grades, will participate in the University of Wales conferenc e in Swansea on the environment and defence from 13 to 15 September; and if he will list the titles of papers being presented by members of his Department at the conference. [35633]

  Mr. Soames
  The Swansea symposium is being held in association with the NATO committee on the challenges of modern society and will provide an opportunity for NATO and former Warsaw pact countries to exchange information and views about environmental problems arising from defence-related activities. My Department will play a key role in the symposium, but representation has not been finalised. In addition to keynote addresses, papers by Ministry of Defence staff will be presented in the planned technical sessions on pollution prevention, low flying, information technology in defence land management, military land use issues, environmental assessment of defence activities and environmental training.

  Exercise Chameleon
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the purpose and (b) the participating forces in Exercise Chameleon at Brawdy in April. [35638]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise Chameleon was a routine exercise that took place between 23 April and 1 May designed to test the abilities of the three services to work together effectively in an operational environment. Elements of the French armed forces also took part.
  1350

  NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the NATO committee on the challenges of modern society pilot study groups in which his Department currently participates; and how many personnel, and of what grades, participate in each. [35632]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is actively involved in two NATO CCMS pilot studies: defence environmental expectations and environmental aspects of the re-use of former military lands. A grade 5 officer is the co-chairman of the former study. A grade 5 officer is a member of the executive board of the latter study with a grade 7 attending sub-group meetings of the study.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department, and of what grades, participated in the NATO committee on the challenges of modern society meeting on environmental aspects of re-using former military lands in Munich in October 1994; and if he will make a statement on the changes in his policy on use of former military lands arising from the pilot study on this subject. [35631]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department was represented by one grade 5 officer at the meeting. This meeting is one of a series associated with this NATO CCMS pilot study. Work is continuing and MOD policy will be examined in the light of any future recommendations.

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department is giving to authorising operations by military unmanned aerial vehicles in controlled airspace over the United Kingdom. [35645]

  Mr. Soames
  Military unmanned aerial vehicles currently only operate within MOD controlled airspace within existing danger areas. There are no plans at present for them to operate within any other controlled airspace within the United Kingdom.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were undertaken by Tornados of the tri-national Tornado training establishment from RAF Leuchars under the winter venture deployment scheme in winter 1994–95; and how many of these involved low level flying. [35648]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 198 sorties were flown, of which 184 involved low level flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were conducted by(a) B-52s and (b) F-111s of the US Air Force during their recent deployment to RAF Fairford; how many of each were authorised low flying sorties; and if he will list the numbered low flying areas used by these aircraft during their deployment to the United Kingdom. [35641]

  Mr. Soames
  United States Air Force B-52s conducted 60 sorties during their deployment to RAF Fairford, eight of which involved flying within the UK low flying system. United States Air Force F-111s conducted 122
  1351
  sorties during their deployment, 48 of which involved flying within the UK low flying system. The aircraft used the following low flying areas during their deployment to the UK: 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17. Of these only low flying areas 13 and 14 were used by USAF B-52s.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying sorties by British military aircraft have taken place over Slovakia since August 1994; and how many sorties are planned for 1995. [35647]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF aircraft have to date flown no low flying sorties over Slovakia and at present there are no plans for them to do so. We shall, however, continue to explore the prospects for low level flying with our partners in the region.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increased Royal Air Force use of the low flying training facilities at Goose bay following the completion of the environmental assessment report on operations from the base. [35646]

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans at present to seek an increase in the RAF's annual allocation of low level sorties at the Goose bay facility. Operational and other training commitments do mean, however, that actual usage within the agreed ceiling varies from year to year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the deployments of Italian air force Tornados to RAF Cottesmore from 3 to 7 July, 24 to 28 July and 4 to 8 September; and what written agreements exist between his Department and the Italian authorities governing Italian air force combat aircraft deployments to the United Kingdom for low flying, weapons and electronic warfare training. [35639]

  Mr. Soames
  The purpose of the Italian air force Tornado detachments to RAF Cottesmore is to utilise the electronic warfare range at RAF Spadeadam and to carry out low flying training within the United Kingdom low flying system. No written agreements exist; I refer the hon. Member to the replies to his questions of 10 January,Official Report, c.103 and 2 December last year, Official Report, c.943.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many instances have been recorded in each of the last three years in which investigation of a complaint about low flying found that no aircraft had booked in to the relevant low flying area at the reported time of the incident. [35643]

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

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the aerial activity at low level(a) in the vicinity of Bargrennan on 27 June, (b) in the vicinity of Waterside, Doon Valley, on 28 June, (c) in the vicinity of Lochinvar, New Galloway, on 29 June, (d) in the vicinity of Auchenstroan Craig, Moniaive, on 30 June, (e) in the vicinity of Stroanfreggan on 3 July and (f) in the vicinity of Kendoon Loch on 4 July and in the vicinity of Craighead in the Dalwhat Valley and other locations in the south-west of Scotland throughout this period as notified in "Notice to Airmen J1477". [34351]
  1352
  Mr. Soames
  The activity notified in "Notice to Airmen J1477/95" on the dates and at the locations listed in the question was close air support training down to 100 ft by Harrier aircraft of No. 4 Squadron. This training was part of the squadron's work-up before deployment in support of NATO air operations over Bosnia-Herzogovina

  Military Activities (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department, and of what grades, participated in the United Nations Environment Programme meeting on military activities and the environment in Linkoping, Sweden, from 27 to 30 June; and if he will make a statement on the proposals arising from this meeting for the development of his policies in respect of mitigating the environmental impact of his Department's activities. [35630]

  Mr. Soames
  The defence attaché at the British embassy, Stockholm attended the Linkoping conference. MOD will review the proceedings and recommendations of the Linkoping conference when these are received.

  RAF Aldergrove (Chinooks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chinook captains are currently assigned to Royal Air Force Aldergrove; how many of these have self-authorising status; and if he will make a statement. [35933]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chinook ZD 576
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the forecast height of the +4 Celsius isotherm along the route of Chinook ZD 576 on 2 June 1994. [35948]

  Mr. Soames
  Approximately 4,500 ft above mean sea level.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours of sleep were obtained by the pilot and co-pilot of Chinook ZD 576 in the 24 hours prior to their accident on 2 June 1994. [35946]

  Mr. Soames
  It was not possible for the board of inquiry to ascertain how much sleep the two pilots had in the 24 hours prior to the accident. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that either officer had anything other than a relaxing evening with adequate rest.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the minimum forecast visibility and cloudbase on the planned route of Chinook ZD 576 from Royal Air Force Aldergrove to Fort George on 2 June 1994; [35942]

  (2) on how many occasions the pilot and co-pilot of Chinook ZD 576 on 2 June 1994 had flown at low level from Royal Air Force Aldergrove to Fort George in the previous 12 months; [35932]
  1353
  (3) what is the maximum permitted number of (a) flying hours and (b) duty hours in any 24-hour period for Chinook aircrew assigned to Royal Air Force Aldergrove; what are the differences between these limits and those applying to Chinook aircrew assigned to other stations; and what changes have been made to the limits at Aldergrove since 2 June 1994; [35947]

  (4) how many complete Chinook flight crews were (a) assigned to and (b) available for duty at Royal Air Force Aldergrove on 2 June 1994; and what is the normal planned number of available flight crews. [35944]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Jaguar (Accident)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the loss of an RAF Jaguar in the Adriatic sea in June. [35635]

  Mr. Soames
  A Jaguar GRIA on detachment from RAF Coltishall to Gioia del Colle was engaged in a routine training sortie on 21 June when it crashed into the Adriatic sea off the Italian coast. The pilot ejected safely and sustained only minor injuries. A RAF board of inquiry has been convened and a summary of its findings will he placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Tornado Training Establishment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future plans for the organisation and location of the tri-national Tornado training establishment. [35636]

  Mr. Soames
  The requirement for tri-national Tornado training establishment is kept under review by the participating nations. Any proposal affecting its future organisation or location would require detailed discussions between the parties involved before any announcement could be made.

  Defence Conversion Strategies
  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 Study Institute on defence conversion strategies held in Pitlochry from 1 to 14 July; and if he will list the titles of papers presented by members of his Department at the conference. [35634]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser attended the conference on 7 July to deliver a paper on "Dual-use technology". A grade 3 official from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency presented a paper on "Civil/Defence Strategies in the United Kingdom." These apart, I understand that one other grade 6 Ministry of Defence official attended.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the conclusions of the tests and studies conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence 1354
  Establishment, Porton Down, involving service volunteers to determine the degree of incapacitation following exposure to CR gas; and what was the nature of the exercise tests; [35080]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 February, Official Report, column 377, how much CR gas was produced at Nacekuke in total; [35083]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 24 February, Official Report, column 378, when the results of the physiological tests to determine the effects of CR gas on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems were first exchanged with the United States of America. [35079]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1995:
  Your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the degree of incapacitation caused by agent CR, how much of the agent was produced, and whether results were shared with the USA, 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 all three questions.
  Approximately two tonnes of CR were manufactured at the Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke, most of the production occurring in the mid 1970's. The tests which were carried out at CDE Potion Down with CR involving Service Volunteers concluded, as Dr Pearson informed you in his letter of 19 December 1994, that CR caused sensory irritation and was ten time more potent than CS. Exercise tests would have involved walking and stretching routines. As to date on which this information was exchanged with the United State of America I am afraid I can add no more of Dr Pearson's letter to you of 12 May 1993, a copy of which I attach for ease.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1175, in which years the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment carried out the work to reach the assessment that, with an appropriate stabiliser, there was little decomposition of GD over three years; what was the stabiliser in this case; and when the results of this work were first shared with the United States of America; [35078]

  (2) what assessment the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has made of the shelf life of thickened GD; [35076]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 24 February, Official Report, column 377, in which years the work into the ease of acquisition of the precursors for GD was carried out; when the results of this research were first exchanged with the United States of America; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged with the United States of America. [35075]

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.
  1355
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1995:
  Your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the acquisition of the precursors to nerve agent GD, the assessments made on its stability and shelf life 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 all three questions.
  Work to determine the ease of acquisition of the precursors of synthesis of GD was carried out as part of the research into the synthesis of the agent. It is not possible to determine the exact date on which work on precursor acquisition was carried out but it is likely this type of information was available by 1954. The work you refer to on the stability of GD was carried out at Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke between 1965–1968 and the stabiliser used was diisopropylcarbodiimide. No long term studies have been made to assess the shelf life of thickened GD.
  Results of both of these programmes of work would have been shared as part of the continuing programme of information exchange and collaboration between the United States of America and the United Kingdom but specific dates for the exact time of exchange are now difficult to ascertain.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, columns 378–79, when the results of the research into GF were first exchanged with the United States of America. [35077]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the results of research into GF were first exchanged with the USA 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
  From the records available it is difficult to determine the exact date on which results of the work were first communicated to the United States but the exchange of this type of information would appear to have begun in 1947.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the conclusions of the skin and eye sensitivity tests conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, involving CS gas and service volunteers; [35082]

  (2) from what source the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment obtained the CS gas for its tests and studies involving service volunteers. [35081]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1995:
  Your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the tests into the skin and eye sensitivity of CS gas and the source of the CS have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which
  1356
  now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its Divisions. This reply covers both questions.The tests of eye and skin sensitivity conducted using Service Volunteers concluded that CS caused short term irritation to the sensory nerve endings giving rise to watering of the eyes and a burning or stinging sensation in the skin. The studies showed the value of CS as a non lethal gas for use in circumstances such as military training. The research quantities of CS used in these studies were manufactured at Chemical Defence Establishment, Nacekuke until shortly before its closure and then subsequently at CBDE Porton Down until 1990. Since 1990 CS has been manufactured by a commercial operator using the processes developed at CBDE.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment into the sensory irritant agent bromobenzyl cyanide; when this work was carried out; where this work was carried out; what were the purpose and conclusions of this work; and if this work involved service volunteers. [35084]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1995:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for information on the work carried out on the sensory irritant agent bromobenzyl cyanide (BBC) at 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 includes CBDE as one of its Divisions.Studies involving the sensory irritant BBC were carried out between the First and Second World Wars at the Chemical Defence Establishments at Porton Down and Sutton Oak. Exposure of Service Volunteers to BBC would have been part of the research programme and the conclusions of the investigations were that BBC caused sensory irritation and would be a useful tear gas. As a result of this work BBC was employed as the standard in-service tear gas during World War II.

  Explosives and Propellants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton on 10 July,Official Report, column 466, what is his Department's calculation of the financial benefits to Royal Ordnance of the EPREP—explosives, propellants and related end products—agreement. [35133]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence can assess the financial benefit of the EPREP agreement to Royal Ordnance only in terms of its total value which amounts to orders to the value of £560 million during the five-year tenure of the agreement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the explosives. propellants and end products agreement. [35132]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The explosives, propellants and related end products agreement between the Ministry of Defence and Royal Ordnance plc, now the Royal Ordnance Division of British Aerospace Defence Ltd., is "commercial-in-confidence". It is not the practice of Government to place commercial-in-confidence documents in the House of Commons Library.
  1357
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement, formal or informal, covered the matters now covered by the explosives, propellants and related end products agreement before its signing. [35051]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The explosives, propellants and end products agreement subsumed two previous agreements: the explosives and propellants agreement of 18 August 1986, as amended by subsequent side letters, and the small arms ammunition agreement of September 1986. The E and P agreement attempted to secure the capability of producing certain military explosives and propellants in the UK by the MOD undertaking to procure its requirements from the Royal Ordnance for the duration of the agreement, that is, until August 1989. The SAA agreement derived from the E and P agreement and specifically committed the MOD to placing non-competitively with RO its requirements for 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition for the period 1986–87 —to 1988–89 and 9 mm ammunition for the period 1987–88 to 1988–89.

  Radiation Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation his Department has received since 1965 relating to radiation tests on humans; and if he will make a statement. [34478]

  Mr. Soames
  We are not aware of any such claims, other than in relation to alleged exposure to ionising radiation during the atmospheric nuclear test programme in the 1950s and early 1960s. If those involved had been subjected, accidentally or otherwise, to dangerous levels of radiation, however, an overall excess of death and of cancer would have been expected among British nuclear test veterans subsequently. In fact, studies by the National Radiological Protection Board of over 20,000 British nuclear test veterans have found no overall excess of death or cancer.

  Bosnia (Rapid Deployment Force)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the British contribution to the rapid deployment force in Bosnia is still in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [35267]

  Mr. Soames
  A British battalion group of over 800 personnel is already in Bosnia as part of our contribution to UNPROFOR's rapid reaction force. In addition, the deployment of 24 Airmobile Brigade is continuing with some 1,100 troops in theatre to prepare for the arrival of the main body of the brigade. It is planned to have completed the deployment of over 4,000 personnel by mid-August.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [34706]
  1358
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Measures operated by my Department to assist small businesses include:

  1. The services of the Defence Suppliers Service which meets and corresponds annually with several thousand suppliers, a very large proportion of which are small firms, offering advice on ways in which they can bring their goods and services to the attention of our buyers. The DSS also supports business links, which provide business counselling and support small businesses.

  2. The promotion of the many opportunities which exist to sell to the Department by publicising contracts in various publications including the Defence Contracts Bulletin, which is a particularly useful source of sub-contract opportunities.

  3. Systematically reviewing our contracting processes to ensure that all administrative procedures are still required and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on businesses. When considering new contracting policies and procedures, we take particular account of the implications for businesses of all sizes.

  Human Remains (Underwater Searches)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many underwater searches for human remains have been conducted in(a) British, (b) international and (c) foreign waters in each of the last five years. [35736]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities his Department possesses for the underwater searching and detection of human remains. [35735]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not possess facilities with an area search capability which could be used to locate human remains underwater. Searches could be carried out by divers, but would be limited in depth and duration due to decompression requirements.

  Music Teaching Courses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, columns 182–83, if he will provide the number presently taking part in each higher music teaching course and the annual cost of running each course. [36120]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Assistance (Training)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, columns 968–69, if for each year he will state the countries and the number from each who were trained. [35265]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the military assistance provided to other countries are confidential between
  1359
  Governments. Over the period in question training costs for students from the following non-NATO countries were wholly or partially waived by the Ministry of Defence:

  1989–90

  Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Chile, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, UAE and Yemen.

  1990–91

  Antigua, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Chile, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and UAE.

  1991–92

  Antigua, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and UAE.

  1992–93

  Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Chile, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Montserrat, Nepal, New Zealand, Oman, Senegal, Thailand, UAE and Uruguay.

  1993–94

  Albania, Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Hungary, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, St. Kitts, St. Vincent, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and UAE.

  Military Hardware (Accidents)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all items of military hardware over £25,000 in value lost through accidents in each of the last five years. [35445]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homosexuals (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the situation of gay men and lesbian women within the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [35444]

  Mr. Soames
  We are considering at present the High Court judgment in the recent judicial review cases involving four former service personnel who were discharged on the grounds of homosexuality. Appeals in these cases are pending. In the meantime, it remains our policy to exclude homosexuals from the armed forces.

  Livestock Exports (Airfields)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) for allowing the use of airfields for exporting livestock from the United Kingdom and (b) for the sale of airfields to exporters of livestock; and if he will make a statement. [34860]

  Mr. Soames
  No plans exist to allow the use of my Department's airfields for the export of livestock, or for the disposal of any surplus airfields for this purpose.
  1360

  Aircraft (British Grand Prix)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft belonging or chartered to Her Majesty's armed forces were present at the British Grand Prix at Silverstone on 16 July; and for what purposes. [36206]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the legal obstacles to the transfer of services from the Brook hospital to the Queen Elizabeth Military hospital, Woolwich; and if he will make a statement. [35937]

  Mr. Soames
  There are a number of important contractual issues to be resolved before my Department will be in a position to sell the Queen Elizabeth Military hospital to the Greenwich Healthcare trust. As negotiations are still subject to contract, we regard the specific details of such matters as in confidence between the two parties. Officials from the MOD are, however, in close contact with the Greenwich Healthcare trust, and we are optimistic about reaching an amicable solution on all outstanding issues shortly.

  Mast Manning
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the future of mast-manning in the Royal Navy. [35139]

  Mr. Soames
  Personnel who form the Royal Navy mast manning display team are drawn from the pool of manpower that is temporarily surplus to requirements. This surplus which has enabled formation of the team in recent years, will not be available in future as strengths are brought more into line with naval requirements. Any future formation of the team could be achieved only by the diversion of ratings from priority tasks.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of savings to his Department's budget of the proposed decommissioning of the Royal Yacht Britannia. [34758]

  Mr. Soames
  As a result of the Government's decision to decommission HMY Britannia in 1997, her planned refit in 1996–97 will not be necessary; this will save some £17,000,000. In addition, Britannia's running costs of about £10,000,000 per annum will be saved.

  Early Retirement and Redundancy
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of early retirement and redundancy packages for armed forces personnel in the last year for which figures are available. [35129]

  Mr. Soames
  During financial year 1994–95 redundancy payments of £453,000,000 were made. This figure includes special capital payments, early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's early payment of immediate pensions.
  1361
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total amount of redundancy payments paid to British service personnel who have left the armed forces under the "Options for Change" policies as of 1 July. [34077]

  Mr. Soames
  The current redundancy programme began in financial year 1992–93. In that year redundancy payments of £232,000,000 were made. In 1993–94 and 1994–95 the payments totalled £509,000,000 and £453,000,000 respectively.

  These payments include special capital payments, and early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's payment of immediate pensions.

  Surplus Land and Houses
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the surplus land and houses sold by his Department by auction in each of the last three financial years; if he will give the price obtained; and if he will make a statement. [35028]

  Mr. Soames
  From the available records the following properties have been identified as having been sold by auction in the financial years as shown:

  £

  Financial year 1992–93

  Two building plots adjacent to 5/10 Dobbie Road, Long Marston

  75,000

  Building plot at rear of 24–28 Norton Close, Worcester

  35,500

  White Lodge, HMS Mercury, Petersfield

  95,000

  4 Cranfield Drive, London

  47,000

  4 Married Quarters and 5 garages, Golden Valley Estate, Folkstone

  145,000

  2 Married Quarters, Dagets Wood, Chatham

  65,750

  20 acres (sportsfield) Coldblow near Deal

  21,000

  Financial year 1993–94

  St. Albans Hall, Lynchford Road, Farnborough

  117,000

  Four lots of land RAF Greatworth, Northamptonshire

  109,000

  Horse Sands Fort, The Solent

  45,860

  Nos 4–27, 9, 12, 15 and 17 Poplar Way, Colerne, Wiltshire

  145,000

  Nos 1–21 (odd) Elm Road, Colerne, Wiltshire

  190,000

  Nos 2–6 Cherry Road, 2–12 (even) Elm Road, 6–10 Hazel Way, Colerne, Wiltshire

  330,000

  Sopley Bunker, Harpway Lane, Christchurch

  151,000

  50 Fareham Road, Gosport

  27,000

  52 Beechwood Drive, Woodford Green, Essex

  32,000

  Financial year 1994–95

  Ex Warning and Monitoring Post, Church Lawford, Rugby

  248,200

  2 x Woodside Cottages, Lyneham

  101,500

  180 Priory Road, Gosport

  30,500

  Departmental Property (Evictions)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many proceedings to evict irregular occupants for non-payment of rent have been initiated in each of the last five years for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [35031]

  Mr. Soames
  In the last five years, my Department has initiated 370 proceedings to evict irregular occupants for 1362
  non-payment of rent, although there is very rarely any need for an actual eviction to take place, and in the last two years for which figures are available there have been no evictions. A year by year breakdown of this figure is given in the table:

  Number

  1991

  16

  1992

  77

  1993

  142

  1994

  112

  1995

  233

  1 Note that the figure for 1991 is for Royal Air Force only.

  2 To date.

  Manadon Engineering School
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bids have been received for the Royal Navy's engineering school at Manadon, Plymouth; if he will name the successful bidder, indicating the price obtained; and if he will make a statement. [35030]

  Mr. Soames
  A recent marketing campaign for Royal Naval Engineering College Manadon produced six serious responses from prospective purchasers. Following analysis of the proposals, it was decided that the sale should be completed by formal tender. Invitations to tender will be issued shortly with a closing date for bids approximately one month thereafter.

  MOD Properties (Illegal Occupation)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in respect of the illegal occupation of empty Ministry of Defence premises; how many premises have been illegally occupied; and if he will make a statement. [35029]

  Mr. Soames
  I am aware of no representations having been received in respect of the illegal occupation of empty Ministry of Defence premises. We are aware of five married quarters which have been illegally occupied during the last year.

  Ferry Purchases
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military requirements two ferry vessels are required as set out in "Future Purchase No. NSSB3B/60758"; what consideration has been given to leasing or contract hiring of such vessels; what equivalent vessels were in use at Portland for the purpose of transfer of naval training staff to warships; and if he will make a statement. [34755]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The requirement set out in "Future Purchase No. NSSBSB/60758" of the June 1995 issue of the MOD "Contracts Bulletin" is for two specialist passenger craft to transfer naval personnel from Plymouth to and from warships and auxiliaries in open water in support of Flag Officer Sea Training when this task moves from Portland. We are currently considering a number of procurement options, including leasing, before establishing procurement strategy aimed at achieving best value for money for the defence budget. The vessels currently in use at Portland are not capable of meeting the
  1363
  requirement to transfer personnel safely in the significantly rougher seas experienced off Plymouth.

  Memoranda of Understanding
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations led him to diverge from his policy of not divulging details of memoranda of understanding in his answer to the honourable Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) of 27 October 1992,Official Report, columns 614–15, on the memorandum of understanding signed in September 1992 by the United Kingdom and Indonesian Governments. [36326]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The memorandum of understanding referred to was signed at the Farnborough air show and the answer given to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley at the time may have reflected the possibility of some information about it being in the public domain.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations led him to diverge from his policy of

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Groups—1 April 1995

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Open Structure Grade 1 (including 1A)

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Open Structure Grade 2 (including UIPP (Higher))

  8

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Open Structure Grade 3 (including UIPP (Lower))

  43

  2

  45

  0

  0

  0

  Open Structure Grade 4

  29

  1

  30

  0

  0

  0

  Open Structure Grade 5

  259

  15

  274

  0

  1

  1

  Open Structure Grade 6

  703

  23

  726

  1

  0

  1

  Open Structure Grade 7

  2,654

  130

  2,784

  16

  13

  29

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,114

  195

  1,309

  2

  6

  8

  Administration Fast Stream HEO(D))

  12

  10

  22

  0

  0

  0

  Administration Fast Stream (AT(HEO)(NEW))

  3

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  2,097

  954

  3,051

  2

  54

  56

  Administration Fast Stream (AT)

  6

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Executive Officer

  2,931

  2,792

  5,723

  7

  193

  200

  Administrative Officer

  3,969

  9,375

  13,344

  20

  902

  922

  Administrative Assistant

  1,375

  4,425

  5,800

  26

  786

  812

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senor Assistant Statistician

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant Statistician

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  30

  7

  37

  0

  0

  0

  Information Officer

  35

  23

  58

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Librarian

  10

  7

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Librarian

  19

  29

  48

  0

  0

  0

  Assistant Librarian

  12

  33

  45

  0

  5

  5

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade D

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade E

  7

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade F

  7

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade G

  1

  5

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Mapping and Charting Officer

  85

  20

  105

  1

  5

  6

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  191

  38

  229

  0

  2

  2

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  355

  96

  451

  0

  41

  41

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  108

  61

  169

  1

  10

  11

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 2

  31

  32

  63

  1

  9

  10

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  2,320

  19

  2,339

  2

  1

  3

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  3,726

  53

  3,779

  4

  2

  6

  Professional and Technology Officer

  4,561

  85

  4,646

  1

  5

  6

  Professional and Technology Officer IV(obs)

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Technical Grade 1

  268

  105

  373

  0

  0

  7

  Technical Grade 2

  16

  14

  30

  0

  0

  2

  Graduate Trainee

  50

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  Trainee Incorporated Engineer

  12

  2

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Graphics Officer

  10

  1

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Graphics Officer

  47

  2

  49

  0

  0

  0

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Graphics Officer

  166

  29

  195

  0

  1

  1

  1364
  not divulging details of memoranda of understanding in his answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) of 27 October 1992, Official Report, columns 614–15, on the memorandum of understanding signed in September 1992 by the United Kingdom and Indonesian Governments. [36326]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The memorandum of understanding referred to was signed at the Farnborough air show and the answer given to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley at the time may have reflected the possibility of some information about it being in the public domain.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35466]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number of male and female full-time and part-time staff employed by my Department and its agencies is set out in the table.
  1365

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Groups—1 April 1995

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Senior Research Officer (R)

  44

  7

  51

  1

  0

  1

  Research Officer (R)

  6

  1

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Chief Typing Manager

  0

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Typing Manager

  0

  160

  160

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  91

  91

  0

  0

  0

  Personal Secretary

  3

  800

  803

  0

  23

  23

  Typist

  7

  2,635

  2,642

  0

  600

  600

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1,659

  166

  1,825

  23

  25

  48

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1,567

  261

  1,828

  4

  28

  32

  Scientific Officer

  1,103

  255

  1,358

  1

  19

  20

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  460

  103

  563

  2

  8

  10

  Senior Instructional Officer

  65

  0

  65

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Instructional Officer

  333

  2

  335

  0

  0

  0

  Instructional Officer I

  1,072

  9

  1,081

  1

  0

  1

  Instructional Officer II

  168

  5

  173

  1

  1

  2

  Catering Manager 3

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  17

  1

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Chef 2/Chief Cook 2

  21

  2

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Technician Grade 2

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Technician Grade 3

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Support Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Support Grade 2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Support Grade 3

  22

  0

  22

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Support Grade 4

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Museum Support Grade 5

  5

  0

  5

  1

  0

  1

  Senior Photographic Officer

  6

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Photographic Officer

  37

  1

  38

  0

  0

  0

  Photographic Officer

  126

  8

  134

  0

  1

  1

  Process & Supervisory Group Grade A

  11

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Process & Supervisory Group Grade B

  35

  0

  35

  0

  0

  0

  Process & Supervisory Group Grade C

  116

  0

  116

  0

  0

  0

  Process & Supervisory Group Grade D

  303

  11

  314

  0

  2

  2

  Process & Supervisory Group Grade E

  120

  8

  128

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Psychologist

  9

  16

  25

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Psychologist

  4

  7

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Stores Officer Grade A

  17

  0

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Stores Officer Grade B

  131

  2

  133

  1

  0

  0

  Stores Officer Grade C

  326

  9

  335

  0

  0

  0

  Stores Officer Grade D

  653

  61

  714

  0

  1

  1

  Support Manager 1

  2

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Support Manager 2

  17

  17

  34

  0

  0

  0

  Support Manager 3

  72

  101

  173

  0

  0

  0

  Support Grade Band 1

  279

  699

  978

  3

  47

  50

  Support Grade Band 2

  435

  411

  846

  5

  50

  55

  Senior Telecommunications Technical Officer

  48

  0

  48

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Telecommunication Technical Officer

  149

  1

  150

  0

  0

  0

  Telecommunications Technical Officer

  338

  1

  339

  4

  1

  5

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  429

  15

  444

  0

  1

  1

  Trainee Telecommunications Technical Officer

  17

  1

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Trainee Telecommunications Technical Officer

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Communications Officer I

  18

  1

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Communications Officer II

  38

  9

  47

  0

  0

  0

  Communications Officer III

  93

  28

  121

  0

  0

  0

  Communications Officer IV

  234

  100

  334

  1

  4

  5

  Total staff in open structure and occupational groups

  37,915

  24,614

  62,529

  132

  2,856

  2,988

  Total staff in departmental non-industrial grades

  13,818

  1,522

  15,340

  74

  110

  184

  Industrial staff

  30,230

  5,266

  35,496

  126

  1,290

  1,416

  Total non-industrial and industrial staff

  81,963

  31,402

  113,365

  332

  4,256

  4,588

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral answer of 4 July to the hon. Member for Blaby,Official Report, column 137, (1) when the Government announced a policy of testing to ensure the procurement of additional anti-personnel land mines is safe, tested and reliable; [35453]
  1366
  (2) what research his Department intends to carry out to ensure that self-destruct anti-personnel land mines that his Department intends to procure are safe, tested and reliable; and how he intends to ensure that present stocks are safe, tested and reliable. [35452]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All equipment procured for use by Her Majesty's armed forces is subject to testing to ensure that it is safe, reliable and fit for purpose. If we procure anti-personnel mines in the future these would be subject
  1367
  to such tests to ensure that they comply with out requirements for safety and reliability at that time. Stocks of all types of in-service ammunition, including mines, are tested regularly to assess their continued safety and suitability for service. No stocks of self-destruct anti-personnel mines are currently held by my Department.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral answer of 4 July to the hon. Member for Blaby,Official Report, column 137, (1) what steps he has taken to consider the military usefulness of anti-personnel land mines; [35451]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 6 June to the hon. Member for Islwyn, Official Report, column 13, what measures were taken to consider the justifiable military use of some anti-personnel land mines; and if he will list the recipient and nature of Government spending on mine-clearance work. [35470]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The need for anti-personnel land mines is kept under review. Such reviews include investigation of possible alternative ways of carrying out the important defensive role which is currently fulfilled by anti-personnel land mines. Recent operational analysis has not identified any weapon system which could act as an effective alternative to anti-personnel land mines.

  Government support towards the humanitarian clearance of land mines is undertaken through the Overseas Development Administration.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for over-fives, either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35450]

  Mr. Soames
  Excluding provision made for staff and service personnel, my Department has no responsibility for meeting costs of child care either directly or indirectly.

  Stealth Fixed-wing Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for the development of a stealth fixed-wing aircraft. [35642]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our plans for future combat aircraft and associated technologies are kept under constant review. Following the recently approved mid-life update, the Tornado GR4 aircraft will not need replacing until well into the next century.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to buy additional Chinook helicopters for special forces use. [35637]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is our policy not to discuss requirements for special forces use.
  1368

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for replacement of the RAF's Hawk T1 and T1A aircraft. [35640]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are assessing a number of options for the Hawk fleet including extending the life of the aircraft or purchase or lease of a replacement in due course. This work will take some time.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, c. 272, what is the value of (a) those activities subject to market testing that included a bid from the respective in-house organisation and (b) those activities where an in-house bid was not allowed. [35027]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total value of activities which have been subject to market testing that included a bid from the respective in-house organisation in the last three reporting periods, covering 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995, was £80 million. The total value of activities where an in-house bid was not allowed, that is, where the activity was strategically contracted out, in the same period, was £409 million. This latter figure includes AWE contractorisation valued at £275 million.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, c. 272, if he will (a) name the organisations awarded contracts to carry out the activities where an in-house bid was not allowed and (b) express as a percentage of the total number of activities market tested the number of activities where an in-house bid has not been allowed; and if he will make a statement. [35026]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The organisations awarded contracts to carry out the activities where an in-house bid was not allowed, that is, where the activity was strategically contracted out, in the last three reporting periods, are listed in the table. This is 39 per cent. of the total number of activities completed under the competing for quality process within the same periods.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE—ACTIVITIES STRATEGICALLY CONTRACTED OUT

  1992–93

  Gardening, Royal Marine School of Music, Deal—Oaklands plc

  Harrier Aircraft Service Support, H.M.S. HERON—Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Helicopter Maintenance and Engineering Support, H.M.S. OSPREY, H.M.S. HERON and H.M.S. SEAHAWK—Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Simulator Helicopter Control Operations, H.M.S. OSPREY—Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Bielefeld bakery—NAAFI

  Works Services, H.M.S. SEAHAWK—PSA Building Management

  Works Services, H.M.S. DOLPHIN—PSA Building Management

  Central Engineer Resources, Plant Hire, Long Marston—various local contractors

  Food distribution in BAOR—NAAFI

  Food distribution in rear combat zone (BAOR)—NAAFI

  1369

  Line of Communications—Freight Service, (Low Countries)—DEPAIRE

  Engineering and Supply (multi-activity contract), RAF Scampton—Hunting A/C Ltd.

  RAF/RN Elementary Flying Training Topcliffe—Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Domestic Services, MOD Police, Wethersfield—Gardner Merchant

  Works Services Maintenance, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Belize—Turner (FM) Ltd./Balfour Beatty/ACO

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston—Hunting Brae Ltd.

  Combat Systems Information Management Team—EASAMS Ltd.

  Guarding, Abbey Wood—CHUBB Wardens Ltd. Relocation Reconnaissance Visits, Bristol—Peter Carol Executive Coaches

  1993–94

  Tri Service food study—NAAFI

  Verbatim Court Recorders, Salisbury—Harry Counsell and Co

  Catering strategy study, UK Land Forces—various contractors across a range of sites

  Air Weapons Range, Rosehearty—Assessment Services Ltd. Electronic Warfare training tasks, 360 Sqn, RAF Wyton—FR Aviation Ltd.

  Government Pipeline and Storage System, (Operation and Maintenance)—Simon Storage Group/SERCO Gulf Engineering/Unipen

  Parachute Transport Flight, RAF Hullavington—Hallett Silbermann

  Station Engineering Management Aid, (Maintenance Analysis and Computing Division), RAF Swanton Morley—Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  Furniture repair, British Forces Hong Kong—Wing Cheung and Co Ltd.

  School bus service, British Forces Hong Kong—Hoi Tai Tours Ltd.

  Support Services, Akrotiri, Cyprus—Compass Catering Service (Cyprus) Ltd.

  Data entry, Met Office, Bracknell—Alpha Numeric 1994–95

  Wireless Stations (Operation and Maintenance), Inskip and Crimond—SERCO Services Ltd.

  Freight Service, Germany—TNT Express Holding GmbH

  Mobile Civilian Artisan Groups, Germany—Procurement of services as and when required

  Support for Parachute Training—Hunting Aviation Ltd.

  The Queen's Flight, (engineering support) RAF NortholtFLS Aerospace (Lovaux) Ltd.

  Repair of Defence Accommodation Stores, RAF Quedgeley— HiFburb Ltd./Thackers Ltd./Gordons of Hemingford

  Curtain manufactures, British Forces Hong Kong—FCO Procurement Unit

  Food supply, British Forces Hong Kong—various contractors

  Support Services, British Forces Hong Kong—SERCO/Gardner Merchant

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [32262]
  1370
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Monday 10 July 1995]During the period in question, Ministers in my Department have carried out the following overseas visits:

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  Financial year 1993–94

  April

  20 to 23

  USA

  To represent Her Majesty's Government at opening of Holocaust Museum, and to have bilateral talks

  Civil

  May

  16 to 21

  Far East (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore)

  Bilaterals

  RAF

  25

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial Meeting

  RAF

  August

  2 to 4

  Bosnia/Croatia, Italy

  To visit British Forces in Bosnia nad Croatia, and for bilateral talks in Croatia and Italy

  RAF

  September

  19 to 24

  CIS (Russia and Ukraine)

  Bilaterals

  RAF

  October

  20 to 21

  Germany (Travemunde)

  NATO Ministerial meeting

  22

  Germany (Bielefeld)

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  23 to 24

  Germany (Bonn)

  To participate in Bertelsmann Forum

  24 to 26

  France

  Bilateral

  November

  21 to 22

  Austria (Vienna)

  Anglo-German Summit

  RAF

  25

  Germany (Bonn)

  NATO Ministerial

  RAF

  December

  8 to 9

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial

  RAF

  January

  5 to 10

  Far East Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, (Bahrain)

  Bilateral discussions

  RAF

  February

  4

  Germany (Laarbruch, Bruggen)

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  5

  Germany

  Conference on Security Policy

  RAF

  6 to 7

  Italy/Former Yugoslavia

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  10 to 11

  Sweden

  Bilateral

  RAF

  19 to 20

  Italy

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  March

  17 to 18

  Former Yugoslavia

  Visit to British Forces

  RAF

  22

  Norway

  Engagement with the King of Norway

  RAF

  23

  Netherlands

  Bilateral

  RAF

  1371

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  Financial year 1994–95

  April

  1 to 5

  Nepal

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  12 to 15

  USA

  Bilateral

  Civil

  May

  5 to 8

  Bermuda

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  9

  Luxembourg

  WEU Ministerial

  RAF

  23 to 25

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial meeting

  RAF

  26

  USA

  Witness missile firing

  RAF

  27 to 28

  Belize

  To visit British Forces

  RAF

  June

  2 to 3

  Switzerland

  Bilateral

  RAF

  6

  France

  D Day

  RAF

  September

  8

  Germany

  Berlin commemorations

  RAF

  11

  Denmark

  Bilateral

  RAF

  28 to 30

  Spain

  NATO Ministerial

  RAF

  October

  2 to 5

  Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)

  Bilateral

  RAF

  20 to 24

  Israel

  Bilateral

  RAF

  24 to 25

  Jordan/Kuwait

  Bilateral

  RAF

  28

  Germany

  To attend BAOR drawdown parade

  RAF

  30 to 1 November

  USA

  Bilateral

  RAF

  November

  18

  France

  Summit

  RAF

  December

  5 to 6

  Former Yugoslavia

  Visit to British Forces

  RAF

  13 to 14

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial

  RAF

  January

  16 to 18

  Middle East (Saudi Arabia Abu Dhabi, Dubai)

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  February

  3

  Germany

  Visit German Forces

  RAF

  4 to 5

  Germany (Munich)

  Security Policy Conference

  RAF

  12 to 15

  Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  March

  2 to 5

  USA

  Quadrilateral meeting

  Civil

  Financial year 1995–96

  April

  7 to 13

  Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe

  Bilaterals

  RAF— £133,404

  28 to 30

  Germany

  Ditchley Foundation Conference

  RAF— £6,796

  May

  14 to 15

  Portugal

  WEU Ministerial

  RAF—£4,970

  June

  3

  France

  Ministerial meeting

  RAF—£3,271

  1372

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  June 8 to 9

  Brussels

  NATO Ministerial meeting

  RAF— £2,782

  12 to 13

  Sweden and Finland

  Bilateral

  RAF—£5,594

  19 to 21

  USA

  Bilateral and WEU Conference

  Civil

  Minister for the Armed Forces

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  Financial Year 1993–94

  5–9 April

  Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia

  Bilaterals

  RAF

  13–15 May

  Germany

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  19 May

  Rome

  WEU Ministerial meeting

  Civil

  26 July

  Luxembourg

  WEU Ministerial meeting

  RAF

  28–30 July

  Germany

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  13–16 September

  Italy, Bosnia and Croatia

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  20–29 September

  Belize, USA and Brazil

  Visit British Forces, Prime Minister and members of Belizean government, meetings with members of the US administration

  Civil

  12–14 October

  Hungary

  Bilaterals

  RAF

  15–18 November

  Cyprus, Gibraltar, Sardinia

  Meet British Forces and Chief Minister, Gibraltar

  RAF

  Financial Year 1994–95

  23 February

  Brussels

  Visit SHAPE Headquarters

  RAF

  13–15 June

  Bosnia

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  30 June-1 July

  Norway

  HQ AFNORTH closure ceremony

  RAF

  19 August

  Brussels

  Represent UK at Mandred Worner's funeral

  RAF

  1 September

  Germany

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  4–8 September

  Oman

  Bilaterals

  Civil

  26–28 September

  Bosnia

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  1–7 October

  Hong Kong Brunei

  Visit British troops and Bilaterals

  Civil

  7–10 November

  Cyprus Gibraltar

  Visit British troops

  RAF

  5 December

  Germany

  Bilaterals

  RAF

  3–6 January

  Bahrain

  Anglo Bahrain Defence Committee and Bilaterals

  Civil

  25 January

  Furstenfoldbruck, Germany

  British/German Peacekeeping seminar

  RAF

  28–29 February

  Norway

  Visit British Forces on NATO Exercise

  RAF

  15 March

  Germany

  Visit British Forces

  RAF

  1373

  Minister for the Armed Forces

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1995–96

  21–25 April

  Bosnia/Turkey

  Visit UK troops and represent the UK government at Gallipoli commemorations

  RAF— £26,973

  2–3 May

  Hamburg, Germany

  Attend VE commemorations

  RAF

  The RAF cost of this visit was borne by The prince of Wales, who was accompanied by the
  Minister for the Armed Forces.

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1993–94

  5 April

  Germany

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  16–18 April

  Oman

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  28June

  Netherlands

  Promoting defence sales

  RAF

  16 September

  Poland

  To accompany HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

  RAF

  8–10 October

  Kuwait

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  6–7 November

  Dubai

  Promoting defence sales

  RAF

  18 November

  Germany

  Promoting defence sales

  RAF

  15–17 December

  Saudi Arabia

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  20–22 December

  Bosnia

  Visiting British troops

  RAF

  6–9 January

  Oman

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  28–31 January

  Riyadh

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1994–95

  26–29 April

  USA

  Bilateral talks

  Civil

  12 September

  Germany

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  18–21 September

  Far East

  Five power defence arrangements ministerial meeting

  Civil

  27–29 September

  USA

  Bilateral talks

  Civil

  22–23 October

  UAE

  Bilateral talks and promoting defence sales

  Civil

  2 February

  France

  Bilateral talks

  Civil

  5–6 February

  Germany

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  17–20 March

  UAE

  Bilateral talks and promoting defence sales

  Civil

  23 March

  France

  Bilateral talks

  RAF

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1995–96

  21–23 April Kuwait

  Promoting defence sales

  Civil

  1374

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  27 April

  France

  Bilateral talks

  RAF— £1,807

  19 May

  Germany

  Bilateral talks

  RAF— £2,152

  12 June

  France

  Visit to Paris air show and bilateral talks

  RAF— £1,430

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Aircraft type

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1993–94

  20 April

  RAF Bruggen

  Disbandment of RAF Germany

  RAF

  23 April

  Germany

  Meet Federation of Army Wives BAOR

  Civil

  12 May

  Bielefield, Germany

  Visit ACE Rapid Reaction Corps

  Civil

  24 June

  Germany

  Disbanding of the Northern Army Group and 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force

  RAF

  14–17 September

  Turkey

  Defence Sales visit to IDEF

  Civil

  29 September

  Bielesfeld, Germany

  Federation of Army Wives Conference

  RAF

  21–23 October

  Albania

  Bilateral

  RAF

  1–3 December

  Russia

  125th Anniversary of St. Petersburgh Declaration followed

  RAF

  6–9 December

  Malaysia

  Defence sales visit to LIMA 93

  Civil

  13 December

  Normandy

  Looking at sites for D Day Celebrations

  RAF

  19 January

  Grafenwoker, Germany

  View Combined Arms Tactical Trainer

  RAF

  20–22 February

  Singapore

  Bilateral

  Civil

  28–30 March

  Bosnia

  Visit British troops

  RAF

  FINANCIAL YEAR 1994–95

  19–20 April

  Malaysia

  Bilateral

  Civil

  6 June

  Normandy

  D Day

  RAF

  29 June

  Sennelager, Germany

  British Forces Germany Environmental Day

  RAF

  26–27 August

  Slovakia

  50th Anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising

  RAF

  3–7 October

  Greece and Slovenia

  Defendory 94 and Bilateral

  Civil to Athens then RAF

  19 October

  Herford, Germany

  Federation of Army Wives Conference

  RAF

  7–11 November

  Turkey

  Bilateral

  Civil

  1375

  Total Ministerial expenditure on commercial foreign air travel for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1993–94

  73,767

  1994–95

  72,455

  1995–96 to date

  5,660

  Before April 1995 the cost of RAF flights was not separately identified and, together with the numbers of officials, could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  On visits of this kind, accommodation is normally provided by Her Majesty's Ambassador, Higher Commissioner, other Government representative, or by the hosts.

  S6 Respirator
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 276, who was in control of the user acceptability trials with the S6 respirator; and where these trials were carried out. [35622]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Tuesday 18 July 1995]The S6 respirator which preceded the current S10, was brought into service about 30 years ago. Remaining records relating to this period are held in archives and to establish whether they contain information concerning user trials and acceptance would incur disproportionate costs. It is known that a study conducted in 1957 by the Army operational research group of the Department of the Scientific Adviser to the Army Council recommended the acceptance of the S6 concept.

  Trafalgar Square Rally
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department sent observers to the rally in Trafalgar square on 16 July, marking the 50th anniversary of the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico. [36234]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No.

  Nuclear Weapons Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost in each year since 1979 of sending scientists and departmental officials to United States nuclear weapons research laboratories and production facilities under the provisions of the 1958 United States—United Kingdom mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters. [36228]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Records are not kept in a manner which allows this information to be provided.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since.1985. [35687]
  1376
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested, but details for each year from 1985 to 1994, by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including its executive agencies, can be found in table 5 of "Civil Service Statistics", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Details for 1995 will be published later this year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35669]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is committed to equality of opportunity for all its employees, and the vigorous application of our equal opportunities policy in such areas as recruitment, career development and promotion has resulted in some progress in promoting women into senior positions.

  A range of measures aimed at improving the position is in place, and plans to develop these further and to introduce new initiatives are included in an annual action plan.

  Separate action plans are produced by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Meterological Office.

  Arms Export Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to arms export policy in the last five years. [17527]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Friday 31 March 1995]: It remains Government policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas wherever this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests, and does not conflict with our international obligations.

  Longbow Radar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the longbow radars to be fitted to the Army's attack helicopter. [35746]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The cost of longbow radars to be fitted to the Army's attack helicopter is a matter of commercial confidentiality between MOD and the prime contractor.

  TRACER Reconnaissance Vehicle
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which anti-tank missiles his Department are assessing in relation to the TRACER vehicle requirement; and if he will make a statement. [35745]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The next planned stage of the feasibility study into the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle requirement will include further analysis of all the options for missiles to meet the identified threat. In framing the requirement to be met, the Department has not identified specific missile type for consideration.
  1377

  Surplus Military Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department is responsible for the disposal of surplus military equipment. [35747]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is responsible for the disposal of surplus military equipment.

  Nuclear Test Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the National Radiological Protection Board study's analysis of leukaemia and multiple myeloma; and if he will make a statement. [31773]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Friday 30 June 1995]: The National Radiological Protection Board analysis indicated no evidence to suggest that leukaemia, multiple myeloma or any other cancer was caused by ionising radiation from the nuclear test programme.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department decided that a 10-year continuation of the National Radiological Protection Board study was no longer to be conducted. [31772]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Friday 30 June 1995]: A follow-up to the original NRPB study has already been conducted and its results were published in December 1993. We have no plans to sponsor any further studies.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from whom his Department has received requests that a third survey for the National Radiological Protection Board study be conducted; what response he gave; and what plans he has for such a survey. [31771]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Friday 30 June 1995]: The National Radiological Protection Board study concluded that there has been no overall excess of death or malignant disease among British nuclear test participants. We therefore have no plans to sponsor any further studies.

  Textile Products
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of contracts for the supply of textile products in 1995–96 financial year; how many contracts and to what value have already been let; and what proportion of this work was awarded to Remploy. [20392]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer Friday 28 April 1995]: The value of contracts for the supply of textile products for delivery in financial year 1995–96 is expected to be £114.7 million, VAT inclusive. A total of 472 contracts are currently in place with expected expenditure in financial year 1995–96 of £42.9 million.

  Remploy currently has 26 contracts which include a total expected spend of £11.1 million in financial year 1995–96.
  1378

  Fuel Servicing Trucks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military requirements the 17 fuel servicing trucks referred to in tender No SM21ARAF4330 are required; what consideration he has given to leasing or contract hiring of such vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [34754]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The 17 fuel servicing trucks are dual purpose refueller/defuellers and are required to support on-base operations: the most common use is for small aircraft and helicopters. The leasing of equipment is routinely considered as part of the replacedment decision. In general however, there is no commercial equipment available which meets the specific military requirements and the leasing or contract hiring of purpose-built fuel servicing trucks has been shown to be uneconomic. As the specialist nature of these vehicles rule out the leasing of commercially available types, and the high cost of refurbishment of existing vehicles precludes that option, purchase was assessed to be the most economic means of meeting this operational requirement.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the in-service date for the first Apache helicopters his Department proposes to purchase for use by the British Army. [36094]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, we expect Apache to enter service around the end of this decade.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department will take to ascertain that the additional defence work for British industry provided by Westland's US Sub-contractors following the decision to purchase Apache attack helicopters will be directly the result of that decision. [36096]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Westland's US sub-contractors have entered into formal industrial participation agreements with the United Kingdom MOD regarding the amount of new work that they will place in the UK as a result of the selection of Apache. The placement of this work will be closely monitored using the MODs standard procedures.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the unit cost of the Apache helicopter his Department proposes to purchase for the British Army compares with the unit cost of a Challenger II tank at present on order for the British Army. [36082]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The unit production cost of each of the equipments mentioned is information treated as a matter of commercial confidentiality between MOD and its suppliers and cannot therefore be published. This is a long-standing convention of Government.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the weight and power output of the version of the Rolls-Royce RTM 322 engine which his Department has specified to be fitted to the Apache helicopter; and what is the weight and power output of the T700 engine at present fitted to this helicopter. [36088]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The take-off ratings of the RTM 322 T701C engines are 2113 shaft horse power and 1890 shaft horse power respectively and the wet weights are 261.8
  1379
  kg and 215.9 kg respectively. Although this information formed part of the Westland bid, it is also in the public domain. The current US Army Apache has a lower power variant of the T700 engine.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the unit cost of the 67 Apache helicopters which his Department proposes to purchase for use by the British Army. [36093]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The unit cost of Apache helicopters is a matter of commercial confidentiality between MOD and its prime contractor and cannot therefore be published.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first Apache helicopter is expected to fly powered by the Rolls-Royce RTM 322 engine. [36095]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, test flying of the first Apache helicopter powered by Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM 322 engines is expected to begin at the end of 1997.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much greater the radar signature is of the Apache helicopter his Department proposes to purchase for the British Army, than the Eurocopter Tiger helicopter. [36089]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All technical information provided to MOD for the attack helicopter competition by bidders or through the host Governments is a matter of commercial confidentiality or national security and cannot therefore be published.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the unit cost of the Apache helicopter his Department proposes to purchase for the British Army compares with the unit cost of(a) the Eurocopter Tiger (b) the GEC/Bell Cobra-Venom. [36083]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All costing information provided to MOD by bidders in the attack helicopter competition is a matter of commercial confidentiality and cannot therefore be published.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Life Sentence Review Board
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the cases which have been considered this year by the Life Sentence Review Board, indicating the background from which the offender came, how long he or she had served and what decision was taken. [33302]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Life Sentence Review Board's advice to the Secretary of State is confidential.

  During 1995 the Life Sentence Review Board has considered 24 cases. These figures include cases which were being considered for the first time at the 10-year stage of sentence, or earlier where appropriate, as well as a number of cases which had previously been considered by the review board and deferred for further consideration.

  The Secretary of State has decided during 1995 that 14 life sentence prisoners are suitable for release on licence. Some of these cases were considered by the review board
  1380
  in the latter half of 1994, although the decisions of the Secretary of State, following consultation with the judiciary were taken in 1995.

  National Nature Reserves
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals his Department has for the future management and conservation of national nature reserves in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [34270]

  Mr. Moss
  National nature reserves will continue to be managed to maintain or enhance their natural interest.

  In light of the establishment of a next steps agency for the Environment on 1 April 1996, the Department will explore the possibility of the management of those reserves which it owns or leases, being transferred to other competent organisations. This would be within the framework of a defined conservation regime.

  Prison Officer's
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the rates of absenteeism by prison officers in each of Northern Ireland's prisons over the past five years; what have been the causes; and what are the proposed remedies. [34365]

  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. He will be writing to the hon. Member in due course.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure was(a) excluding; and (b) including salary costs on (i) primary schools; (ii) secondary schools; and (iii) colleges of further education in both real and constant terms in each year since 1979. [34029]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is set out in the tables for years 1979–80 to 1992–93, which is the latest year for which details are available.

  £ thousand

  Pay and non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  Non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  Primary schools

  1979–80

  77,848

  185,453

  12,996

  30,960

  1980–81

  96,844

  194,984

  14,995

  30,191

  1981–82

  107,728

  197,767

  16,819

  30,876

  1982–83

  112,571

  192,919

  17,337

  29,711

  1983–84

  116,789

  191,276

  17,176

  28,131

  1984–85

  122,802

  191,501

  18,093

  28,215

  1985–86

  132,147

  195,364

  19,263

  28,478

  1986–87

  149,596

  214,684

  25,789

  37,010

  1987–88

  163,853

  223,257

  22,581

  30.768

  1988–89

  182,094

  232,551

  24,328

  33,148

  1989–90

  203,660

  243,112

  30,347

  36,226

  1990–91

  224,444

  248,047

  31,803

  35,147

  1991–92

  243,328

  253,018

  35,621

  37,040

  1992–93

  267,558

  267,558

  41,180

  41,180

  Secondary schools

  1979–80

  97,921

  233,271

  17,473

  41,625

  1980–81

  123,134

  247,916

  20,961

  42,203

  1981–82

  140,316

  257,592

  23,799

  43,690

  1381

  £ thousand

  Pay and non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  Non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  1982–83

  149,797

  256,714

  25,332

  43,413

  1983–84

  158,569

  259,703

  25,875

  42,378

  1984–85

  171,091

  266,805

  30,964

  48,286

  1985–86

  180,747

  267,214

  30,480

  45,061

  1986–87

  201,330

  288,927

  37,603

  53,964

  1987–88

  214,279

  291,965

  35,633

  48,552

  1988–89

  231,756

  295,974

  37,975

  48,498

  1989–90

  250,888

  299,488

  42,974

  51,299

  1990–91

  269,086

  297,384

  45,962

  50,795

  1991–92

  300,279

  312,237

  47,704

  49,604

  1992–93

  325,757

  325,757

  50,600

  50,600

  Notes:

  1. Pupils attending preparatory departments of grammar schools included.

  2. In the 1992–93 financial year there were 189,995 full-time equivalent pupils at primary schools, 3,659 at preparatory departments in grammar schools and 144,773 at secondary schools.

  Pay and non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  Non-pay expenditure

  At 1992–93 prices

  Colleges of further education

  1979–80

  21,415

  51,016

  3,172

  7,556

  1980–81

  27,816

  56,004

  3,968

  7,989

  1981–82

  31,714

  58,220

  4,216

  7,740

  1982–83

  35,964

  61,633

  4,797

  8,221

  1983–84

  40,523

  66,368

  5,750

  9,417

  1984–85

  43,746

  68,219

  6,095

  9,505

  1985–86

  46,823

  69,223

  6,297

  9,309

  1986–87

  50,878

  73,015

  6,848

  9,828

  1987–88

  55,248

  75,278

  6,980

  9,511

  1988–89

  62,475

  79,786

  7,288

  9,307

  1989–90

  64,714

  77,250

  7,788

  9,297

  1990–91

  81,442

  90,007

  6,964

  7,696

  1991–92

  87,208

  90,681

  6,369

  6,623

  1992–93

  70,939

  70,939

  7,147

  7,147

  Notes:

  1. FE mandatory and discretionary awards have been excluded.

  2. Youth training programme expenditure included up to 1991–92, from 1992–93 the Department of Economic Development undertook responsbility for this programme.

  EU Habitats Directive
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding compliance with the EU habitats directive with particular reference to the designation of special areas of conservation. [34269]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government welcomed the adoption of the EU habitats directive in May 1992 and is fully committed to its implementation. Sites identified as meeting the criteria for designation as special areas of conservation are selected on a UK basis by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Countryside Council for Wales, co-ordinated through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. On 31 March 1995 the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Environment initiated a public consultation on these sites, and as a result of the responses received a first tranche of 137 was forwarded to the European Commission on 20 June 1995. There were 14 sites in Northern Ireland in this tranche.
  1382

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) schools have integrated status and (b) pupils attend such schools; what is their (i) socio-economic, (ii) religious background (iii) geographical distribution; and what further proposals he has for such schools. [34373]

  Mr. Ancram
  From September 1995 there will be 28 integrated schools in Northern Ireland:

  Primary

  Acorn, Carrickfergus

  All Children, Newcastle

  Braidise, Ballymena

  Bridge, Banbridge

  Carhill, Coleraine

  Corran, Lame

  Cranmore, Belfast

  Enniskillen

  Forge, Belfast

  Hazelwood, Newtownabbey

  Lough View, Belfast

  Milstrand, Portrush

  Oakgrove, Londonderry

  Omagh

  Primary

  Portadown

  Saints and Scholars, Armagh

  Windmill, Dungannon

  Cedar, Crows

  Portaferry

  Secondary

  Bronwlow College, Craigavon

  Erne College, Enniskillen

  Hazelwood College, Belfast

  Lagan College, Belfast

  Oakgrove College, Londonderry

  Shimna College, Newcastle

  Armagh/South Tyrone College, Dungannon

  Drumrah College, Omagh

  New Bridge College, Loughbrickland

  The total enrolment of these schools is estimated to be just over 5,000 and the religious balance to be 48 per cent. Roman Catholic, 38 per cent. Protestant, 8 per cent. other Christian denominations, 1 per cent. non-Christian and 5 per cent. unattributed. Detailed information in the socio-economic background of pupils is not available.

  I expect to receive a number of proposals both for new integrated schools and for the transformation of existing schools to integrated status.

  Health Centre, Armagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to increase facilities at the health centre, Armagh; how many additional parking spaces will be provided; if there will be vehicular access direct from Dobbin street; and what is the estimated cost of these proposals. [34334]
  1383
  Mr. Moss
  The Southern Health and Social Services Board has plans to develop a new primary care services centre at the Dobbin lane site in Armagh to bring together all the general medical practice and community health and personal social services in the locality. The board has just recently set up project board to take forward the proposal. Information is therefore not yet available about parking facilities, vehicular access and estimated cost. A detailed business case is to be prepared for the proposed centre and presented to all interested parties.

  Department of Finance and Personnel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes in the level of staffing occurred in the Department of Finance and Personnel in 1994–95; and what factors led to these changes. [35000]

  Sir John Wheeler
  During 1994–95, the level of staffing in the Department of Finance and Personnel reduced by 72 of which 21 were casual appointments. The principal factor leading to this reduction was the need to ensure that the Department provided its services in the most efficient and effective manner consistent with its running cost provision.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of claims for(a) damage caused by terrorists and (b) compensation for disturbance and so on by the security forces in each of the last four years; and what is the cost of claims approved so far during the current year. [34774]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. John Home Robertson, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Minister of State, Sir John Wheeler, has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding claims for compensation for criminal damage caused by terrorists and for compensation paid as a result of disturbance related to the activities of the security forces in each of the last four years and so far during the current year.

  Compensation paid under Criminal Damage Legislation

  £ million

  Year

  Criminal damage total expenditure

  Terrorist related expenditure

  1991–92

  33.1

  32.4 (estimate)

  1992–93

  75.9

  74.2 (estimate)

  1993–94

  67.9

  65.9

  1994–95

  53.8

  52.9

  First quarter 1995–96

  9.5

  9.3 (estimate)

  Figures for the amount of compensation which was solely related to criminal damage caused by terrorists are not readily available prior to 1993–94. The figures given for the two prior years are estimates based on percentages in the later years. The figure for terrorist related expenditure in the first quarter of 1995–96 is also an estimate which is subject to confirmation as claims are processed. It must also be noted that as criminal damage compensation is usually paid on a phased basis, consequent upon replacement or rebuilding work, expenditure each year includes compensation for damage which occurred in earlier years.
  1384

  Compensation paid under emergency provision legislation

  £ million

  Year

  Emergency provisions total expenditure

  1991–92

  1.9

  1992–93

  2.8

  1993–94

  2.6

  1994–95

  1.7

  First quarter 1995–96

  0.3

  The amounts under this heading relate to claims paid by the Compensation Agency under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, mainly in respect of damage resulting from military search operations.

  Compensation paid by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  £ million

  Common law total Year expenditure

  1991–92

  0.3

  1992–93

  0.3

  1993–94

  0.3

  1994–95

  0.3

  First quarter 1995–96

  0.02

  The amounts under this heading relate to payments made by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in respect of damage incurred during bomb disposal operations, plus other general property claims against the police.
  None of the amounts in this letter include payments which the Ministry of Defence might make in Northern Ireland, details of which would have to be sought from the Secretary of State for Defence.

  EU Assistance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the European special assistance package for Northern Ireland. [35002]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A draft programme under the European initiative for peace and reconciliation was jointly submitted by the United Kingdom and the Irish authorities on 9 June. Negotiations on the details of the programme are continuing with the European Commission with a view to its early adoption.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the changes in expenditure on superannuation and other allowances in the Department of Finance and Personnel; and if he will make a statement on anticipated future changes in expenditure. [35001]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Expenditure by the Department of Finance and Personnel on superannuation and other allowances includes expenditure on (i) pensions, lump sums and gratuities and ii) redundancy and early retirement costs to former civil servants and other members of the principal civil service pension scheme (Northern Ireland). Expenditure on item (i) is largely offset by income consisting of contributions from employing organisations—including Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office—and individuals. Expenditure on item (ii) fluctuates in line
  1385
  with the need of redundancies and, during the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95, major redundancy programmes were implemented across the Northern Ireland civil service. It is likely that further redundancy schemes will be required in the present and future financial years.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the prior options study of the Northern Ireland Statistics, Census Office and General Register Office was completed; and what has been the outcome of the study. [36551]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On 18 January my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) announced that the Statistics, Census Office and General Register Office functions of the Statistics and Social Division of the Department of Finance and Personnel would be subject to a prior options study. That study is now complete and I have decided that the statistics and social division of DFP should become a next steps agency and that preparations for its launch should proceed with a view to agentisation by 1 April 1996.

  Alcoholic Drink Production
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the contribution of alcoholic drinks production to the Northern Irish gross domestic product in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [34982]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are only a very small number of companies involved in the production of alcoholic drinks in Northern Ireland and information from Government surveys on these companies cannot be released because of confidentiality constraints.

  Prisoners (Transfer)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is presently adequate accommodation in Her Majesty's Northern Ireland prisons to facilitate the transfer of prisoners normally resident in Northern Ireland from prisons in Great Britain to complete their sentences in Northern Ireland prisons. [35594]

  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 M. A. Mogg to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Northern Ireland Prison Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the availability of accommodation in Northern Ireland prisons to facilitate the transfer of Northern Ireland residents who are in prison in Great Britain. I am responding on behalf of the Chief Executive.
  Information is not available on the total number of Northern Ireland prisoners held in Great Britain and it is not possible therefore to say whether sufficient accommodation would be available if all sought transfers to Northern Ireland.
  We are aware of requests from 28 serving prisoners and if all these requests were approved, there would be sufficient accommodation at present for them within the Northern Ireland prison estate.
  1386

  Ports Privatisation
  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.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost of enabling relatives of Northern Ireland prisoners in Great Britain to travel and visit relations in Great Britain. [35593]

  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 M. A. Mogg to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 18 July 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Question you tabled relating to the annual cost of enabling relatives of Northern Ireland prisoners in Great Britain to travel and visit relations in prisons in Great Britain.
  The total expenditure on the Assisted Visits Scheme for the 1994/95 financial year was £127,702.22. This included an amount of £17,906.41 administration costs which was payable to the Department of Health and Social Services. I am afraid that it is not possible to extract from this figure the specific costs to which you refer.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Breakdown by 4 Boards, Central Services Agency and National Board September 1994

  Number

  WTE

  Administration and clerical staff in Northern Ireland

  National Board

  100

  95.53

  Central services agency

  527

  496.22

  Eastern

  4,303

  3,846.38

  Northern

  1,767

  1,557.66

  Southern

  1,220

  1,087.65

  Western

  1,182

  1,086.57

  Northern Ireland total

  9,099

  8,170.01

  Nursing and midwifery staff in Northern Ireland

  National Board

  249

  241.86

  Eastern

  9,626

  7,662.31

  Northern

  2,954

  2,509.25

  Southern

  3,150

  2,511.20

  Western

  2,930

  2,473.00

  Northern Ireland total

  18,909

  15,397.62

  WTE = Whole Time Equivalent. Number = Headcount.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by county the number of landowners receiving payments under the arable area payments scheme of(a) less than £25,000 (b) between

  1387
  £25,000 and £50,000 (c) between £50,000 and £1 million and (d) above £1 million, for the latest year for which figures are available. [35362]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of landowners receiving payments under the scheme by county for 1994–95 was:

  County

  £-£25,000

  £25,000-£50,000

  £50,000-£1 million

  Over £1 million

  Antrim

  641

  0

  nil

  nil

  Armagh

  230

  1

  nil

  nil

  Down

  1,081

  4

  nil

  nil

  Fermanagh

  2

  0

  nil

  nil

  Londonderry

  666

  3

  nil

  nil

  Tyrone

  302

  0

  nil

  nil

  Total

  2,922

  8

  nil

  nil

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his
  Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school
  provision for the over-fives both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and
  indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what
  form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided.
  [35552]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services directly assists the
  development of child care for pre-school and school age children by grant-aiding regional

  voluntary child care organisations in Northern Ireland working in this field. In the current
  financial year over £249,000 is being provided in this way.

  The Department also administers the Early Years Development Fund, which supports day care
  initiatives for young children, particularly those under five. In 1994–95 the fund
  allocated over £381,000 to regional local projects.

  In 1993–94, the latest year for which the information is available, health and social
  services boards in Northern Ireland spent £1.4 million on support for local day care
  projects, either through direct provision, or in support of voluntary and community facilities.
  In that year, hoards also spent £2.2 million on family day centres, but these do not cater
  exclusively for parents with young children.

  Female Employees
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will
  list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b)
  female staff (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35462]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The numbers of permanent industrial and non-industrial
  staff on 1 April 1995 on a head-count basis were as follows:

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Department

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i)Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Health and Social Services

  639

  3

  460

  55

  Social Security Agency

  1,654

  11

  2,878

  526

  Child Support Agency

  297

  nil

  506

  41

  Agriculture

  1,789

  3

  957

  127

  Economic Development

  1,255

  2

  999

  135

  1388

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Department

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Education

  256

  1

  261

  47

  Environment

  3,631

  12

  1,876

  250

  Finance and Personnel

  671

  2

  572

  118

  Northern Ireland Office

  677

  nil

  756

  107

  Police Authority

  583

  1

  1,575

  204

  Others

  24

  1

  22

  nil

  Total

  11,476

  36

  10,862

  1,610

  Notes:

  The figures for the Northern Ireland Office include both Northern Ireland Civil Service and
  Home Civil Service staff.

  The figures do not include casual staff, staff on career breaks and Prison personnel.

  The figures for the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency include staff who are
  undertaking work on behalf of and who are financed by the Home Civil Service.

  The breakdown by grade of non-industrial staff was as follows:

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Grade 1

  2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Grade 2

  8

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Grade 3

  35

  1

  nil

  nil

  Grade 4

  6

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Grade 5

  101

  nil

  11

  nil

  Grade 6

  23

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Grade 7

  331

  nil

  51

  8

  Deputy Principal

  436

  nil

  143

  10

  Staff Officer

  517

  nil

  336

  36

  Officer I

  559

  4

  640

  95

  Executive Officer II

  511

  nil

  861

  105

  Administrative Officer

  1,016

  3

  2,248

  364

  Administrative Assistant

  758

  nil

  2,110

  219

  Other General Service Grades

  977

  7

  1,790

  344

  Total General Service Grades

  5,280

  15

  8,190

  1,181

  Other Grades

  6,196

  21

  2,672

  429

  Total non-industrials Industrials

  11,476

  36

  10,862

  1,610

  Total Northern Ireland Civil Servants

  14,898

  77

  10,913

  1,636

  Notes:

  No breakdown of industrial staff is available. Figures are for the quarter April - June 1995.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35670]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [356686]
  1389
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not readily available in the detail requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The relevant figures for the Northern Ireland civil service for the years 1985, 1987, 1991 and 1993, inclusive of its executive agencies where appropriate, are contained in the regular series of biannual reports published by the central equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland civil service, the first of which was published in 1986 and the latest, containing the 1993 figures in June 1994. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  Police Boxes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the location of the remaining in-situ blue police boxes. [35953]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the basis on which he calculated that his nursery education voucher scheme will cost £8 million in a full year; [35791]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 519, what are the present annual costs of a full-time place in a play group or a reception class; [35783]

  (3) what will be the maximum cash value of a nursery education voucher in Northern Ireland; [35787]

  (4) what plans he has to increase the number of public sector nursery places before 1997; by how many; and in what locations; [35789]

  (5) how many children will receive (a) one term's nursery education; (b) two terms' nursery education; and (c) three terms' nursery education as a result of the voucher scheme in 1997; [35790]

  (6) how many children in Northern Ireland currently start their primary education before the compulsory school starting age; at what cost to public funds; and how their education and educational funding will be affected by the voucher scheme for nursery education; [35784]

  (7) how many children in Northern Ireland currently receive reception class provision; how this is defined; how it is costed; and how current provision will be affected by the nursery voucher scheme; [35786]

  (8) how many extra children he calculates will be entitled to receive nursery education through the voucher scheme. [35788]

  Mr. Ancram
  The figure of £8.3 million is the additional, not the total, cost of the pre-school initiative in Northern Ireland and as such represents the costs of providing vouchers at the appropriate level for those children who would not otherwise attend grant-aided nursery or reception classes.

  The maximum cash value of a voucher in Northern Ireland will be £1,100 and I estimate that some 4,300 children will be entitled to a voucher for three terms provision, some 8,700 to a voucher for two terms provision and 6,500 to a voucher for a single term's provision.
  1390
  There are no children below compulsory school age in primary education, but there are approximately 2,400 reception age pupils in primary schools in Northern Ireland, of whom about half are in reception classes which are classes in primary schools consisting entirely of children below compulsory school age and where the provision made does not differ substantially from that available in nursery schools or classes.

  Pupils in reception classes are funded through the normal LMS formulae for schools and the average age-weighted pupil unit for reception age pupils in 1994–95 was £1,235 a year. Vouchers will be capable of being redeemed for reception class provision on the same basis as for other forms of pre-school provision. Costs for playgroup provision are not readily available in the form requested and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Currently a total of some 7,700 children are receiving pre-school education in grant-aided nursery schools or reception classes and the voucher scheme will provide resources to enable a further 11,800 children to avail of pre-school provision.

  Detailed proposals for the implementation of this initiative in Northern Ireland, including proposals for the expansion of nursery education in the public sector, will be the subject of consultation with the main interest groups and will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many four-year-olds are currently receiving private sector nursery education; and at what cost to their parents. [35785]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no private sector nursery education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 519, how many playgroups in Northern Ireland have full-time places. [35782]

  Mr. Moss
  Play groups operate on a sessional basis. Where a play group operates two sessions per day, each session would generally cater for different children. The number of such play groups is not readily available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures exist to assess the mental health of people, in relation to personal and public safety, who are detained in prisons or mental hospitals, or voluntarily present in mental hospitals, prior to(a) their release on licence at the completion of their sentences and (b) their voluntary discharge. [35797]

  Mr. Moss
  Prisoners with a mental health disorder are assessed by the prison medical service during their sentence and transferred to and detained in hospital where this is considered appropriate. Particularly dangerous offenders can be made subject to restriction orders.

  On each occasion a detained or voluntary patient is being considered for leave of absence or discharge from hospital, personal and public safety are factors taken into account. This is a matter for clinical judgment made by the patient's responsible medical officer in consultation with professional colleagues. Patients who are subject to

  1391
  a restriction order cannot be granted leave of absence or discharged without the approval of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to amend the Northern Ireland legislation relating to the compulsory detention of dangerously mentally disordered individuals; and what other measures he proposes to ensure public safety in respect of such individuals. [35798]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans at present to amend the Northern Ireland legislation relating to the compulsory detention of mentally disordered people. The Department of Health and Social Services is currently considering comments received on draft guidance on the discharge and continuing care in the community of mentally disordered people who are thought to represent a potential risk to themselves or others.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of postal votes cast at the 1992 general election in each Northern Ireland

  Board Members Remuneration—Trusts—1994–95

  £ thousand

  Executive Directors

  Health and social services trust

  Non-executive directors

  Basic salary

  Performance pay

  Employers pension contributions

  Compensation for loss of office

  Benefits in kind

  Pensions paid to former directors

  Total

  Belfast City Hospital

  44

  285

  4

  11

  0

  3

  0

  347

  Down and Lisburn

  44

  276

  11

  11

  0

  5

  0

  347

  Eastern Ambulance

  33

  112

  0

  5

  0

  10

  0

  160

  Greenpark

  44

  251

  0

  10

  0

  7

  0

  312

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  40

  237

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  286

  North Down and Ards Community

  25

  174

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  209

  North and West Belfast Community

  44

  279

  0

  10

  0

  5

  0

  338

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  44

  222

  20

  8

  0

  9

  0

  303

  South and East Belfast Community

  44

  213

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  266

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals

  31

  273

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  315

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  38

  191

  5

  8

  0

  3

  0

  245

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community

  40

  246

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  295

  Newry and Mourne

  42

  186

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  235

  Total

  513

  2,945

  40

  118

  0

  42

  0

  3,658

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to opening a dedicated ME clinic in Northern Ireland. [35794]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no proposals to open such a centre at present.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many(a) secondary; and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each local education authority in each of the last five years and as a proportion of the total school roll; [35844]
  1392
  constituency; and what percentage of the poll that represented. [35802]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Health Board Remuneration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 767, if he will provide the information for trust board and health authority members on allowances for 1994–95 as broken down in his answer. [35854]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is disclosed in the annual financial accounts of health and social services boards and health and social services trusts. The information requested for 1994–95 relating to board members of HSS trusts is set out in the table. The financial accounts from which these figures have been extracted are unaudited and therefore may be subject to change.

  Updated information requested relating to board members of health and social services boards is not yet available.

  (2) how many (a) secondary; and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each of the last five years; [35847]

  (3) how many (a) secondary; and (b) primary school children who have been permanently excluded have received tuition (i) at home; and (ii) in a pupil referral unit in each of the last five years. [35841]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people, by speciality, have been awaiting initial out-patient appointments with consultants at the Ulster hospital for(a) more than one

  1393
  year and (b) more than two years; and if he will give the comparable figure for the Belfast City hospital. [35795]

  Mr. Moss
  Information held centrally relating to patients waiting for their first outpatient appointment cannot be attributed to individual hospitals. Figures given in the table are trust totals and relate to out-patients who are still waiting for their first out-patient appointment at the end of March 1995.

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals Trust

  Speciality

  12–23 months

  24 months and over

  12–23 months

  24 months and over

  Trauma and Orthopaedics:

  130

  0

  179

  171

  Rheumatology

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Oral Surgery

  0

  0

  42

  2

  Plastic Surgery

  0

  0

  85

  62

  Cardiology

  0

  0

  6

  0

  Dermatology

  0

  0

  50

  0

  Gynaecology

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ENT

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Marches
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the date of the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference when the Government of the Irish Republic first made the proposal that there should be a policy of voluntary re-routing of disputed marches, and the date at which he first concurred with the Chief Constable's policy of seeking the voluntary re-routing of such marches up to the commencing time of the march in question. [35800]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All decisions about the re-routing of particular parades are matters which fall entirely within the operational responsibilities of the Chief Constable of the RUC. The Irish Government have been so advised on any occasion when they have raised this issue.

  Orange Halls
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Orange halls which have been destroyed or seriously damaged by sectarian arson attacks since 1 January 1969 indicating the name, location, date and county. [35805]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the postal vote application time limits after an election is called and on the improvements required in the voter identification rules in Northern Ireland. [35803]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of permanent postal vote applications presently granted in each Northern Ireland constituency; and what percentage of the electorate this represents. [35801]
  1394
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Water Supply, Bangor
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlie the lack of usable water available to Mrs. Malcolm of 2 Owenroe drive, Bangor; for how long Mrs. Malcolm has not had access to usable water; when the Department of the Environment will rectify the situation; and if Mrs. Malcolm will be compensated. [35793]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment's Water Executive has carried out extensive investigations into the quality of water supplied to the boundary of Mrs. Malcolm's property and found it to be satisfactory. Responsibility for deterioration in the quality of water within the boundary of the property rests with the owner.

  Race Relations Agency
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated annual cost of the Government's proposal to set up a Northern Ireland Race Relations Agency; what is the cost per head of population, the cost per ethnic minority individual and the equivalent actual costs in these categories in Great Britain; and if he will estimate the cost of extending the existing Race Relations Agency's remit to cover Northern Ireland. [35796]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On 27 April 1995, I announced the Government's intention to introduce race relations legislation in Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council. As part of that process, a draft proposal will be published in due course which, among other things, will suggest how that legislation might be administered. The institutional arrangements for enforcing the legislation, including the establishment of a race relations body, are therefore still under consideration.

  Growth Challenge Initiative
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding is available to support the Northern Ireland growth challenge initiative for each of the next three years. [34087]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: My noble Friend will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34610]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The total number of staff leaving the Northern Ireland civil service on redundancy terms during the period 12 July 1994 to 11 July 1995 amounted to 524. Of these, 466 were voluntary.

  The amount spent on redundancy payments during that period was £12,637,306.79.
  1395

  Computer Equipment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [34559]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Auditors' Remuneration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much have(a) health authorities and (b) trusts spent on auditors' renumeration in each year since 1992, by region. [34165]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1991–92: £109,999

  1992–93: £166,091

  1993–94: £200,818

  1994–95': £42,587

  1To date

  Figures exclude VAT.

  The remuneration was paid to the firms by the Department of Health and Social Services without recharge to the boards and trusts.

  Private Training Agencies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funds have been used to assist private training agencies to establish themselves in Northern Ireland, and in what circumstances in the last five years. [31427]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

WALES

  Food Related Industries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the contribution of alcoholic drinks production to the Welsh gross domestic product in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [34981]

  Mr. Richards
  The available industrial breakdown of Welsh GDP does not separately identify alcoholic drink production.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express general Government expenditure in Wales on museums and galleries as a proportion of the corresponding United Kingdom figure; and if he will make a statement. [34962]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1993–94 general Government expenditure in Wales on museums and galleries was about 5 per cent. of the corresponding United Kingdom figure.
  1396

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trade missions were(a) led and (b) supported by his Department in each year since 1992–93; what was the cost of those trade missions; and if he will make a statement. [34951]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of missionsled and supported bythe Welsh Office

  Total cost (£)1

  1992–93

  2

  26,287

  1993–94

  6

  106,791

  1994–95

  7

  126,061

  1995–96 (to date)

  3

  82,609

  1 These costs do not include staff and Establishment costs which cannot be disaggragated.

  2 current subsidy did not begin until 1993–94. These missions are a very successful and cost effective way of helping Welsh companies to export to new overseas markets.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of state-funded postgraduate students as a proportion of the entire student population at Welsh higher education institutions and if he will make a statement. [34966]

  Mr. Richards
  Information provided by the Higher Education Statistical Agency shows that, as at 1 December 1994, there were 81,200 students participating in courses of study at Welsh higher education institutions excluding the Open university. Of these, 12,000 were state-funded postgraduates. The state-funded postgraduates thus form 15 per cent. of the total population at Welsh higher education institutions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is the number of state-funded students pursuing postgraduate degrees at Welsh institutions of higher education; and if he will make a statement. [34967]

  Mr. Richards
  Information provided by the Higher Education Statistical Agency shows that, as at 1 December 1994, there were 12,000 postgraduate students participating in courses of study at Welsh Higher Education Institutions (excluding the Open University) whose major source of finance was from either government departments, other government funded bodies or the European Commission.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which colleges of further education in Wales have reported that they are suffering financial difficulties, and if he will give details of the extent of those difficulties. [35262]

  Mr. Richards
  A forecast accumulated deficit of approximately £601,000 was identified for Deeside college up to the end of financial year 1994–95 and a recovery plan is currently in place. More recently, coleg Ceredigion is forecasting an accumulated deficit of approximately £800,000 up to the end of financial year 1994–95. The Further Education Funding Council for Wales has taken swift action to deal with the problem and a full recovery strategy will be presented by college
  1397
  management to coleg Ceredigion's governors on 20 July. The funding council is closely monitoring the financial health of two other colleges and further action will be taken if it is considered necessary.

  Bee Stings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people died in Wales as a result of being stung by bees between 1984 and 1994; and if he will make a statement. [35016]

  Mr. Richards
  There were no deaths of Welsh residents certified by the Office of Population and Censuses and Surveys as due to toxic reaction as a result of being stung by hornets, wasps and bees—ICD E905.3—during the period 1984 to 1993. Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Libraries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express general Government expenditure in Wales on libraries as a proportion of the corresponding United Kingdom figure; and if he will make a statement. [35126]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1993–94, general Government expenditure in Wales on libraries was about 4 per cent. of the corresponding United Kingdom figure.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if his Department has now considered the report by management consultant KPMG Peat Marwick into the library service; and if he will make a statement; [36148]

  (2) how many branch libraries there are in each county in Wales; [36144]

  (3) which libraries in Wales he has visited; [36146]

  (4) how many people are employed in the library service in Wales; [36145]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the future of the library service in Wales; [36143]

  (6) if he will list the libraries in Wales his ministerial team has visited; on what dates; and if he will make a statement. [36147]

  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.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wale how much his Department spent on identifying food safety risks in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34963]

  Mr. Richards
  Expenditure incurred by the Welsh Office on identifying food safety risks is not separately identified.

  Harbours
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the secretary of Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department has spent in the past 10 years on improving Welsh fishing harbours; and if he will make a statement. [34886]
  1398
  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has provided grant aid totalling £263,542 in the past 10 years for the improvement of Welsh fishing harbours, through the fishery harbour grant scheme under the Fishing Act 1955. In addition, considerable investment has been undertaken by local authorities on improving fishing harbours which has attracted public support from schemes such as the former rural initiative, urban programme and the projects of regional and national importance—PRNI—and special projects schemes. All these schemes are now subsumed in the strategic development scheme. The investment of almost £426,000 in a number of projects to improve the harbour at Holyhead is an example.

  Fish Stocks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications to shoot cormorants or goosanders in order to protect fish stocks in Welsh rivers were received by his Department in each of the past three years for which figures are available; and how many such licences were issued. [34929]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Applications received

  Licences issued

  1992

  2

  0

  1993

  13

  0

  1994

  16

  9

  1 This figure includes 1 composite application on behalf of 23 Fishery Owners.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department has taken to study the impact of river barrages on anadromous fish, with particular reference to experience in France. [34930]

  Mr. Jones
  The Welsh Office is not carrying out any research into the impact of river barrages on anadromous fish as a direct result of the experience of such barrages in France. However, research into the problems associated with the passage of salmonids past estuarine barrages is currently being carried out by the directorate of fisheries research on behalf of the Welsh office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The work forms part of a collaborative research programme with the National Rivers Authority, which is also studying the effect on fish migration of barrage construction at Swansea and Cardiff bay.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35463]

  Mr. Hague
  The total numbers of persons employed by my Department are:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  G1 and equivalents

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  G2 and equivalents

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  G3 and equivalents

  10

  1

  —

  —

  11

  G4 and equivalents

  5

  2

  —

  —

  7

  G5 and equivalents

  45

  8

  —

  2

  55

  1399

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  G6 and equivalents

  23

  3

  1

  3

  30

  G7 and equivalents

  122

  30

  —

  12

  164

  SEO and equivalents

  113

  23

  —

  5

  141

  HEO and equivalents

  166

  87

  —

  17

  270

  Admin Fast Stream

  12

  10

  —

  1

  23

  EO and equivalents

  209

  211

  2

  75

  497

  AO and equivalents

  157

  321

  1

  110

  589

  AA and equivalents

  152

  221

  —

  46

  419

  Industrials

  97

  17

  3

  8

  125

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the numbers and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35691]

  Mr. Hague
  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. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35667]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department is committed to providing equality of opportunity for all its employees. In 1994, a revised action programme for women was launched which seeks to identify and address their specific needs and to encourage them to achieve their full potential. My Department is also a member of Opportunity 2000 and fully supports its aims and objectives. Currently women comprise 52 per cent. of the Department's employees and the proportion of women in management grades is increasing steadily.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county the number of landowners receiving payments under the arable area payments scheme of(a) less than £25,000, (b) between £25,000 and £50,000, (c) between £50,000 and £1,000,000 and (d) above £1,000,000, for the latest year for which figures are available. [35363]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is not possible to differentiate between landowners and tenants who claim aid.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list how much the owner of Castell Cenlas farm, Mathry, Pembrokehsire, Caerau farm, Rhosycaerau, Pembrokeshire, Llandruidon farm, Goodwick, Pembrokeshire and Pantywrach farm, Trecwn, Pembrokeshire, has received in sheep annual premiums, beef annual premiums, suckler cow premiums, set-aside payments and any other agricultural-based payments through his Department in each of the last 10 years. [35988]
  1400
  Mr. Jones
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not my policy to disclose information about payments to individual farmers.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35548]

  Mr. Hague
  Most central Government funding of local authority functions is through revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates. This funding is not hypothecated to particular services. It is for each local authority to decide, in line with its statutory duties and local needs and priorities, how much it provides for these services. In 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available, local authorities spend(a) £2.3 million on day nurseries and playgroups and (b) £3.4 million on child minding, day fostering, family and other day care centres for children. At 31 March 1994, local authorities provided, or bought in from the independent sector, 388 places in day nurseries, 1,126 places in playgroups, 258 places with child minders and 284 places in holiday schemes for children aged five to seven. It is not possible to distinguish between full-time and part-time places.

  The Welsh Office has made available £150,000 in 1995–96 to the training and enterprise councils to develop demonstration projects in child care for children below school age and £954,000 under the out-of-school child care grant initiative. Grants in support of child and family services and for the promotion of the Welsh language in 1995–96, together amounting to some £1,190,000, have been awarded to voluntary organisations whose members provide day-care services for young children.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statements of special educational need have been completed in each local education authority in each of the past 10 years; and how many assessments for statements have been made but not confirmed. [36240]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Local Education Authorities (Complaints)
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints against local education authorities have been made to the local government ombudsman in each of the past three years; and what was the nature of the complaint in each case. [36241]

  Mr. Richards
  The Commission for Local Administration is an independent statutory body and questions relating to its activities are for the commission itself to answer.
  1401
  Information on the numbers of complaints made to the Commission for Local Administration, by type of service, is provided in the annual reports of the Commission, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Blood Bags
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if blood bags from Tuta have been used in the national health service in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [36136]

  Mr. Richards
  Tuta blood bags were used in the NHS in Wales between 1 June 1995 and the discovery of a fault in the product at the end of that month. Since then, all stocks have been recalled and use of Tuta bags discontinued.

  M4
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the assessment of the effect of the proposed M4 relief road in Gwent on local sites of special scientific interest. [35875]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The M4 relief road is estimated to occupy less than 2 per cent. of the area of the sites of special scientific interest in the Gwent levels. I am satisfied that the relief road can be developed without the scientific resource being seriously affected.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what has been the effect on traffic numbers travelling through the Brynglas tunnel and through main routes in Newport since the opening of the tunnel bypass schemes. [35866]

  Mr. Jones
  There has been a reduction of 22 per cent. in traffic flows through the Brynglas tunnels; and on other routes the reduction has been as follows:

  Per cent.

  Malpas Road north of M4

  31

  Malpas Road south of M4

  23

  B4596 Caerleon Road South of M4

  23

  Town Bridge

  4

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for an environmental impact assessment on the proposed M4 relief road from the second Severn crossing and Castleton. [35874]

  Mr. Jones
  An environmental impact assessment on the M4 relief road Magor to Castleton scheme will be carried out and a full environmental statement under the European directive will follow at the time when statutory powers are sought to construct the road.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the ratio of educational psychologists to children and young people in the age range 0 to 19 years. [36245]
  1402
  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  Local Education Authority

  Number of full-time equivalent educational psychologists in post at January 1994

  Ratio of educational psychologists to population (estimated, June 1993) aged 0 to 19 years

  Clwyd

  17

  1:6100

  Dyfed

  13

  1:6600

  Gwent

  20

  1:5800

  Gwynedd

  6

  1:9800

  Mid Glamorgan

  15

  1:9600

  Powys

  5

  1:5800

  South Glamorgan

  10

  1:10900

  West Glamorgan

  12

  1:7700

  Wales

  98

  1:7600

  Source:

  STATS2 form; Registrar General's mid-year population estimates.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the additional duties placed on educational psychologists since 1978; and what action he proposes to take over the ratio of educational psychologists to young people in the age range 0–19 years of 1:5,000 recommended in the Warnock report. [36243]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to change the recommended ratio of educational psychologists to children from 1:5,000 to 1:4,000; and what would be the additional cost to each local education authority to meet such a target. [36242]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the number of educational psychologists that each local education authority will require to carry out its legal responsibilities under the code of practice for the identification and assessment of special educational needs. [36244]

  Mr. Richards
  The roles and responsibilities of educational psychologists reflect the statutory and non-statutory service provided for those with special education needs, which have significantly improved since 1978. The number of educational psychologists employed by each LEA is a matter for those LEAs.

  The Welsh Office continues to support financially the initial training of educational psychologists but I have no plans at present to make recommendations on the ratio of educational psychologists to children and have made no estimate of the additional costs of adopting the ratio suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of educational psychologists employed in each of the last 10 years; and what was the proportion of men to women in each year. [36238]

  Mr. Richards
  Data have been collected centrally since 1992 but gender is not distinguished. Complete figures for 1995 have not yet been returned.

  Number of full time equivalent educational psychologists in post at January

  Local education authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  19

  20

  17

  Dyfed

  8

  10

  13

  Gwent

  18

  21

  20

  Gwynedd

  6

  5

  6

  1403

  Number of full time equivalent educational psychologists in post at January

  Local education authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Mid Glamorgan

  15

  15

  15

  Powys

  4

  4

  5

  South Glamorgan

  10

  10

  10

  West Glamorgan

  10

  10

  12

  Wales total

  90

  95

  98

  Source:

  STATS2 form.

  Coleg Ceredigion
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will institute an inquiry into the finances of Coleg Ceredigion. [35879]

  Mr. Richards
  No. The Further Education Funding Council for Wales is dealing with the matter.

  Wrexham-Bidston Railway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had concerning an improved rail service between Bidston and Wrexham; and if he will make a statement. [36138]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Officials discussed this line when they met the director of Regional Railways North West on 15 June.

  Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many(a) secondary and (b) primary school children who have been permanently excluded have received tuition (i) at home and (ii) in a pupil referral unit in each of the past five years. [35840]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) secondary and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each local education authority in each of the last five years, and if he will give the figures as a proportion of the total school roll; [35843]

  (2) how many (a) secondary and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each of the past five years. [35845]

  Mr. Richards
  Following the Elton committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, the Welsh Office monitored through the national exclusions reporting system, the incidence and circumstances of permanent exclusions over a two-year period from the summer of 1990. A total of 192 exclusions reported, of which 11 per cent. were in the primary sector. The breakdown by local education authority is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  32

  Dyfed

  10

  Gwent

  49

  Gwynedd

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  63

  1404

  Number

  Powys

  7

  South Glamorgan

  11

  West Glamorgan

  11

  Since then, no information on exclusion has been collected centrally.

  Health Authorities and Trust Boards (Members' Allowances)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, columns 771–72, if he will break down the figures on trust board and health authorities' members' allowances. [35856]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ thousand

  District health authorities

  Fees

  Other emolumentsincluding pensioncontributions

  Clwyd

  44

  236

  East Dyfed

  0

  198

  Gwent

  41

  239

  Gwynedd

  47

  293

  Mid Glamorgan

  44

  233

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  105

  Powys

  42

  231

  South Glamorgan

  43

  185

  West Glamorgan

  45

  288

  Special health authorities

  Health Promotion

  40

  27

  Wales Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  16

  0

  Family health services authorities

  Clwyd

  61

  87

  Dyfed

  56

  50

  Gwent

  53

  34

  Gwynedd

  56

  43

  Mid Glamorgan

  54

  49

  Powys

  53

  43

  South Glamorgan

  61

  45

  West Glamorgan

  52

  41

  NHS trusts

  Bridgend and District

  44

  286

  Carmarthen and District

  40

  178

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  37

  142

  Clwydian

  46

  283

  Glan Clwyd

  39

  228

  Glan Hafren

  46

  294

  Gwent Community

  47

  254

  Llandough

  62

  288

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  42

  239

  Pembrokeshire

  42

  273

  Powys

  44

  268

  South and east Wales Ambulance

  40

  200

  Swansea

  41

  194

  Wrexham Maelor

  29

  281

  Note:

  1993–94 data is provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts of DHAs, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS Trusts.
  1405

  Holyhead-Crewe Railway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Railtrack concerning the upgrading of the Holyhead-Crewe rail line; and if he will make a statement. [36137]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Officials discussed this line when they met the director of Railtrack, North-West Zone on 3 May.

  Cadw
  Mr. Sweeny
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish a revised framework document for Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency. [36376]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have now agreed a revised framework document for Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments which I will be publishing shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sweeny
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments annual report. [36378]

  Mr. Jones
  The report has been laid before the House today and will be published in August.

  Planning
  Mr. Sweeny
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will draft planning policy guidance for Wales. [36377]

  Mr. Hague
  Tomorrow I shall issue for consultation two planning guidance documents, "Planning Policy Guidance (Wales)" and "Planning Guidance (Wales): Unitary Development Plans in Wales." Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency's work in Wales for the financial year 1995–96. [36379]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The key objectives for the agency in 1995–96 continue to be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the Inspectorate's work while seeking to improve its efficiency. I have set the following key performance targets for the agency's work in Wales:

  Timeliness

  (a) Eighty per cent. of planning appeals by written representations to be decided within 17 weeks.

  (b) To provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period.

  Financial

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690.

  (b) Recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within 8 weeks of invoice date.

  Efficiency

  Generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1994–95.

  Quality

  (a) The number of justified complaints about the way Inspectors have carried out their duties, and the number of successful challenges in the High Court, should be less than one in every hundred decisions issued.

  1406

  (b) The number of justified complaints about the way in which the Inspectorate handled the procedural aspects of casework should be less than one on every hundred decisions issued.

  Volume

  To determine 1,005 appeals, subject to intake not declining.

ENVIRONMENT

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to boost the private rented sector. [33375]

  Mr. Gummer
  The recent White Paper announced measures which will build on the progress we have achieved since 1988.

  We are legislating to make it easier for landlords to let their property. This will increase the supply of good quality accommodation available to rent. We will introduce housing investment trusts to encourage institutional investment in privately rented housing. Trusts will benefit from exemption on capital gains, and a reduced rate of corporation tax.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to encourage the availability of affordable rented accommodation. [33383]

  Mr. Curry
  This year, public funding will produce 70,000 new social lettings. Around 250,000 existing tenancies become available for reletting each year.

  Housing Renovation (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in Lancashire require major renovation to bring them up to acceptable standards. [33395]

  Mr. Clappison
  On the basis of the data from the most recent returns, it is estimated that 55,000 dwellings in Lancashire were statutorily unfit on 1 April 1994. However, more than a third of these could be made fit by the owners at relatively little expense.

  Inner-city Funding
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he is taking of the political control of local authorities when allocating inner-city funding. [33396]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The quality and the likelihood of success are the prime considerations in this competition.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of home owners who will lose their homes through repossession in the next 10 years. [33397]

  Mr. Clappison
  The only prediction the Government make in this area is that we expect there to be 1.5 million more homeowners over the next 10 years.
  1407

  Social Rent Homes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many publicly owned social rent homes were started in 1979; and how many will be started in 1995. [33398]

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra).

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to deal with problems arising from the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation, with particular reference to seaside resorts. [33399]

  Mr. Curry
  The planning powers introduced in April 1994, requiring planning permission for a change of use from hotel or guest house to hostel, together with our proposals to strengthen local authorities' existing housing powers, published last week, will provide considerable control over the impact on local tourism in seaside resorts.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his reasons for not introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. [33644]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 13 July,Official Report, column 723.

  Disused Oil Rigs (Dumping)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of the dumping of disused oil rigs in the North sea or in deeper water. [33400]

  Mr. Gummer
  All the Governments of the North sea states agreed to the procedure for dumping disused oil rigs. I shall continue to evaluate these matters on the basis of environmental criteria rather than publicity campaigns.

  Local Government
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend local democracy and accountability in local government in England. [33401]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I thank the hon. Member for his support, and hope that he will help us to encourage the extension of local accountability in achieving, among other things, further improvement in the capital freedom proposed for grant-maintained schools and an increase in the number of sales which will result from the private sector bidding for housing association grant.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he will be bringing forward to improve air quality in south-east London. [33402]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have brought forward provisions in the Environment Bill to implement a new framework for air quality management and we will 1408
  publish later this year our proposals for a national strategy for improving air quality.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds are being made available to enable industry to comply with the latest air quality emission standards. [33403]

  Mr. Clappison
  Industry must comply with the latest air quality emission standards by the BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—objective to minimise emissions, and must also aim to achieve any statutory air quality standards. It is the polluter and not the taxpayer who must pay.

  Water Authority Board Members
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is planning to take to limit the annual income of water authority board members. [33404]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are examining the recommendations of the recently published reports by the Employment Select Committee on the remuneration of directors and chief executives of the privatised utilities and the Greenbury committee on directors' pay. A considered response will be made in due course.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the scope of the statutory responsibilities of Ofwat. [33405]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill that would give the Director General of Water Services powers to determine the actions that water companies should take to promote the efficient use of water by their customers, and to publish standards of performance in this respect. My right hon. Friend has no plans, at present, further to review the statutory responsibilities of Ofwat.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce rough sleeping. [33406]

  Mr. Curry
  The housing White Paper, published on 27 June, included a commitment to continue a programme to help people sleeping rough in central London beyond March 1996. It also said that we would consider assisting the development of the successful rough sleepers initiative model in areas outside central London where rough sleeping can be demonstrated to be a major problem.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to extending the duration of the rough sleepers initiative for central London and extending it to other parts of the United Kingdom. [34927]

  Mr. Clappison
  The housing White Paper—"Our Future Homes", Cm 2901—published on 27 June, included a commitment to continue a programme to help people sleeping rough in cental London beyond March 1996. It also said we would consider assisting the development of the successful rough sleepers initiative model in areas outside central London where rough sleeping can be demonstrated to be a major problem. For
  1409
  information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to the responsible Secretaries of State.

  East Thames Corridor
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of brown land are available in the east Thames corridor for potential future development. [33407]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Work by consultants Llewelyn-Davies, published in 1993, suggests that there are more than 4,000 hectares of mostly recycled urban land with potential for development within the east Thames corridor, extending from docklands to Tilbury in Essex and Sheerness in Kent. The Government have identified the area, now known as Thames gateway, as the major opportunity for growth in the south-east.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Miller
  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. [33408]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The 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.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each regional government office has available to allocate for new single regeneration and budget schemes. [35471]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 15 June,Official Report, column 611.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage treatment works failed their consent standards in 1986; and what is the equivalent figure now. [33409]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1986, 23 per cent. of those sewage treatment works tested were non-compliant with their discharge consents. In 1993, the latest year for which data are available, the equivalent figure was 6 per cent.

  Local Government Finance (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on Essex county council's revenue support grant. [33410]

  Mr. Curry
  We received no representations on Essex county council's revenue support grant during the consultation period for 1995–96, which ended on 9 January 1995. Since then, we have received five written representations.
  1410

  Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of the United Kingdom Government towards the intergovernmental panel on forests. [33393]

  Mr. Gummer
  Britain has been determined to repair the failure to tackle world forestry issues at the Rio summit. We have taken the lead in international efforts, both in the Commission for Sustainable Development and elsewhere, which culminated in the successful creation of the intergovernmental panel on forests.

  Management Information System for Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his Department's annual MINIS return. [29154]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 June 1995, c.127.]: I am pleased to announce that my Department published its MINIS return today. I can also announce, on behalf of my colleagues the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Transport, that the first MINIS document in respect of Government offices—GO—MINIS 1—is also published today. Copies of the documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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 results and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34703]

  Mr. Gummer
  In pursuing its various policies which have an impact on small firms, my Department takes full account of their crucial role in the economy. Those policies include our sponsorship of the construction industry as well as our responsibility for regeneration and energy efficiency, where our programmes provide direct assistance to small firms. In other policy areas, such as planning and environmental protection, our concern is to ensure that regulation does not impose unnecessary burdens on business. Details of programmes and policies and their achievements are set out in the Department's annual report, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of water pollution have been recorded in each year for the last five years, by region. [34631]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of substantiated pollution incidents recorded in each year since 1991 in each region of the National Rivers Authority is set out in the table. For 1990, due to differing recording practices between regions, the figures are in some cases of reported rather than substantiated incidents. As a result, the 1990 data are not directly comparable with those for later years. For
  1411
  consistency, all data are given on the basis of the current combined regions although the mergers of the Northumbria and Yorkshire regions and the South West and Wessex regions respectively took place in 1993.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Anglian

  1,647

  2,140

  2,462

  2,625

  2,819

  Northumbria/Yorkshire

  3,650

  3,378

  3,059

  3,642

  3,243

  North West

  4,171

  3,020

  3,270

  3,656

  3,532

  Severn Trent

  4,421

  4,355

  4,420

  4,876

  4,895

  Southern

  1,521

  1,735

  1,089

  1,355

  1,316

  Wessex/South West

  4,442

  3,953

  4,278

  4,129

  4,340

  Thames

  1,928

  1,939

  1,955

  2,071

  2,006

  Welsh

  1,474

  1,949

  2,798

  2,945

  3,264

  Total

  23,254

  22,469

  23,331

  25,299

  25,415

  Ozone Levels
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department gives to the public when ground level ozone exceeds 90ppb. [34636]

  Mr. Clappison
  Health advice, up-to-date information on ozone levels and daily forecasts are available to the public at all times on the Government's freephone 0800 556677. Information on daily levels and forecasts is also carried on Ceefax page 404, and on Teletext page 106 and is now also accessible through the internet. Reports and forecasts are sent twice daily to broadcast and print media.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the likely effect of his abatement strategies for oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds upon future levels of ozone in(a) urban, (b) suburban and (c) rural areas of Surrey. [35866]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government believe that harmonised action at an international level is necessary to ensure cost-effective reductions in ozone levels in the United Kingdom. The Government have pressed for early consideration of an ozone strategy for Europe within the United Nations Commission for Europe and the European Union. The Government are currently undertaking assessments of the national and international practicability and costs of achieving the recommended air quality standard of the expert panel on air quality standards within the timeframe of the sustainable development strategy.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the last five years ozone levels in Surrey have exceeded the standard for ozone recommended by his expert panel on air quality standards. [35867]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment does not monitor ozone in Surrey. The nearest monitoring site is situated at Lullington Heath in East Sussex where levels are expected to represent some of the highest in the United Kingdom. The expert panel on air quality standard's recommended air quality standard for ozone was exceeded at Lullington Heath on 83 days in 1990, 39 days in 1991, 50 days in 1992, 46 days in 1993 and 55 days in 1994.
  1412

  Rivers and Canals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the National Rivers Authority to publish its next report on the quality of rivers and canals in England and Wales. [34629]

  Mr. Clappison
  Publication of the report on the latest five-yearly review of the quality of rivers and canals in England and Wales is expected in the second half of 1996. However, the report and accounts of the National Rivers Authority for 1994–95, to be published later this month, will contain interim information about improvements in fresh water quality between 1990 and 1994. A copy will be placed in the Library and I have asked the NRA to send a copy of it to the hon. Member.

  Sewer Pipes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the new BSI specification for sewer pipes will ensure that all concrete, clay or plastic pipes will include a 100-year life expectancy. [34515]

  Mr. Clappison
  Many factors affect the life span of pipes. These include pipeline design, pipe handling and laying and subsequent ground movement. It is not therefore possible to ensure any particular life expectancy.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of twin-walled plastic tubing as a material for the construction of sewer pipes; and if he will make a statement. [34517]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for water and sewerage undertakers.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the new BSI specification for sewer pipes will guarantee a strength which will withstand a jetting pressure of(a) 2,500 or (b) 10,000 psi. [34516]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the BSI. I cannot comment on a specification which is still under development.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment up to what psi pressure jetting contractors operate in the removal of obstructions from sewer pipes. [34514]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the contractors. Guidance is being developed within industry on the use of water jetting for cleaning sewers, which will cover a number of factors such as pressure losses in transmission and the design and control of the nozzle as well as the pressure developed at the pump.

  Computer Equipment Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [34552]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: In the three years 1992–93, 1994–94 and 1994–95—the period for which records are available—£12.37 million worth of contracts/orders were placed with the following 10 computer equipment suppliers:

  1413

  Suppliers

  £

  Apricot

  Hardware

  4 million

  Dell

  Hardware

  4 million

  ICL

  Hardware

  2 million

  Probrand

  All purpose

  900 thousand

  WordPerfect UK

  Software

  500 thousand

  Software Corp

  Software

  300 thousand

  Action Comp Supplies

  All purpose

  300 thousand

  AMA UK

  All Purpose

  150 thousand

  Orion Media Marketing

  Consumables

  120 thousand

  HMSO

  All purpose

  100 thousand

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has received on the obstacles to leasehold enfranchisement. [34767]

  Mr. Clappison
  Leasehold enfranchisement is a private transaction between the leaseholders and the landlord, and it is therefore not possible to obtain comprehensive information on a regular basis of the reasons why leaseholders may not have proceeded with enfranchisement. My Department does, however, monitor the number of cases coming before leasehold valuation tribunals where the parties cannot agree terms. To date, 31 cases have been heard and 10 are listed to be heard in the near future.

  We have let a research contract to Sheffield Hallam university to follow up the progress with enfranchisement, of a sample of the people who have approached the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. We expect to publish the final report towards the end of 1996.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the council of English Nature expects to consider a proposal to denotify as a site of special scientific interest all or part of(a) Thorne Moors site of special scientific interest and (b) Hatfield Moor site of special scientific interest. [34789]

  Proportion of owner-occupying households

  1991

  1993

  Total households

  Owner-occupiers

  Percentage owner occupiers

  Total households

  Owner-occupiers

  Percentage owner occupiers

  Married couples

  Under 25

  204,761

  126,952

  62

  177,789

  110,229

  60

  25 to 29

  744,382

  461,517

  73

  685,237

  424,847

  72

  30 to 34

  1,060,990

  657,814

  76

  1,045,846

  648,425

  75

  35 to 39

  1,104,933

  685,058

  76

  1,106,285

  685,897

  76

  40 to 44

  1,291,287

  800,598

  77

  1,157,296

  717,524

  76

  45 to 49

  1,124,844

  697,403

  76

  1,255,145

  778,190

  76

  50 to 54

  995,202

  617,025

  72

  1,003,630

  622,251

  72

  55 and over

  4,020,733

  2,492,854

  64

  4,026,337

  2,496,329

  67

  Cohabiting couples

  Under 25

  252,389

  156,481

  49

  240,143

  148,889

  53

  25 to 29

  319,665

  198,192

  65

  329,564

  204,330

  65

  30 to 34

  206,493

  128,026

  60

  241,457

  149,703

  66

  35 to 39

  133,994

  83,076

  69

  149.235

  92,526

  58

  1414
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Peatland sites of special scientific interest are currently being surveyed and assessed. Once this work is complete, English Nature will consider later this year whether any boundary changes are necessary.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations English Nature has received from the Peat Producers' Association or any of its member organisations on(a) revision of sites of special scientific interest boundaries on any peatland sites of special scientific interest with valid planning permission for peat extraction and (b) on any peat bogs listed as possible special areas of conservation on its consultation document dated 31 March; and if he will list the sites involved. [34788]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 17 July I995]: In response to consultations by the Government, Levingtons Horticulture Ltd. welcomed the inclusion of Wedholme Flow and Thorne Moors on the list of candidate special areas of conservation. They suggested the removal of certain areas which did not contain a habitat of the type listed in the directive.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number and proportion of households that have owner-occupiers in each of the years 1991 to 1994, according to(a) the age bands under 25, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39, 40 to 44, 45 to 49, 50 to 54 and 55 years and over and (b) household types, married couples, cohabiting couples, lone parents, other multi-person households, and one-person households, on a basis consistent with the evidence recently made available to the Environment Select Committee on the need for provision for social housing. [35189]

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available estimates of the number and proportion of owner occupiers by age and household types are given in the table. These relate to the years 1991 and 1993.

  Estimates for 1992 and 1994 are not available.

  Sources:

  1991 Labour Force Survey.

  1993 Survey of English Housing.
  1415

  Proportion of owner-occupying households

  1991

  1993

  Total households

  Owner-occupiers

  Percentage owner occupiers

  Total households

  Owner-occupiers

  Percentage owner occupiers

  40 to 44

  109,878

  68,124

  68

  110,858

  68,732

  61

  45 to 49

  71,595

  44,389

  70

  87,097

  54,000

  58

  50 to 54

  45,053

  27,933

  53

  49,620

  30,764

  68

  55 and over

  83,242

  51,610

  60

  90,287

  55,978

  59

  Lone parents

  Under 25

  134,210

  83,210

  5

  135,533

  84,030

  3

  25 to 29

  190,346

  118,015

  12

  205,239

  127,248

  14

  30 to 34

  189,911

  117,745

  27

  213,488

  132,363

  24

  35 to 39

  170,467

  105,690

  42

  181,551

  112,562

  38

  40 to 44

  153,840

  95,381

  55

  147,690

  91,568

  47

  45 to 49

  84,907

  52,642

  59

  100,234

  62,145

  51

  50 to 54

  35,275

  21,871

  53

  38,071

  23,604

  47

  55 and over

  21,612

  13,399

  45

  22,924

  14,213

  34

  Other multi person

  Under 25

  97,285

  60,317

  18

  96,613

  59,900

  14

  25 to 29

  126,068

  78,162

  47

  137,989

  85,553

  37

  30 to 34

  79,488

  49,283

  46

  99,915

  61,947

  52

  35 to 39

  64,703

  40,116

  64

  73,972

  45,863

  64

  40 to 44

  93,920

  58,230

  42

  96,267

  59,686

  48

  45 to 49

  107,381

  66,576

  56

  129,322

  80,180

  62

  50 to 54

  116,692

  72,349

  49

  123,293

  76,442

  53

  55 and over

  664,488

  411,983

  49

  668,103

  414,224

  51

  One person

  Under 25

  223,502

  138,571

  29

  223,225

  138,400

  29

  25 to 29

  389,819

  241,688

  59

  423,593

  262,628

  56

  30 to 34

  301,205

  186,747

  65

  377,306

  233,930

  65

  35 to 39

  225,782

  139,985

  64

  266,033

  164,940

  57

  40 to 44

  242,044

  150,067

  59

  251,644

  156,019

  57

  45 to 49

  227,763

  141,213

  58

  277,450

  172,019

  59

  50 to 54

  240,172

  148,907

  53

  259,773

  161,059

  51

  55 and over

  3,264,770

  2,024,157

  45

  3,315,167

  2,055,404

  48

  Drinking Water (Lead)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the drinking water inspectorate will give advice to consumers about lead in drinking water. [36078]

  Mr. Clappison
  The drinking water inspectorate today published "Lead in Drinking Water". This leaflet gives consumers advice on how to find out if they have lead pipes in their home. whether the amount of lead in their drinking water exceeds the standard and how to minimise the level of lead in their drinking water.

  Copies of the leaflet has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Going for Green
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the Going for Green initiative. [36079]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Going for Green national committee has taken responsibility for managing the eco-schools project and I am pleased to announce that 155 schools have already joined, with 500 more expected to do so by the end of the year. The committee has also recommended the development of a green code for the general public to follow and a number of demonstration projects will be established to test its practicability.

  Negotiations on detailed proposals are taking place with Lancashire county council, Sedgefield district council and
  1416
  the London borough of Merton, while discussions are at an earlier stage with three other communities, including one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland. In the light of these developments, the committee has proposed that it should examine the feasibility of establishing a company limited by guarantee to take forward the campaign and to attract private sector sponsorship to supplement and partner the public sector support we are able to give I welcome this proposal by the committee. I hope that it will be in a position to decide in the autumn whether to proceed with this option.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the responsibilities of his Department in relation to the final disposal of the Brent Spar. [33560]

  Mr. Clappison
  Unless and until action is required under one of the statutory functions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, to ensure that decisions are consistent with the Government's general policies on the marine environment.

  Education Funding (Northumberland)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to respond to the letters sent to him by school governors and parents who
  1417
  support the Fairshares campaign for educational funding in Northumberland. [34820]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  So far as I am aware, my Department has replied to every letter received from members of the public during this campaign.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to how many letters sent to him by school governors and parents who support the campaign for increased educational funding in Northumberland he has so far replied. [34821]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 29 June,Official Report, column 756.

  Private Utilities (Pricing Structure)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the private utilities in respect of pricing structure with special reference to the balance between standing charges and unit costs. [35477]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. So far as the water industry is concerned, this is a matter for the Director General of Water Services and the water companies.

  Housing Investment Programmes
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the housing investment programme for each local authority in 1978–79, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in cash and in constant prices. [35473]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on housing investment programme allocations for 1978–79, 1994–95 and 1995–96 for each local authority in England is available in the Library.

  The GDP market price deflator can be used to exclude the effect of general inflation.

  GDP deflator 1978–79=100

  1978–79

  100.0

  1994–95

  292.3

  1995–96

  301.8

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibilities for health and safety, formerly held by the Department of Employment, have been transferred to his Department. [35584]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has taken over responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The allocation of other responsibilities relating to health and safety at work is still under consideration.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spends on 1418
  (a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisation; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35549]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's only direct spending on child care provision for under-fives and out-of-school provision for over-fives, is limited to provision for departmental staff.

  My Department does not make resources available to local authorities specifically for child care. My Department is responsible for distributing revenue support grant to English local authorities. Local spending decisions on child care are, however, a matter for each local authority. It is likely that some local child care and out-of-school provision is supported through commitments under the single regeneration budget and, since March 1995, under the single regeneration budget challenge fund, although this information is not held centrally.

  Departmental Employees
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35464]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information is for 1 April 1995 and covers non-industrial staff in my Department, excluding Ordnance Survey and PSA Services.

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  5

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 3

  26

  0

  4

  0

  Grade 4

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  108

  3

  17

  5

  Grade 6

  283

  9

  23

  6

  Grade 7

  596

  3

  108

  30

  SEO and equivalent

  576

  5

  116

  19

  HEO and equivalent

  616

  6

  251

  51

  EO and equivalent

  651

  4

  478

  45

  AO and equivalent

  557

  4

  796

  135

  AA and equivalent

  231

  1

  352

  82

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the number of (i) male (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35680]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested but details by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including the executive agencies, can be found in table 5 of "Civil Service Statistics" for each year from 1985 to 1994—copies are available in the Library. Details for 1995 will be published later this year.
  1419

  Women (Promotions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35672]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department is committed to equality of opportunity for all employees. In relation to women there is a departmental action plan to achieve equality of opportunity based on the programme for action for women in the civil service. Initiatives taken to improve the development and promotion of women staff include equal opportunities training and seminars for staff and senior managers; a women in management training course; at least one woman on each promotion panel; part-time working; and nursery and holiday play schemes are available.

  Sikh Turban Wearers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what means Her Majesty's Government continued exemption, notwithstanding the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations, for Sikh turban wearers employed in construction and serving in the armed forces. [35583]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Section 11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts Sikh turban wearers from any statutory requirements to wear protective headgear while on a construction site. The position of Sikh turban wearers in the armed forces is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Regional Funds
  Mr. Alton
  To ask Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the stage the 1994 objective 1 bid of Liverpool chamber of commerce and industry has reached; and if he will ensure that the telematics service is implemented as quickly as possible. [36099]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Five projects form Liverpool chamber of commerce were approved in principle last October. Four have received offers of grant and have been completed or are in the progress. Offer letters can only be issued when all requirements for award of grant have been fulfilled. The Government office is working with the Liverpool Chamber to progress the fifth project which concerns a telematics service.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many 1994 objective 1 bids were successful; how many received some or all of the cash they were granted; how many have received no funding; what factors underlie failure to collect funding; and if he will make a statement. [36098]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A total of 797 projects were approved in principle. Grant payments have been made for 699 projects. More than 70 projects have yet to claim and a small number are with the Government office for processing.

  There are a number of factors which can affect the draw down of grant aid. For the European social fund, grant payments are made in three stages. The overwhelming majority of stage 1 and 2 claims have been paid. In a small number of cases inaccuracies in the paperwork have
  1420
  resulted in delay. Final claims are not due to be paid until September. For the European regional development fund, project sponsors must incur expenditure before claims for grant payment can be submitted and the spend profile of a project can span a number of years.

  Planning Enforcement
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will carry out a policy review of the new and strengthened planning enforcement provisions introduced into part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; [35934]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will carry out a policy review of the new and strengthened planning enforcement provisions introduced into part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. [36400]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have completed a review of local planning authorities' use of the planning enforcement provisions in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, based on a planning consultants' research project involving a representative sample of more than 100 local planning authorities in England and Wales. The research report's conclusions are that planning authorities are generally using the new provisions effectively; and the wider range of available enforcement powers enables authorities better to implement whatever remedial action is most suited to each breach of planning control.

  The research report is being published tomorrow and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who gave permission for a pop concert and party to be held at county hall, London SE1, on 15 July; what licences were issued; and why the event was cancelled. [35838]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The county hall main building is now privately owned by the Shirayama Corporation of Japan. It would be for the owners of the building and the organisers of any event proposed to be held there to obtain any permissions or licences which might be required, and to decide whether to proceed with or to cancel that event.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the freehold of county hall, London SE1, was transferred to Shirayama Shokusan Co. Ltd.; when this occurred; and what was the amount involved. [35970]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The sale to Shirayama Shokusan of a 999-year lease on the riverside building of county hall in October 1993 provided for the transfer to Shirayama of the freehold interest in the building, for a nominal sum—£1—, upon the earlier (i) completion of listed building works, and (ii) transfer of the freehold of the rest of the site.

  The freehold of the remainder of the site was subsequently sold to Shirayama in April 1995.
  1421

  Local Government Finance (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the effect of the data on the new earnings survey from the Isle of Wight and its effect on the area cost adjustment formulae for the Isle of Wight and if he has seen the correspondence from Mr. Orchard of the Department of Employment and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. [35871]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take into account the Island Apart evidence when looking at the area cost adjustment formulae and the effects any changes to that formulae will have on the Isle of Wight's local government finance. [35941]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We will consider all the evidence available to us on the area cost adjustment when forming our proposals for the 1996–97 local government finance settlement later this year.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea was chosen to prepare the accounts for 1995–96 following the wind-up of the London residuary body. [35860]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The detailed arrangements for winding up the London residuary body, including the preparation of the final accounts, are matters to be decided when the order winding-up the London residuary' body is made.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an order winding up the London residuary body. [35859]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend intends to make such an order as soon as practicable, having regard to the outstanding responsibilities of the residuary body.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hours a week each London residuary body board member worked in 1994–95 on London residuary body business; what emoluments each received; and what payments will be made to the board members when the London residuary board is finally wound-up. [35861]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The board members of the London residuary body received the following emoluments in 1994–95:

  Sir Godfrey Taylor (Chairman): £15,430 for 1 day per week

  M. C. Roberts Esq.: £9,320 for 1 day per week

  W. J. Mackenzie Esq.: £9,320 for 1 day per week

  J. Wolkind Esq.: £9,320 for 1 day per week

  In practice, board members frequently commit more time and energy to their duties than required by their contracts.

  There will be no extra payments to the board members of the LRB upon its wind-up.
  1422

  Irish Sea Science
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made by the Irish sea science co-ordinator in reviewing Irish sea science. [35987]

  Mr. Clappison
  The co-ordinator, a joint UK-Irish appointment, has submitted his final report to the UK and Irish Governments as the "Third Report of the Irish Sea Science Co-ordinator". Building on the two previous reports, it proposes a set of studies to fill important gaps in scientific knowledge of the area and to form the basis of a structured and integrated programme to enhance abilities to protect the Irish sea and manage its resources. Further discussions between sponsoring Departments are proceeding to consider implications for research requirements and future marine policies. I am placing copies in the Library of the House today.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, columns 140–43, if he will list for each proposed special area of conservation (a) the relevant parliamentary constituency and (b) the relevant European parliamentary constituency. [35880]

  Mr. Clappison
  The relevant constituencies for the candidate special areas of conservation submitted to the European Commission are as follows:

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  Amat Woods

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  Ardmeanach

  Argyll and Bute

  Highlands and Islands

  Ballynahone Bog

  East Londonderry

  Northern Ireland

  Barry Links

  Angus East

  Scotland North East

  Beer Quarry and Caves

  Honiton

  Dorset and East Devon

  Benacre to Easton Bavents Lagoons

  Waveney

  Suffolk and South West Norfolk

  Berwyn

  Meirionydd Nant Conwy Montgomery, Clwyd South West

  (1) Mid and West Wales (2) North Wales

  Birklands and Bilhaugh

  Sherwood

  Nottinghamshire North and Chesterfield

  Black Bog

  Mid-Ulster

  Northern Ireland

  Black Wood of Rannoch

  Tayside North

  Scotland North East

  Blawhorn Moss

  Livingston

  Lothians

  Blean Complex

  Canterbury

  Kent East

  Borrowdale Woodland Complex

  Workington, Penrith and the Border

  Cumbria and Lancashire North

  Braehead Moss

  Clydesdale

  South Scotland

  1423

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  Bredon Hill

  Worcestershire South

  Worcestershire and South Warwickshire

  Cilfach Burry: Twyni/Burry Inlet: Dunes

  Gower and Carmarthen

  Mid and West Wales

  Cannock Extension Canal

  Aldridge Brownhills, Cannock and Burntwood, Staffordshire South

  Birmingham West, Staffordshire East and Derby, Staffordshire West and Congleton

  Carrine Common

  Truro

  Cornwall and West Plymouth

  Castle Eden Dene

  Easington

  Durham

  Castle Hill

  Lewes

  East Sussex and Kent South

  Chilmark Quarries

  Westbury

  Wiltshire North and Bath

  Chilterns Beechwoods

  Wycombe, Aylesbury, Henley

  Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire East

  Cockinhead Moss

  Cunninghame North

  Strathclyde West

  Coed y Cerrig

  Monmouth

  South Wales East

  Coedydd a Cheunant, Rheidol/Rheidol Woods

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Coedydd Derw, Meirion/Merionnyd Woods

  Meririonydd Nant Conwy

  Mid and West Wales

  Coleg Glynllifon

  Caernarfon

  North Wales

  Cors Caron

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Cors Fochno

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Corsydd Mon/Angelsea Fens

  Ynys Mon

  North Wales

  Cothill Fen

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  Hampshire North and Oxford

  Craigengar

  Linlithgow

  Lothians

  Cranley Moss

  Clydesdale

  South Scotland

  Creag nan Gamhainn

  Moray

  Highlands and Islands

  Cors Crymlyn/Crymlyn Bog

  Swansea West

  South Wales West

  Cuileagh Mountain

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Ireland

  Culbin Bar

  Moray

  Highlands and Islands

  Culm Grasslands

  Devon West and Torridge

  Devon

  Cwm Cadlan

  Cynon Valley

  South Wales Central

  Derryleckagh

  South Down

  Northern Ireland

  Drostre Bank

  Brecon and Radnor

  Mid and West Wales

  1424

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  East Hampshire Hangers

  East Hampshire

  South Downs West

  Eastern Mournes

  South Down

  Northern Ireland

  Ebernoe Common

  Chichester

  South Downs West

  Eilean na Muice Duibhe

  Argyll and Bute

  Highlands and Islands

  Elenydd

  Montgomery

  Mid and West Wales

  Eryri/Snowdonia

  Conwy

  North Wales

  Fairy Water Bogs

  Mid-Ulster

  Northern Ireland

  Fenland

  Cambridgeshire South, East Huntingdon

  Cambridgeshire

  Feur Lochain

  Argyll and Bute

  Highlands and Islands

  Flow of Dergoals

  Galloway and Upper Nithdsale

  South Scotland

  Gang Mine

  West Derbyshire

  Peak District

  Garron Plateau

  East Antrim/North Antrim

  Northern Ireland

  Garry Bog

  North Antrim

  Northern Ireland

  Garry na Criche

  Argyll and Bute

  Highlands and Islands

  Glannau Mon: Cors heli/ Angelesa Coast: Saltmarsh

  Ynys Mon

  North Wales

  Glannau Mon: Twyni/Anglsea Coast: Dunes

  Ynys Mon

  North Wales

  Glanau Ynys Gybi/Holy Island Coast

  Ynys Mon

  North Wales

  Glen Coe

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  Highlands and Islands

  Godrevy Head to St. Agnes

  St. Ives, Falmouth and Cambourne, Truro

  Cornwall and West Plymouth

  Pen Y Gosgarth/Great Orme's Head

  Conwy

  North Wales

  Great Yews

  Salisbury

  Itchen Test and Avon

  Helvellyn and Fairfield

  Penrith and the Border, Workington

  Cumbria and Lancashire North

  Hascosay

  Orkney and Shetland

  Highlands and Islands

  Hill of Towanreef

  (1) Banff and Buchan

  (1) Scotland North East

  (2) Moray

  (2) Highlands and Islands

  Holme Moor and Clean Moor

  Taunton

  Somerset and North Devon

  Hoy

  Orkney and Shetland

  Highlands and Islands

  Inchnadamph

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  Invernaver

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  1425

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  Isle of Wight Downs

  Isle of Wight

  Wight and Hampshire South

  Keen of Hamar

  Orkney and Shetland

  Highlands and Islands

  Cynffig/Kenfig

  Bridgend

  South Wales West

  Kilhern Moss

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  South Scotland

  Kingley Vale

  Chichester

  South Downs West

  Kirkcowan Flow

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  South Scotland

  Lewes Downs

  Lewes

  East Sussex and Kent South

  Clogwyni Calenfaen De-Orllewin

  Pembroke and Gower

  (1) Mid and West Wales

  Cymru/Limestone seacliffs of South West Wales

  (2) South Wales West

  Lismore Lochs

  Argyll and Bute

  Highlands and Islands

  Llyn Syfaddan/Llangorse Lake

  Brecon and Radnor

  Mid and West Wales

  Loch Watten

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  Lydden and Temple Ewell Downs

  Dover

  Kent East

  Magheraveely Marl Loughs

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Ireland

  Merrick Kells

  (1) Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley(2) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  (1) South Scotland (2) South Scotland

  Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes

  Suffolk Coastal

  Suffolk and South West Norfolk

  Mochrum Lochs

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  South Scotland

  Monadh Mor

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Highlands and Islands

  Monawilkin

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Ireland

  Moniack Gorge

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Highlands and Islands

  Morrone Birkwood

  Kincardine and Deesside

  Scotland North East

  Mound Alderwoods

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  Newham Fen

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Northumbria

  Norfolk Valley Fens

  Norfolk North West, Norfolk South West and Mid Norfolk

  Norfolk

  North Northumberland Dunes

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Northumbria

  1426

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  North Pennines Dales Meadows

  Richmond, Skipton and Ripon, Hexham, Durham North West, Bishop Auckland, Penrith and the Border, Westmorland and Lonsdale

  Northumbria, Cumbria and Lancashire North, Durham, Cleveland and Richmond, North Yorkshire

  Oak Mere

  Eddisbury

  Cheshire West and Wirral

  Oldshoremore and Sandwood

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highlands and Islands

  Oxford Meadows

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  Hampshire North and Oxford

  Pasturefields Salt Marsh

  Stafford

  Staffordshire West and Congleton

  Safleodd Ystlumod, Penfro/Pembrokeshire bat sites

  Pembrokeshire

  Mid and West Wales

  Pettigoe Plateau

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Ireland

  Pewsey Downs

  Devizes

  Wiltshire North and Bath

  Pitmaduthy Moss

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Highlands and Islands

  Prescombe Down

  Salisbury

  Itchen Test and Avon

  Preseli

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Queendown Warren

  Mid Kent

  Kent West

  Reidside Moss

  Banff and Buchan

  Scotland North East

  Rex Graham Reserve

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Suffolk and South West Norfolk

  Rhinog

  Meirionydd Nant Conwy

  Mid and West Wales

  Rhos Goch

  Brecon and Radnor

  Mid and West Wales

  Rhos Llawr-cwrt

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Rooksmoor

  Dorset North

  Dorset and East Devon

  Rum

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  Highlands and Islands

  Slieve Beagh

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Ireland

  TY Ddewi/St. Davids

  Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North

  Mid and West Wales

  Staverton Park and the Thicks, Wantisden

  Suffolk Coastal

  Suffolk and South West Norfolk

  Strath

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Highlands and Islands

  Stromness Heaths and Coast

  Orkney and Shetland

  Highlands and Islands

  1427

  Proposed special area of conservation

  Parliamentary constituency

  European parliamentary constituency

  Safleodd Ystlumod Tanat ac Efyrnwy/Tanat and Vyrnwy Bat Sites Taynish Woods

  Montgomery, Clywd South West

  (1) Mid and West Wales (2) North Wales

  Teal Lough

  Mid-Ulster

  Northern Ireland

  The Mens

  Chichester

  South Downs West

  The New Forest

  New Forest

  Itchen Test and Avon

  The Stiperstones and the Hollies

  Ludlow

  Herefordshire and Shropshire

  Thorne Moor

  Doncaster North and Boothferry

  Yorkshire South and Humberside

  Thrislington

  Sedgefield

  Durham

  Tingon

  Orkney and Shetland

  Highlands and Islands

  Tregonning Hill

  Cornwall South East

  Cornwall and West Plymouth

  Trotternish Ridge

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Highlands and Islands

  Tulach Hill and Glen Fender Meadows

  Tayside North

  Scotland North East

  Tyne and Allen River Gravels

  Hexham

  Northumbria

  Upper Lough Earne

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Northern Irleand

  Wasdale Screes

  Copeland

  Cumbria and Lancashire North

  West Midland Mosses

  Eddisbury, Stafford, Crewe and Nantwich, North Shropshire

  Cheshire West and Wirral, Staffordshire West and Congleton, Herefordshire and Shropshire

  Whitlaw and Branxholme

  Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale

  South Scotland

  Windsor Forest and Great Park

  Windsor and Maidenhead, Surrey North West, Berkshire East

  Thames Valley, Surrey

  Wye and Crundale Downs

  Ashford

  Kent East

  Urban Development Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many permanent jobs have been created in each urban development area net of losses and relocations since the inception of each urban development corporation. [36123]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Reliable data on net employment in urban development areas are not available. Gross jobs created by each urban development corporation up to 31 March are as follows:1428

  Number

  London Docklands

  63,025

  Merseyside

  14,458

  Teesside

  7,682

  Black Country

  13,357

  Trafford Park

  16,197

  Tyne & Wear

  19,649

  Bristol

  3,830

  Sheffield

  11,328

  Central Manchester

  4,909

  Leeds

  9,066

  Birmingham Heartlands

  1,773

  Plymouth

  0

  Total

  165,274

  Skin Disease
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what plans his Department has to examine skin disease in the context of health and safety at work. [35969]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 1993, the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—has been funding a surveillance scheme for occupational skin disease—EPI-DERM—to determine the major causes of work related skin disorders and to identify the occupations most at risk. The initial findings confirm that occupational dermatitis is still the most widespread form of work related skin disease.

  The HSE is therefore to focus on reducing the incidence of occupational dermatitis as part of its "Good Health is Good Business Campaign". This phase of the campaign, which will be launched in the spring next year, aims to raise awareness of the causes of work-related dermatitis and the steps employers need to take to prevent it.

  The HSE is also acting to reduce the harm that can be caused by exposure to ultra-violet light at work. It has published guidance for outdoor workers alerting them to the dangers of over-exposure to the sun and advising them of the precautions that they should take to protect their skin.

  Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency for the financial year 1995–96. [36397]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The key objectives for the agency in 1995–96 continue to be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeking further to improve efficiency. I have set the following key targets for the agency's work in England:

  Timeliness

  (a) 80 per cent of planning appeals by written representations to be decided within 18 weeks;

  (b) to provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period;

  Financial:

  (a) unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690;

  (b) recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within 8 weeks of invoice date;

  1429

  Efficiency

  (a) generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1994–95;

  Quality:

  (a) the number of justified complaints about the way inspectors have carried out their duties, and the number of High Court challenges, should be less than one in every one hundred decisions issued;

  (b) the number of justified complaints about the way the Inspectorate have handled the procedural aspects of casework should be less than one every hundred new cases received;

  Volume:

  to determine 14,900 appeals, subject to intake not declining.

  Latent Defects Liability and BUILD Insurance
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his Department's consultation document on latent defects liability and BUILD insurance. [36398]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department received a total of 109 responses to the consultation paper on latent defects liability and BUILD insurance which it published on 12 April. The paper put forward proposals for legislation resulting from recommendations in the report by Sir Michael Latham, "Constructing the Team". The responses will be taken into account in making decisions on any future legislation.

  A list of the 99 non-confidential responses received has been placed in the Library of the House, together with a summary. Copies of individual responses and a report on the response may be obtained through the Library.

  An analysis of responses to a second consultation document on fair construction contracts is now being prepared. A total of 135 responses have been received. A list of non-confidential responses received together with a summary will be available from the Library shortly.

  Town Centres
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue for consultation his revision of planning policy guidance note 6 on town centres and retail developments; and if he will make a statement. [36399]

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the strong support given by the Environment Committee for the Government's policy on town centres and retail developments, I undertook to revise or planning policy guidance, PPG6, to clarify various issues. I have today issued for consultation revised guidance on this subject. Comments on the revised draft PPG6 are invited by 2 October 1995. I have arranged for copies of the draft revised PPG6 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are strongly committed to urban regeneration and many of its policies are directed to this end. As part of this, the guidance reflects the Government's determination to revitalise our town centres by encouraging developers to invest in town centres. This applies not only to shopping developments, but to
  1430
  other uses such as offices and other businesses, entertainment, leisure, and higher education. We are determined that town centres should be attractive and competitive locations for investment.

  The draft guidance encourages local planning authorities, consulting business interests and the wider community, to draw up strategies for retail developments in their local development plans. This should provide greater certainty for investors. The draft advocates the sequential approach, whereby retail developments should look first to town centres, next edge-of-centre sites and only then out-of-centre sites, if not suitable sites are available. It advises local planning authorities to plan positively and identify suitable sites in their local plans. This does not mean a complete ban on out-of-centre shopping developments, but such proposals will continue to need to be assessed against the tests of impact on existing centres, accessibility by a choice of means of transport and impact on overall car travel.

  The main changes to this guidance are:

  (i) on planning for town centres and retailing:

  emphasis on a plan-led approach to promoting development in town centres, both through policies and the identification of locations and sites for development;

  emphasis on the sequential approach to selecting sites for development, whether for food or comparison shopping; and support for local and neighbourhood centres.

  (ii) on town centres:

  promotion of mixed-use development and retention of key town centre uses, including cinemas;

  emphasis on the importance of a coherent town centre parking strategy in maintaining urban vitality, through a combination of location, management and pricing or parking for different user groups—it clarifies the relationship between PPG6 and PPG 13;

  promotion of town centre management to develop clear standards of service and improve quality for town centre users; and

  promotion of good urban design, including attractive and secure car parks.

  (iii) on assessment of retail proposals:

  clarifying the three key tests for assessing retail developments: impact on vitality and viability of town centres; accessibility by a choice of means of transport; and impact on overall travel and car use;

  how to access out-of-centre developments; and, finally

  how certain new types of retail developments should be assessed.

  Development Quality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role planning conditions can play in improving the quality of development; and if he will make a statement. [36401]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government consider that the sensitive use of conditions can improve development control and enhance public confidence in the planning system. If used properly, planning conditions can play a valuable role in enhancing the quality of development.
  1431
  Advice to this effect is contained in Department of the Environment circular 11/95—Welsh Office 35/95—which was published today. The circular updates policy advice and guidance on the use of planning conditions. Among other things, the circular reflects guidance in planning policy guidance notes on the use of conditions in respect of transport, retail development, contaminated land, noise, and affordable housing. The circular also gives additional advice on the use of conditions in respect of design and landscape, access for disabled people, nature conservation and endangered species; and contains many more examples of "model" conditions.

  Local Government Reorganisation (Staff Compensation)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he will put in place to compensate staff who suffer a reduction in salary as a result of local government reorganisation. [36402]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are today launching a consultation on draft regulations which will give effect to the scheme for detriment compensation which my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 30 March,Official Report, column 733. The scheme provides for compensation of staff who suffer a drop in salary as a result of local government reorganisation. Such staff will, in effect, have their salary maintained for a transitional three-year period if they work in a reorganised authority and are appointed to a job at a lower salary with a relevant authority during the prescribed period. By avoiding the need for redundancy payments and encouraging councils to retrain existing employees in new jobs, the scheme should benefit staff, employers, and the taxpayer. There will be a period of eight weeks in which local authorities, local authority associations and other interested parties will be able to make comments on these draft regulations.

  Public Income and Expenditure, London
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish statistics quantifying public income and expenditure in London. [36403]

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose to publish "London: Facts and Figures 1995", later this month. It will provide, in a single source, data on a wide range of London issues and activities.

  During the preparation of this publication, we asked our consultants to examine data on public spending and revenues to see if it is possible to calculate the position for London. More work needs to be done before a firm conclusion can be reached and, through the Government office for London, I will be issuing a consultation paper shortly on the subject.

  Regional Boundaries
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 541–42, if he has completed his consideration of the recommendations of the Environment Agency advisory committee on regional boundaries. [36549]
  1432
  Mr. Gummer
  I have today confirmed the Government's acceptance of the regional boundaries of the Environment Agency proposed by the Environment Agency advisory committee, modified so that the region covered by the Welsh regional environment protection advisory committee corresponds to Wales alone. These proposals build on the successful river catchment based approach developed by the National Rivers Authority, while ensuring integration of pollution control functions in a way which maximises continuity and scope for close and responsive relationships at a local level. For those who deal with the agency, it will ensure the full benefits of bringing together the different environmental regulators while enabling continuation of the best features of existing arrangements. The agency will keep its boundaries under review, so that adjustments can be made in the light of experience if necessary.

  Bristol Development Corporation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Bristol development corporation will be wound up; and if he will make a statement. [36550]

  Mr. Curry
  Statutory orders will be laid before Parliament later this year to effect the wind-up and dissolution of Bristol development corporation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the corporation will cease to act from 1 January 1996, except for the purpose of preparing its final accounts and report and winding up its affairs. The corporation will be dissolved on 1 April 1996.

  Urban development corporations were set up, with finite lifetimes, to regenerate their designated areas. Since designation on 30 June 1988, Bristol development corporation has provided major infrastructure investment which has already revitalised much of east Bristol.

  The corporation expects its activities to lead, in total, to the reclamation of 81 hectares of land, the creation of 450,000 sq m of commercial floorspace and 1,220 housing units, the creation of 16,500 permanent jobs and the attraction of £650 million of private sector investment. Bristol will continue to reap the benefits of the corporation's activities well into the new millennium.

  Countryside Commission Chairman
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the appointment of a new chairman of the Countryside Commission. [36601]

  Mr. Gummer
  Selection of a new chairman of the Countryside Commission has been made by following a new process, involving advertisement of the post in the national press and the employment of executive search consultants. More than 120 candidates were produced by these methods, form whom we are able, with the advice and assistance of the consultants, to identify a shortlist of names of a high standard meriting serious consideration. Mr. Richard Simmonds clearly emerged from that shortlist as the best candidate and I am pleased to announce his appointment as the new chairman of the Countryside Commission to take effect from 1 October.
  1433
  Richard Simmonds has all the qualities which are needed for this post: in particular, he has wide and relevant experience, a considerable knowledge of countryside matters, leadership skill and the clear vision and sense of purpose required. He will make an excellent chairman.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress on the 2 Marsham street development. [36659]

  Mr. Gummer
  The dreadful towers of the DOE's headquarters building have set a poor example to the nation. We now have a welcome opportunity to put right past mistakes and I am determined that the redevelopment of this site will set a better standard.

  We need a development which will underpin the continuing regeneration of this part of Westminster by creating a welcoming environment, by attracting more life and providing for a mixture of uses. We also need to show how new and viable city centre redevelopment can complement its neighbourhood and fit in more closely with the existing urban fabric.

  I have decided that these aims can best be secured through an open competition in which designers and architects will be invited to devise a new urban design framework for this site, which will make the most of the opportunity we now have. This competition will throw the field open to fresh and creative ideas for an urban design which will be attractive to those who live or work in the area.

  The competition will concentrate initially on urban design rather that the architecture of individual buildings. We need a broad and flexible masterplan, not a detailed blueprint. There are several reasons for this: Many aspects of urban design on a specific site can be considered independently of detailed decisions about the use of individual buildings. This is currently often overlooked in developments on this scale; The Government are still considering whether it wishes to occupy part of the redevelopment, and if so how much; I want to keep the option of having the individual buildings which make up the redevelopment designed by different architects within the agreed urban design framework.

  Concentrating on urban issues will have an important additional advantage. Since detailed architectural issues will not be considered at this stage, designers will be able to prepare competition entries more easily and at less expense. I hope that this will make it easier for smaller design practices to compete with the giants, that many young architects, from the UK and abroad, will therefore be encouraged to enter. The best entries to the competition will be exhibited to the public next year.

  The next step will be to prepare the brief for this competition. This we shall do with the help of professional advisers and in consultation with the local community. In particular, our advisers will be asked to prepare an urban context study of the area which will form part of the brief for the competition. I will announce further details about this shortly.
  1434

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Civilian Support Staff)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of police officers to civilian support staff in(a) each police force in England and i(b) overall in England. [34302]

  Mr. Maclean
  The ratio of police officers to civilian support staff in each police force in England as at 31 March 1995 is set out in the table. Overall in England the ratio is 2.2:1.

  Ratio of police officers to civilians support staff1 in each police force in England as at 31 March 1995

  Force

  Ratio

  Avon and Somerset

  2.3:1

  Bedfordshire

  2.2:1

  Cambridgeshire

  2.6:1

  Cheshire

  3.0:1

  Cleveland

  2.6:1

  Cumbria

  2.5:1

  Derbyshire

  2.7:1

  Devon and Cornwall

  2.3:1

  Dorset

  2.0:1

  Durham

  2.7:1

  Essex

  2.2:1

  Gloucestershire

  2.8:1

  Greater Manchester

  2.4:1

  Hampshire

  2.5:1

  Hertfordshire

  2.2:1

  Humberside

  3.1:1

  Kent

  2.6:1

  Lancashire

  2.6:1

  Leicestershire

  2.4:1

  Lincolnshire

  2.3:1

  Merseyside

  2.7:1

  Norfolk

  2.6:1

  Northamptonshire

  2.4:1

  Northumbria

  2.6:1

  North Yorkshire

  2.4:1

  Nottinghamshire

  2.4:1

  South Yorkshire

  2.5:1

  Staffordshire

  2.8:1

  Suffolk

  2.2:1

  Surrey

  2.1:1

  Sussex

  2.5:1

  Thames Valley

  2.1:1

  Warwickshire

  2.6:1

  West Mercia

  2.0:1

  West Midlands

  2.5:1

  West Yorkshire

  2.4:1

  Wiltshire

  2.6:1

  City of London

  2.6:1

  Metropolitan

  1.7:1

  Overall in England

  2.2:1

  Child Care Facilities
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35554]
  1435
  Mr. Howard
  The information is not available precisely in the form requested. However, I can advise the hon. Member that the following kinds of provision are funded:

  (i) Ethnic minority grant (Wales)—there is a project in Wales which meets the costs of providing child care facilities for children of people attending training courses. For 1995–96, this amounts to £5,798.

  (ii) Section 11 grant—the costs of providing child care facilities are met in 12 projects. Some 14.75 posts are funded at an estimated cost of £77,000.

  (iii) Facilities for children in prisons—some creche and play scheme facilities exist in prisons for the benefit of children accompanying visitors. These are normally funded by the Governor's operational budget, but precise details of how much is spent are not held centrally and to compile them would incur disproportionate costs.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35460]

  Mr. Howard
  The numbers of permanent industrial and non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995 on a head count basis for the main Home Office and its agencies were as follows. Figures for the Prison Service shown are as from 17 July 1995.

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Home Office Main (includes IND)

  4,605

  34

  3,739

  705

  UKPA

  538

  10

  825

  150

  FSS

  339

  0

  249

  116

  FSC

  109

  2

  74

  7

  Prison Service

  31,715

  280

  6477

  1,014

  Total

  37,306

  326

  11,364

  1,992

  The breakdown by grade of non-industrial staff was as follows:

  Prison service staff: Administrative and other staff shown by grade equivalent. Prison service grades shown separately

  Grade level equivalents

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Administrative grades

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  9

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 5

  53

  0

  9

  8

  Grade 6

  98

  5

  14

  0

  Grade 7

  132

  86

  17

  4

  Senior Executive Officer

  332

  97

  71

  25

  Highest Executive Officer

  373

  1

  244

  15

  Executive Officer

  1,413

  6

  885

  56

  Administrative Officer

  529

  15

  1,512

  329

  Administrative Assistant

  1,672

  38

  853

  457

  Total

  4,611

  248

  3,536

  886

  1436

  Prison service staff: Administrative and other staff shown by grade equivalent. Prison service grades shown separately

  Grade level equivalents

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Prison service grades

  Gov 1

  45

  0

  2

  0

  Gov 2

  72

  0

  5

  0

  Gov 3

  111

  0

  16

  0

  Gov 4

  282

  0

  41

  0

  Gov 5

  395

  0

  23

  0

  Gov 5 (APS)

  25

  0

  10

  0

  Principal Officer

  1,265

  0

  46

  0

  Principal Officer (APS)

  29

  1

  22

  0

  Senior Officer

  3,369

  0

  169

  1

  Prison Officer

  17,320

  20

  2,016

  22

  Prison Aux

  1,499

  3

  354

  12

  Total

  24,412

  24

  2,703

  35

  Grand total

  29,023

  272

  6,241

  921

  1 Posts at these levels are centrally managed and the staff concerned are included within the figures for Home Office staff.

  Home Office staff by grade equivalents (including agencies other than the prison service)

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Grade level equivalents

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  24

  0

  4

  0

  Grade 4

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  61

  2

  10

  5

  Grade 6

  76

  0

  9

  4

  Grade 7

  354

  0

  106

  20

  Senior Executive Officer

  475

  3

  123

  31

  Higher Executive Officer

  948

  2

  413

  91

  Executive Officer

  2,081

  13

  1,487

  227

  Administrative Officer

  786

  14

  1,565

  302

  Administrative Assistant

  675

  11

  1,171

  295

  Total

  ,5,495

  45

  4,888

  974

  Prisoners (Repatriation)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for arranging to transfer prisoners held in the United Kingdom, who are Irish citizens, to serve out their sentences in the Irish Republic under the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. [35585]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom ratified the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons in 1985. The Republic of Ireland has not ratified the convention and repatriation of prisoners between the two jurisdictions is not therefore possible.

  Metropolitan Police (Uniforms)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current costs of police uniforms in the Metropolis; how many officers are involved; and if he will make a statement. [33727]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the current cost of a standard police uniform is £500 plus VAT. All 27,909 officers in
  1437
  the Metropolitan police are issued with a uniform: 23,900 are assigned to uniformed duties.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of personnel engaged in work relating to allegations of wrongful conviction. [35725]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The relevant section of the Department deals with allegations of wrongful conviction and with other casework elated to miscarriages of justice. Staffing levels are kept under review in the light of work load, which may fluctuate. There are currently 20 staff engaged on this work and the number is expected shortly to rise to 23.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 491, how many of those applying for asylum upon arrival at Waterloo station since 1 January have subsequently withdrawn their asylum applications and made a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom. [35757]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Of the 173 principal applications for asylum received from people arriving at Waterloo station during the period 1 January to 19 June 1995, as at 17 July six had withdrawn their applications and departed from the United Kingdom prior to a decision being made.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, columns 284–86, how many of those asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers and held in criminal prisons are held in such accommodation because their current behaviour or past history indicates that they require a greater level of control or medical observation than can be provided in immigration service detention accommodation. [35758]

  Mr. Baker
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State or the Home Department to what extent the number of asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers has changed in the past 12 months. [35751]

  Mr. Baker
  Comparable information for the last 12 months is not available. However, the available information is that, as at 3 July 1995, 690 people who had sought asylum at some stage were detained, compared with 616 people as at 31 May 1994.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 405, what progress was made at the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 20 to 21 June on the draft resolution on minimum guarntees for asylum procedures. [35759]

  Mr. Baker
  The resolution on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures was adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 20 to 21 June.
  1438

  C3 Division
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about delays in the processing of cases with C3 division. [35724]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Representations about the handling of cases including the time taken to examine them are made from time to time, usually by petitioners or their representatives in relation to a particular case.

  Detainees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of holding an Immigration Act detainee in the temporary immigration detention centre at Gatwick airport. [35756]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The average weekly cost is approximately £580 per detainee.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 284, how much of the total cost of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers his Department expects to reclaim from carriers in the current financial year. [35754]

  Mr. Baker
  It is forecast that £1.3 million will be reclaimed from carriers in the current financial year in respect of the cost of detaining and escorting people under Immigration Act powers.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 284, what his Department expects the notional cost of holding Immigration Act detainees in (a) Prison Service accommodation and (b) police cells to be in the current financial year. [35753]

  Mr. Baker
  The notional cost of detaining people in Prison Service accommodation is £411 per week, excluding departmental overheads. The estimated notional cost of using Prison Service accommodation for the financial year 1995–96 is approximately £9 million.

  It is not possible to forecast accurately the extent to which it will be necessary to use police cells for detention under Immigration Act powers during the current financial year. The intention remains to keep the use of police cells to a minimum and the increase in the number of places available with the immigration service detention estate will have an important part to play in this.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), of 5 July,Official Report, column 284, which companies have provided short-term accommodation for Immigration Act detainees; where this accommodation is situated; how much each company is paid per detainee place per 24-hour stay; and how many detainee nights were spent in this accommodation in each of the past five years. [34537]

  Mr. Baker
  Private companies which provided short-term accommodation for Immigration Act detainees in the financial year 1994–95, together with their locations, are Maritime and Aviation Security, Newhaven and Harwich; Port of Felixstowe, Hoverspeed, Dover; and
  1439
  Stena Sealink, Newhaven. It is not possible to discover, except at disproportionate cost, how many detainee nights were spent in this accommodation in any of the past five years.

  Information about the cost of detention by private companies is commercially sensitive.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expected total cost to his Department of building the planned new detention centres, for persons held under Immigration Act powers, at(a) Gatwick airport, (b) Manchester airport, (c) Stansted airport and (d) Heathrow airport. [35755]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The cost of building the new detention centres at Gatwick and Manchester airports has been borne by the private sector. It is anticipated that the further planned accommodation will be provided in the same way. There will therefore be no capital cost to the Department, which will instead pay rental charges. These are commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Colin Ivor Dunning
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he instructed the Metropolitan police to undertake inquiries requested by solicitors acting for Colin Ivor Dunning. [35722]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Officials in my Department wrote to the Metropolitan police on 16 December 1994. Further information received from Mr. Dunning's solicitors was passed on to the police by facsimile transmission on 16 May 1995.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to give a decision on the case of Mr. Colin Ivor Dunning. [35726]

  Mr. Baker
  The police report into Mr. Dunning's case was received in the Department last month. Further information was provided by Mr. Dunning's solicitors on 17 July. A decision about the case will be reached as soon as possible.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received an application for the case of Mr. Colin Ivor Dunning to be referred to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968. [35721]

  Mr. Baker
  Representations were received from Mr. Dunning's solicitors on 3 February 1994.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the questions put in the letter dated 26th May, from solicitors acting for Mr. Colin Ivor Dunning. [35723]

  Mr. Baker
  A reply will be sent very soon.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and
  1440
  (c) the number of staff employed at administration grades and the number and percentage of these staff that are women, in his Department and each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35664]

  Mr. Howard
  The information is not available in the form requested but details by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including executive agencies, can be found in table 5 of "Civil Service Statistics" for each year from 1985 to 1994—copies are available in the Library. Details for 1995 will be published later this year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35675]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office is committed to the implementation of the Office of Public Service and Science programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service. In line with the programme, the Department monitors regularly the number of women in each grade, their annual report markings and their performance on promotion boards. Career breaks, flexible working arrangements and subsidised child care are available to assist women who want to combine work with domestic responsibilities. The Home Office is also a founder member of Opportunity 2000, which aims to increase opportunities for women and promote the achievement of a balanced work force.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to come into force; and if he will make a statement. [35679]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering the practicabilities of bringing into force the provisions of part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Court Buildings (Security)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect on the security of court buildings will result from the Home Office scrutiny of police duties; and if he will make a statement [35737]

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendations of the recent efficiency scrutiny, which examiend the administrative burdens on the police in the context of their role in the criminal justice system, are still under consideration.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken, and by whom, to end the police presence at Liverpool combined court centre; when that decision was implemented; how many complaints have been made about that decision; and what security incidents have taken place since that decision was implemented. [35742]

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions regarding the level of policing in public places, for example the Crown court, are operational matters for the chief officer of the force concerned.
  1441

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) 16-year-olds, (b) 15-year-olds and (c) 14-year-olds held in adult prisons for more than 24 hours after being convicted of a section 53 offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in each of the last five years. [36246]

  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. Alun Michael, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the number of (a) 16 year olds, (b) 15 year olds and (c) 14 year olds held in adult prisons for more than 24 hours after being convicted of a section 53 offence under the Children and Young Persons Act in each of the last five years.
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional secure places he intends to provide(a) under the undertaking of February 1991, for 15 and 16-year-olds on remand; (b) for 15 and 16-year-olds on remand in addition to (a), (c) for 15 and 16-year-olds sent to secure accommodation by a court following conviction, (d) for 10 to 14-year-olds on remand, (e) for 10 to 14-year-olds following conviction other than those sentenced to a secure training order and (f) for 12 to 14-year-olds made subject to a secure training order; and what timetable he has set for the provision of the secure places listed above. [36235]

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authority secure places are not designated for specific purposes. Places are made available, as appropriate, from within overall provision for:

  children and young people placed under section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

  juveniles sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; and

  remanded juveniles other than those 15 and 16-year-old boys remanded to a Prison Service establishment.

  A building programme of 170 new secure local authority places is in hand. We expect a majority of these places to be finished in 1996. We are committed to ending the remand of 15 and 16-year-old boys to Prison Service establishments as soon as there are sufficient secure local authority places to accommodate them.

  Five planned secure training centres will provide 200 places for 12 to 14-year-olds subject to a secure training order. Opening dates of the centres will depend on the terms of the contracts. A tendering process is in progress for the first two centres.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the longest time spent in an adult prison on remand in England and Wales by(a) a 14-year-old, (b) a 15-year-old, and (c) a 16-year-old in the current year and in each of the last five years. [36255]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  1442

  British Board of Film Censors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal tenure for senior officials at the British Board of Film Censors; what proposals he has for changing this period; and if he will make a statement. [36182]

  Mr. Maclean
  The British Board of Film Classification is an independent organisation and my right hon. and learned Friend has no responsibility for its internal affairs.

  Reconviction Rates
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reconviction rates of juveniles, young adults and adults for(a) 1993 and (b) 1994. [36252]

  Mr. Maclean
  Reconviction rates for 1993 and 1994 are not yet available. Information for 1991 and earlier years is given in chapter 10 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1993" and in chapter 11 of "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Prisoners (Disciplinary Offences)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been placed on report for disciplinary offences from 1 September 1994 to 30 June 1995 at(a) the Wolds, (b) Blakenhurst, (c) Doncaster and (d) Buckley Hall prisons. [36157]

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners placed on report for disciplinary offences from 1 September 1994 to 30 June 1995 at the Wolds, Blakenhurst, Doncaster and Buckley Hall prisons.
  The available information is for the number of adjudication charges heard during this period and is shown in the attached table.

  Adjudication charges heard 1 September 1994 to 30 June 19951

  Number

  The Wolds

  682

  Blakenhurst

  1,655

  Doncaster

  3,036

  Buckley Hall2

  169

  1 Provisional

  2 Opened December 1994.

  Church of Scientology
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an investigation into the effects on young people in the United Kingdom of the Church of Scientology; and if he will make a statement. [35868]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government have no plans for an inquiry.
  1443

  Video Classifications
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations have taken place with the video industry about retrospective review of video classifications; how the review will take place; when he expects to bring forward an order setting out statutory arrangements for the review before the House; and if he will make a statement. [36097]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have had extensive consultations with the video industry about the proposed arrangements for reviewing previously classified videos. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes shortly to make an order under section 90 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 setting out the practical arrangements.

  Former Prison Service Staff
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by company the number of ex-Prison Service personnel who now work for private prison and escort contractors, the dates on which they joined, and their present duties with those companies. [36200]

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of former Prison Service personnel who now work for companies running contractually managed prisons and court escort services, the dates on which they joined and their present duties with those companies.
  Much of the information requested is unavailable centrally, as it is for the contractors to recruit, train and employ their own staff.
  Under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the directors of contractually managed prisons have to be approved by the Home Secretary. The Directors of Blankenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster and Wolds prisons were all previously employed by the Prison Service.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to the Prison Service of training staff who have left the Prison Service to join private prison and escort contractors. [36201]

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the cost to the Prison Service of training staff who have left the Prison Service join private prisons and escort contractors.
  The information requested is not available as we do not, in general, record details of the jobs subsequently taken by staff who have resigned or retired from the prison Service. Staff below grade 3 level are only required to seek approval for outside employment in certain specified circumstances, for a period of two years after leaving Crown employment.
  1444

  Crime Statistics
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the change in reported crimes of vandalism and theft between 1979 and 1994. [36307]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is in terms of notifiable offences of criminal damage and theft recorded by the police in England and Wales and is contained in the following table:

  Year

  Change

  Number of offences

  19791

  1994

  Number

  Percentage

  Criminal damage

  320,469

  928,127

  +607,658

  +190

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  1,416,143

  2,559,023

  +1,142,880

  +81

  1 Figures for 1979 are not strictly comparable with those for later years because of changes to improve the consistency of recording multiple, continuous and repeated offences.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of offences recorded in England and Wales in 1993 and 1994 in total and for(a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary, (e) fraud and forgery, (f) criminal damage, (g) theft from the person, (h) theft from a shop, (i) theft of motor vehicle, (j) theft from motor vehicle, (k) theft of a pedal cycle, (l) handling and (m) other theft. [36250]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 5/95 "Notifiable Offences, England and Wales 1994", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Blue Police Boxes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the locations of the remaining in-situ blue police boxes. [35954]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Super Maximum Security Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with private prison contractors or consultants regarding a future super maximum security prison; and if he will make a statement. [36195]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Police Cautions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many local authority areas help and advice is provided to young people(a) under 18 and (b) over 18 years who are cautioned; and if he will provide comparable information for each of the last three years. [36267]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.
  1445

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are on private individuals in possession of a valid firearms licence bringing guns bought abroad into the United Kingdom. [36128]

  Mr. Maclean
  Prior authorisation for the purchase of the firearm in question, noted on the firearm certificate by the local chief officer of police, is required. Where the firearm is purchased in another EC state, a transfer licence is required. If the firearm is imported from outside the EC, it is necessary to satisfy the import licensing controls administered by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Homicide
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government intend to respond to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on the year and a day rule in homicide. [36344]

  Mr. Howard
  We have today published our response to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Copies of the response are available in the Vote Office.

  We agree with the Committee that the year and a day rule should be abolished. This will entail difficult decisions for prosecutors in some cases, and we have decided that the consent of the Attorney-General should be required for a homicide prosecution where either the defendant has previously been convicted of another offence for the injury which resulted in death, or there has been an interval of three years or more between the injury and death.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of funding given by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies in the financial year 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [36345]

  Mr. Howard
  Central Government funding of voluntary organisations in 1993–94 amounted to £3,567 million. Of this, £2,955 million was payments to housing associations and £612 million went directly to voluntary organisations to support the provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects. This latter figure shows that Government funding of the voluntary sector excluding housing associations increased in cash terms by 9 per cent. and in real terms by 5 per cent. over the level of provision in 1992–93.

  The amount spent by each Department in 1993–94 was as follows:

  £

  Attorney General's Office (Crown Prosecution Service)

  Direct grants

  20,000

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Direct grants

  242,500

  Defence

  Direct grants

  18,919,259

  1446

  £

  Education

  Direct grants

  5,907,649

  Employment

  Direct grants

  50,057,200

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  38,108

  Environment

  Direct grants

  27,981,147

  Countryside Commission

  4,178,000

  English Nature

  804,183

  Housing Corporations

  2,510,000,000

  Rural Development Commission

  4,743,870

  Urban Development Corporations

  11,036,000

  Urban Programme

  28,305,927

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Direct grants

  3,594,248

  Health

  Direct grants

  49,433,555

  Alcohol and drug misuse

  2,300,000

  Health Education Authority

  1,250,000

  Home Office

  Direct grants

  59,204,588

  Commission for Racial Equality

  5,213,000

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Direct grants

  182,500

  Legal Aid Board

  942,052

  National Heritage

  Direct grants

  832,420

  Sports Council

  20,218,645

  Northern Ireland Office

  Direct grants

  19,764,035

  Housing associations

  49,292,631

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  728,484

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  1,421,339

  Overseas Development Administration

  Direct grants

  158,499,755

  Scottish Office

  Direct grants

  24,230,855

  Highland and Islands Enterprise

  1,075,000

  Housing associations

  273,302,000

  Mental Illness Specific Grant

  5,141,834

  Scottish Arts Council

  176,164

  Scottish National Heritage

  2,900,000

  Sports Council for Scotland

  1,897,932

  Urban Programme

  48,062,000

  Social Security

  Direct grants

  13,109,895

  Trade and Industry

  Direct grants

  14,434,830

  Transport

  Direct grants

  422,000

  Welsh Office

  Direct grants

  14,070,944

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  285,000

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  575,093

  Flexible Community Care

  1,602,508

  Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru)

  122,082,000

  Rural Initiative

  1,705,984

  1447

  £

  Sports Council for Wales

  1,645,080

  Urban Programme

  4,631,691

  Wales Tourist Board

  287,140

  Welsh Development Agency

  398,000

  Grand total

  3,567,097,045

  These figures have been collected and presented as far as possible on the same basis as the 1992–93 figures. We intend to review the way in which the data are collected and presented before announcing Government funding of the voluntary sector in 1994–95.

  I shall shortly be placing in the Library a list of voluntary bodies funded by the Government in 1993–94, other than those funded under housing programmes and the urban programme or via non-departmental public bodies.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Boundary Commission has to conduct a supplementary review of European parliamentary constituencies in Wales. [36396]

  Mr. Howard
  The commission has informed me that it intends to consider making a supplementary report on the European parliamentary constituencies in Wales, and to commence forthwith a general review of the European parliamentary constituencies in Wales.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the Metropolitan Police Committee meets in private; and if he will make a statement. [35183]

  Mr. Maclean
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 3 July,Official Report, column 26. Policy advice to Ministers is confidential.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list all the members of the Metropolitan Police Committee; how they were chose; and what were their attributes and qualifications for being appointed to the committee; [35054]

  (2) if he will make public (a) all the recommendations of the Metropolitan Police Committee and (b) whether they have been accepted or rejected. [35055]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 9 February to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates),Official Report, columns 382–83; to the answer I gave on 20 February to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), Official Report, column 19; and to the answer I gave on 3 July to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, Official Report, column 26.

  Child Abuse (Witnesses)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation addressing the treatment of child witnesses in cases of child abuse. [35323]
  1448
  Mr. Maclean
  We have no present plans to amend the law in this area. We are, however, currently considering the evaluation of the child evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which was carried out by Professor Graham Davies.

  Abdul Qayyum Raja
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if prisoner Abdul Qayyum Raja, C43848, Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin, has been given full access to all reports which presently determine his status as a category A prisoner; [35286]

  (2) for what reasons the status of prisoner Abdul Qayyum Raja, C43848, Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin remains category A; and when he expects this status will change. [35285]

  Mrs. Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Roger Godsiff, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Mr. Abdul Qayyum Raja, a category A prisoner at Long Lartin prison.
  It is not the policy of the Prison Service to provide prisoners or their representatives with copies of reports prepared for the purposes of security category reviews. In accordance with the High Court judgement, in December 1993, in the case of Regina v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex-parte Duggan, a prisoner is, subject to any necessary exceptions arising out of public interest immunity, informed of the gist of any matter of fact and/or opinion relevant to the determination of his security category; and given reasons for any decision which results in him remaining as a category A prisoner.
  Mr. Raja's security category was reviewed by the category A Committee on 21 June. The Committee's recommendations will shortly be submitted to the Prison Service Director of Security for consideration. Mr. Raja will be informed of the outcome as soon as practicable. His security category was previously reviewed in October last year when it was decided that he should remain as a category A prisoner. Mr. Raja was provided with the reasons for that decision.

  Public Houses (Children's Certificates)
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of conditions being imposed by magistrates when issuing children's certificates. [35333]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We hope to complete our assessment of evidence of concerns about the operation of the system of children's certificates by the early autumn.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action his Department is taking to support the restrictions on smoking associated with children's certificates in pubs granted by magistrates; [35020]

  (2) what guidelines his Department has issued to magistrates regarding the issuing of children's certificates in pubs and restrictions on smoking. [35065]

  Mr. Baker
  It would not be proper for us to seek to intervene in the exercise by the licensing justices of their statutory discretion to attach specific conditions to the
  1449
  grant of children's certificates, whether as to smoking or on other matters.

  Prisoners (Northern Ireland Residents)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons normally resident in Northern Ireland are currently serving sentences in prisons in Great Britain. [35592]

  Mrs. 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. Roy Beggs, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many persons normally resident in Northern Ireland are currently serving sentences in prisons in Great Britain.
  No information is available centrally for England and Wales regarding a person's place of residence before being committed to custody. Information for Scotland may possibly be obtained from the Scottish Office.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 will be brought into effect. [35326]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans to bring into force any of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 relating to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Clause 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill currently before Parliament will repeal sections 108 to 117 of, and schedules 6 and 7 to, the 1988 Act. Clause 7 of the Bill will, however, introduce a provision similar to section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Prisons (Fire Prevention)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date a fire prevention survey last took place in each prison in England and Wales. [34762]

  Mrs. 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 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking the date a fire prevention survey last took place in each prison in England and Wales.
  Fire prevention surveys have been carried out in most prisons by local fire brigades as part of their familiarisation procedures. These surveys may be of a part or all of the establishment.
  The Prison Service Fire Safety Section was formed in 1992 and fire safety advisers from the section paid preliminary visits to all establishments. A total of 52 prisons have subsequently received comprehensive fire prevention inspections and reports prepared and distributed to relevant departments.
  The dates of the last fire brigade survey and Fire Safety Section inspections are set out in the attached table.
  1450

  Establishment

  Date of last survey by local fire brigade

  Date of prison service fire safety section survey

  Acklington

  10 February 1989

  May 1994

  Albany

  —

  —

  Aldington

  5 January 1987

  August 1993

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  Askham Grange

  9 December 1988

  —

  Aylesbury

  14 December 1989

  —

  Bedford

  19 June 1989

  —

  Belmarsh

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  23 May 1989

  —

  Blakenhurst

  —

  June 1993

  Blantyre House

  7 March 1989

  April 1994

  Blundeston

  1 November 1988

  —

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  Bristol

  27 February 1986

  —

  Brixton

  1 June 1987

  June 1993

  Brockhill

  1 June 1986

  December 1933

  Buckley Hall

  —

  —

  Bullingdon

  —

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  July 1993

  Camp Hill

  3 May 1989

  —

  Canterbury

  1 April 1986

  February 1994

  Cardiff

  31 January 1989

  February 1993

  Castington

  8 March 1988

  September 1994

  Channings Wood

  10 November 1989

  —

  Chelmsford

  6 January 1989

  —

  Coldingley

  —

  April 1993

  Cookham Wood

  9 May 1989

  July 1995

  Dartmoor

  1 October 1991

  September 1994

  Deerbolt

  18 January 1989

  July 1995

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  Dorchester

  5 December 1988

  —

  Dover

  —

  —

  Downview

  —

  —

  Drakehall

  11 April 1988

  —

  Durham

  15 May 19989

  —

  East Sutton Park

  1 March 1990

  July 1995

  Eastwood Park

  24 July 1990

  —

  Elmley

  —

  —

  Erlestoke

  27 June 1988

  —

  Everthorpe

  23 June 1989

  March 1994

  Exeter

  16 September 1991

  March 1993

  Featherstone

  —

  —

  Feltham

  25 May 1989

  —

  Finnamore Wood

  1 June 1989

  —

  Ford

  2 May 1989

  March 1994

  Frankland

  7 July 1988

  January 1993

  Full Sutton

  5 October 1988

  March 1994

  Garth

  18 November 1988

  April 1993

  Gartree

  10 April 1989

  February 1993

  Glen Parva

  11 August 1989

  June 1994

  Gloucester

  1 November 1986

  —

  Grendon

  17 October 1991

  —

  Guys Marsh

  7 January 1987

  —

  Haslar

  8 September 1989

  —

  Hatfield

  14 June 1989

  —

  Haverigg

  1 January 1990

  —

  Hewell Grange

  26 September 1990

  —

  Highdown

  —

  —

  Highpoint

  25 July 1990

  —

  Hindley

  9 August 1988

  February 1995

  Hollesley Bay

  —

  August 1994

  Holloway

  —

  January 1994

  Holme House

  —

  —

  Hull

  5 May 1989

  June 1993

  Huntercombe

  —

  June 1993

  Kingston

  17 August 1988

  —

  Kirkham

  31 October 1985

  —

  Kirklevington

  1 November 1990

  —

  Lancaster

  23 January 1989

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  —

  Latchmere House

  —

  1 December 1994

  Leeds

  12 August 1991

  —

  1451

  Establishment

  Date of last survey by local fire brigade

  Date of prison service fire safety section survey

  Leicester

  1 April 1989

  March 1993

  Lewes

  5 June 1989

  —

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  Lincoln

  29 March 1989

  —

  Lindholme

  10 October 1991

  —

  Littlehey

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  4 November 1987

  —

  Long Lartin

  29 April 1989

  —

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  —

  Manchester

  9 March 1989

  —

  Moorland

  —

  —

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  The Mount

  1987

  —

  New Hall

  8 December 1988

  March 1995

  Northallerton

  12 April 1988

  —

  Northeye

  27 November 1989

  —

  North Sea Camp

  19 April 1990

  —

  Norwich

  —

  September 1992

  Nottingham

  1 May 1990

  —

  Onley

  23 October 1987

  —

  Oxford

  —

  January 1994

  Parkhurst

  8 November 1988

  September 1994

  Pentonville

  —

  —

  Portland

  —

  June 1993

  Preston

  13 April 1987

  May 1993

  Pucklechurch

  28 September 1988

  —

  Ranby

  —

  August 1994

  Reading

  9 January 1990

  —

  Risley

  13 January 1987

  September 1993

  Rochester

  1 May 1987

  —

  Rudgate

  1 October 19

  July 1993

  Send

  1 December 1989

  March 1993

  Shepton Mallet

  28 November 1989

  —

  Shrewsbury

  10 January 1989

  —

  Stafford

  18 April 1988

  —

  Standford Hill

  2 September 1988

  —

  Stocken

  10 April 1989

  February 1993

  Stoke Heath

  3 October 1988

  —

  Styal

  6 November 1986

  March 1993

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  —

  September 1994

  Swaleside

  11 July 1988

  —

  Swansea

  22 February 1990

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  —

  —

  Thorn Cross

  —

  February 1994

  Thorp Arch

  19 December 1989

  —

  Usk/Prescoed

  —

  March 1994

  The Verne

  31 October 1990

  —

  Wakefield

  9 April 1986

  October 1993

  Wandsworth

  —

  December 1994

  Wayland

  14 August 1990

  —

  Wellingborough

  13 April 1987

  February 1993

  Werrington

  23 December 1987

  July 1995

  Wetherby

  1 October 1986

  December 1994

  Whatton

  10 November 1989

  July 1994

  Whitemoor

  —

  —

  Winchester

  9 August 1985

  January 1993

  The Wolds

  —

  —

  Woodhill

  —

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  24 May 1991

  —

  Wymott

  14 March 1988

  —

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time qualified fire officers are employed at each prison in England and Wales. [34761]

  Mrs. 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.
  1452
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary of has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of full-time qualified fire officers employed at each prison in England and Wales.There are no fire officers holding recognised fire safety qualifications employed on a full-time basis in prisons in England and Wales. All prison governors are however required to appoint a fire officer, the majority of these having part-time duties in relation to fire safety.Prison fire officers are required to attend an approved fire brigade training course on fire awareness.The Prison Service also has a Fire Safety Section comprising a senor fire safety adviser and three area fire advisers all holding statutory and professional qualifications. This section advises the Prison Service on all fire matters and carries out full fire prevention surveys.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [34679]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has used the World Wide Web server known as "www.open.gov.uk:" since March 1995 to publish some summary statistics about crime and the criminal justice system, and information about statistical publications. Home Office press notices, and those of the national criminal intelligence service and the Police Complaints Authority, are made available on the Internet via a linked server provided by the Central Office of Information since April 1995. Consideration is currently being given to what further information about the work of the Home Office might be published on the Internet.

  Stops and Searches
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total people stopped and searched by the police during the 12 months from April 1994 to March 1995 in each police force in England, Wales and Scotland were(a) white, (b) black, (c) Asian, (d) of other ethnic origin and (e) of unknown ethnic origin. [34751]

  Mr. Maclean
  At present, information collated on stops and searches distinguishes only between white and ethnic minority persons. Statistics for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  I understand that in Scotland there are no common procedures for monitoring the ethnic origin of those people stopped and searched by the police.

  Knives
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of convictions in magistrates courts governing the Greater London area over the carrying of a knife as an offensive weapon in the first six months of 1995. [34764]
  1453
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on 1995 court proceedings data will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [34700]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom 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 the small firms sector.

  Since July 1994, the Home Office has demonstrated its continued commitment to helping small businesses by deregulating across a wide range of areas affecting business. Steps taken have included:
  Shopping hours: restrictions on shopping hours have been relaxed through the implementation of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and by removing restrictions on weekday shopping hours.
  Liquor licensing: accompanied children under 14 are now allowed into the bars of suitable licensed premises and we have introduced the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill to abolish the compulsory afternoon break in Sunday licensing hours.
  Gambling: provision has been made for Sunday racing with on-and off- course betting; some of the restrictions on betting offices have been removed; the maximum prize in the national bingo game has been increased from £75,000 to £250,000; and the first use has been made of the deregulation order-making power with a view to relaxing the rules on greyhound racing.
  Charities: close attention has been paid to the recommendations of the charities and voluntary organisations task force and to comments received during consultation on the draft regulations and other intended provisions, for example new controls on fund-raising—which was brought into force 1 March 1995—and charity accounting—intended to be brought into force 1 March 1996.
  Other areas: we have also removed the prohibition on admission charges to sporting events and activities on Sundays, and introduced a draft deregulation order permitting charging for public dancing on a Sunday.

  The Government's White Paper on competitiveness in May 1995 set out some of our proposals for the further use of the deregulation order-making power and enforcement powers. The Government hope to be in a position soon to announce their views following the inter-departmental scrutiny of fire safety Legislation and enforcement.

  Much of the deregulatory work undertaken in the past year in the Home Office has taken forward work which had been started in the previous 12 months. This had included the introduced of the Sunday Trading Bill, simplifying various aspects of the law on gambling, and
  1454
  the introduction of a range of measures in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, including proposals for a system of children's certificates in licensed premises, changes in weekday shopping hours, changes to the law in charities and to enable betting on Sundays.

  Other work undertaken by the Home Office which benefits small businesses includes crime prevention and assisting firms who wish to bid for Home Office business.

  On crime prevention, we have continued to help small businesses to protect themselves against crime. In January this year, the Retail Action Group, the sub-group of the National Board for Crime Prevention—a non-departmental public body—published guides for shopkeepers on preventing robbery and burglary. Similar guides on preventing customer theft, violence to staff and external fraud will be published in due course. The Home Office crime prevention unit has published a research paper entitled "Crime on Industrial Estates", which incudes an assessment of the relevant security measures that are available.

  On procurement, the Home Office gives encouragement and assistance to small businesses wherever possible. To that end, we provide potential suppliers to the Department with the booklet "Selling to the Home Office", which details the Department's purchasing needs and gives specific contact points for initial approaches. A central contact point is also available. The Home Office does not, however, hold detailed information on the volume of business placed with small firms.

  On performance indicators, over 30 Home Office regulations which have an impact on business have been identified as possible candidates for amendment or repeal.

  Prisoners (Families)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on keeping prisoners in suitable accommodation as close to their families as possible; and what are the exceptions to that policy. [34018]

  Mrs. 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. Tony Worthington, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the policy on keeping prisoners in suitable accommodation as close to their families as possible and the exceptions to that policy.
  The 1991 White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" confirmed the Prison Service's commitment to preparing prisoners for release by providing opportunities where practicable for prisoners to maintain links with their families. The White Paper also endorsed the principle of holding prisoners as close to their homes as possible, subject to consideration of their status, security category, behaviour and sentence needs.
  The Prison Service continues to adhere to this policy although, although the pressure of numbers often makes this difficult. The Service's plans for the development of the prison estate are directed to providing a better match between accommodation needs and provision in each area of the country, and to providing greater flexibility in the use of accommodation.
  1455

  Northern Ireland Peace Process
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department has made or proposes to make to the Northern Ireland peace process. [34021]

  Mr. Howard
  Government policy towards Northern Ireland is co-ordinated by the Northern Ireland Office. My Department in common with other Departments, contributes as necessary according to its departmental responsibilities.

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy exists within the Prison Service for training and advice for home leave by prison inmates. [34080]

  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 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about policy on training and advice for home leave.Following the Home Secretary's announcement on 18 November last year the existing arrangements for home leave and temporary release have been replaced by a new system of release on temporary licence, which came into effect on 25 April.Before its implementation, an Instruction to Governors (36/1995) setting out detailed guidance on the operation of the new scheme was issued to all establishments. A copy of this Instruction is in the Library of the House.In addition, a series of fifteen regional training seminars, were held for representatives from all prisons. These were also attended by representatives of local police and probation services. Those attending the seminars were provided with training material suitable for other members of staff in their organisations.There are three helpline telephone numbers in operation at Prison Service Headquarters to give advice and assistance on the new policy to prison staff, as well as the police and probation services. A pocket handbook on the new scheme for prison staff is now being prepared for distribution.

  Prisoners (Ages)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the age of the oldest(a) man and (b) woman prison inmate being held in a prison in England and Wales; what sentences they are serving; and what period of those sentences have now been served. [34078]

  Mrs. Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Penile Plethysmograph Tests
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) if he will list the Prison Service establishments at which the equipment is available for conducting penile plethysmograph tests; [32249]

  (2) how many plethysmograph tests have been carried out in Prison Service establishments (a) during 1994 and (b) during 1995 to the latest convenient date; [32250]

  (3) under what circumstances a prisoner not convicted of a sexual offence or with a spent conviction for such an
  1456
  offence may be made to take a penile plethysmograph test; on how many occasions this has occurred; and what right of appeal prisoners have against such decisions. [32248]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. George Howarth, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Penile Plethysmograph (PPG) testing.PPG is one element in the comprehensive process of assessment which precedes the Sex Offender Treatment Programme. Prisoners who are believed to present a risk of future sex offending may be asked to participate in assessment so that appropriate treatment can be offered to them, but their participation is voluntary. No prisoners have been or would be forced to participate.Concern about the risk of future sex offending is normally based on the nature of the offence for which the offender is serving a prison sentence. This might be either a conviction for a sexual offence or for a murder which involved a sexual element. Previous convictions are also taken into account as these are known to be predictive of future sexual offending.During the financial year ending 31 March 1995, 103 prisoners took the PPG test. Of these, there were 10 prisoners who had not been convicted of a sex offence but who were thought to pose a risk of future sexual offending for other reasons.The following establishments have the equipment available for conducting PPG tests: Albany, Dartmoor, Full Sutton, Leyhill, Maidstone, Swinfen Hall, Wakefield, Wandsworth and Whitemoor.

  Terrorist Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 594, if he will list the names of the five life prisoners convicted for terrorist offences to whom he referred. [35602]

  Mrs. Widdecombe
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The five life sentence prisoners convicted for terrorist offences referred to in my answer of 12 July are: Sean Kinsella, Brendan Dowd, Stephen Nordonne, Paul Norney and Noel Gibson.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if competitive tendering in the accounting, auditing and consulting professions is a policy aim of the Government in relation to charities and voluntary organisations in receipt of statutory funding. [35048]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office looks to the voluntary sector organisations which it funds to have in place effective arrangements for all the services it requires, including accounting, audit and consultancy services. It is for the organisation concerned to decide whether it is appropriate to proceed by way of competitive tendering in obtaining these services.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Andrew Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the attendance figures
  1457
  for the financial year ended 31 March reported by the national museums and galleries for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for the preceding year. [16754]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to the reply, 3 April 1995, Official Report, columns 939–41]: I list the actual numbers of visits to the 11 national museums and galleries in England for which I am responsible for the financial year ended 31 March 1995.

  Number of visits in 1993–94 (million)

  Number of visits in 1994–95 (million)

  percentage increase/decrease over the previous year

  British Museum

  6.03

  6.24

  +3.5

  Imperial War Museum

  1.19

  1.27

  +6.7

  National Gallery

  4.02

  4.36

  8.5

  National Maritime Museum

  0.53

  0.62

  +17

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1.34

  1.34

  —

  National Portrait Gallery

  0.79

  0.95

  +20

  National History Museum

  1.74

  1.64

  -5.7

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  2.67

  2.51

  -6

  Tate Gallery

  2.74

  2.75

  +0.4

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.58

  1.60

  +1.3

  Wallace Collection

  0.15

  0.15

  —

  Total

  22.78

  23.43

  2.8

  It is not possible to identify the number of visits to the royal armouries because it at present forms part of the Tower of London.

  Sport
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information she has about the financing of sport in other advanced countries. [36218]

  Mr. Sproat
  Comprehensive information on the financing of sport in other countries is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funds are available for improving(a) sports facilities, (b) sports equipment and (c) sports tuition in Southwark. [35935]

  Mr. Sproat
  Funding for improving sports facilities, sports equipment and sports tuition throughout the country is available from the Sports Council, Sportsmatch, and the Foundation for Sport and Arts. Capital projects are also eligible for funding from the national lottery.

  Proposals in the sports policy statement, published last Friday, include increased investment in coaching for teachers with the opportunity for them to acquire coaching qualifications, a further £1 million to be provided by the Sports Council for coaching opportunities via the National Coaching. Foundation and the governing bodies of sport,
  1458
  and a new £2 million challenge fund for promoting links between schools and clubs.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the means by which funding for mass participation in sport will be generated as a result of changes to the Sports Council; and what the main sources of income are expected to be. [34769]

  Mr. Sproat
  I would expect local authorities to continue to encourage sporting and recreational opportunities for the public at large as they always have done. The Sports Council is not a significant provider in this area—the main provision has always been by local authorities, with expenditure of approximately £950 million. Our aim is that the Sports Council should operate in the areas to which it is uniquely suited and can add greatest value to the overall picture. Of course, the Sports Council will consider applications to the national lottery from local authorities and others in support of projects offering a wider appeal.

  Library Service
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what grounds the report by management consultants KPMG Peat Marwick into the Library Service has not been published; what conclusions the report reached in respect of the case for compulsory contracting out of the library service; and what is her policy in respect of these conclusions. [35449]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  I am publishing the report on contracting out in public libraries prepared to my Department's brief by the consultants KPMG and CPI today.

  The preparation of the report involved experts from public libraries and local authorities. But I now wish to open up the issue for wider public consultation. It is important that this issue is considered in the wider context of the future direction of the public library service. So this report will clearly need to be seen in the light of other developments such as the recommendations of the Aslib review of public libraries in England and Wales—for example on what should constitute the core of a public library service. In this context I wish to make clear the Government's continuing commitment to a public library service, the core of which remains free of charge to the user.

  To allow sufficient time for consideration of this detailed report, I suggest that comments reach my Department by 31 October 1995.

  I should state that at this stage the Government has no firm views on the findings of the KPMG/CPI report. We will be considering them in the light of comments received, and conclusions emerging from other pieces of work such as the Aslib report. I expect to make a more detailed statement following the end of the consultation period.

  I am placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Stephen Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many national lottery tickets are
  1459
  sold each week from outlets in the London borough of Newham. [35882]

  Mr. Sproat
  While this is an operational matter for the director general of the National Lottery, I understand that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what proportion of applications for national lottery funding have come from areas of social and economic deprivation; and what plans she has to encourage such applications; [35120]

  (2) pursuant to the reply of 26 June to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, Official Report, column 495, if she will analyse by category and region the applications for national lottery funding. [35218]

  Mr. Sproat
  Information relating to applications for national lottery funding is not held by this Department. A list of all awards made and project locations was placed in the Library of the House on 26 June. A similar report will be produced and placed in the Library of the House every month.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will make a statement on the use of national lottery money for financing developments in the state sector, with particular reference to sport in schools; [36119]

  (2) how much money has been provided by the lottery fund to date to provide public facilities in deprived areas. [36225]

  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, how many grants of national lottery funding have been made to date to applicants from the London borough of Newham; how much money was awarded in each case; and what proportion of the total amount of grants these grants represent. [35881]

  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money will be distributed to good causes from the national lottery in 1995; how much will go to(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland; how much is not geographically identifiable; and if she will make a statement. [34944]

  Mr. Sproat
  The amount distributed to good causes from the proceeds of the national lottery is dependent on the number and quality of the applications put to the eleven distributing bodies.

  Lappa Valley Railway Company
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what financial support her Department has made available to Lappa Valley Railway Company since April 1992. [35849]
  1460
  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in her Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985; [35682]

  (2) what measures her Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within her Department and its executive agencies. [35662]

  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to invite proposals for community radio stations in Southampton; and when he expects a decision to be taken on the successful applicant. [35229]

  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  London Film Commission and Royal Palaces
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when she intends to announce the amount and duration of pump-priming funding for the London Film Commission; what sum she intends to allocate; and what budget heading it will come from; [35709]

  (2) pursuant to her answer from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Mr. McNamara) of 20 June, Official Report, column 178, regarding his future plans for privatisation in the Department or its departmental agencies, if she will indicate on what grounds the privatisation proposals at the historic royal palaces were excluded from the list. [36330]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  BBC Governors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many vacancies exist for BBC governors; and when she proposes to have them filled. [36181]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are at present three vacancies on the BBC board of governors. Replacement candidates for these vacancies are being considered and an announcement will be made shortly.
  1461

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35467]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage currently employs staff as shown in the table. The figures exclude staff from the Department's two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Royal Parks Agency.

  Male

  Female

  Grade

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  G1A

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  G3

  3

  nil

  1

  nil

  G4

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  G5

  14

  nil

  5

  nil

  G6

  5

  nil

  2

  nil

  G7

  33

  nil

  12

  3

  SEO

  10

  nil

  6

  nil

  HEO

  39

  nil

  24

  3

  HEO(D)

  2

  nil

  2

  nil

  EO

  34

  nil

  25

  2

  AO

  27

  nil

  27

  nil

  AA

  10

  nil

  19

  nil

  CUR E

  nil

  nil

  2

  nil

  CUR F

  2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  CUR G

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  LIB

  1

  nil

  1

  nil

  SIO

  3

  nil

  1

  nil

  10

  2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  TYP

  nil

  nil

  8

  nil

  PS

  nil

  nil

  15

  nil

  SPS

  nil

  nil

  6

  nil

  SPTO

  1

  nil

  1

  nil

  STOF

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  MTIII

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  SGB 1

  nil

  nil

  1

  nil

  SGB 2

  2

  nil

  7

  nil

  Total

  192

  nil

  166

  8

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the achievements of(a) her policies and (b) her Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34698]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. Government continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate. The White Paper, "Competitiveness—Forging Ahead" Cm 2867 published in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures the Government are taking to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  My Department has a particular interest in two sectors of the economy in which small firms play a substantial role. These are television and audio-visual media production and tourism. The Secretary of State established
  1462
  a broadcasting and audio-visual sponsorship division in my Department in April 1995, to work in partnership with the firms in the sector, as detailed in my right hon. Friend's answer to the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 19 June, Official Report, column 47.

  Discussions with other Government Departments to reduce the burden of regulations affecting the tourism industry have continued since last year. In particular, my Department has had a major input to the Department of Transport's review of sign posting regulations, opening eligibility to a wider range of tourism businesses, including smaller establishments. As part of our strategy to assist the industry in improving competitiveness, set out in "Tourism; Competing with the Best", we have launched a "benchmarking" initiative for the small hotel sector. A sample of some 80 hotels with between 10 and 50 bedrooms will participate in an exercise to establish "benchmarks". The results will be published so that hoteliers can compare their performance with others, particularly the excellent performers. Guidance will be published to help them to understand what they need to do to improve the quality of their product and their own profitability.

  The national lottery, which began in November 1994, has also benefited many small business; in particular the thousands of small retailers who sell tickets, and businesses offering ancillary services to the lottery operators.

  My Department intends to continue its work to reduce legislation and administrative burdens on business, and to improve its links and consultation arrangements with businesses operating within the areas where I have a policy interest.

  Rugby Union Football
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the effect on the culture and traditions of rugby union football of the actions of media owners, with special reference to Rupert Murdoch; and what measures she proposes to take in respect of such actions. [35205]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have made no such assessment and have no plans to take any measures in respect of such actions.

  Sport (Television)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is her policy in respect of requiring key national sport events to be shown live on national television; [36226]

  (2) what plans she has to ensure that major sporting events are shown live on terrestrial television. [36183]

  Mr. Sproat
  Whether any particular sporting events are shown live on television is a matter for the broadcasters concerned.

  Sports (Drugs)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the action being taken to promote anti-drug activities inside British sport; and if he will make a statement; [34449]
  1463
  (2) what assessment she has made of the efficiency of the current drug testing programme run by the Sports Council. [34448]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have made no specific assessment of the Sports Council's drug testing programme, but am confident that, combined with its education and information programmes, it provides an efficient and effective method of controlling drug abuse in sport in the United Kingdom. This view was endorsed by the Sports Council's survey of elite competitors, a summary of which was published on 7 July. The council is also currently carrying out a consultation exercise aimed at enhancing and improving its existing doping control programmes.

  Ethiopian Manuscripts
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans exist to return to Ethiopia the ecclesiastical manuscripts, artifacts an other items taken by the British Army from Ethiopia in 1868 and currently stored in the British Library, India Office collections and the royal library at Windsor castle. [35275]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are no plans at present to return to Ethiopia objects obtained in 1868 which are in the British Library, including the India Office collections.

  The disposal of objects in the royal collections is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's the Queen.

  BBC
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to produce the Government's plans for the future of the BBC's transmission services. [35706]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer given to the hon, Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 13 July 1995,Official Report, column 785.

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in her Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34582]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The total number of days lost through sick absence in my Department in the last 12 months was 2,190 days, including absences which spanned weekends and bank holidays. This represents 2.7 per cent. of the total number of working days in the Department during the last 12 month period.

  The cost of this absence could only be calculated at disproportionate cost.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements she will make to reply to the letter sent by Norman Robson of 167 Ninian Park road, Riverside, Cardiff, to the Millennium 1464
  Commission dated 4 July referring to an unanswered question in previous letters concerning the Commission's policy and procedures for establishing a degree of public support for projects seeking grant aid; and what is her policy on the speed with which letters to the Millennium Commission should be answered. [35983]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has for ending the annual levy on Channel 4 for ITV. [36104]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans to change the Channel 4 funding formula set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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 known 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. [34681]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage is aware of the pilot Government World Wide Web server. The Department is considering the publication of material on the World Wide Web and DNH press notices are already available on the World Wide Web from the COI on http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GHE/GHE.html.

  Computer Equipment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to her Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34557]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The Department of National Heritage was established on 13 April 1992 and the Royal Parks Agency was established on 1 April 1993 so figures are only available from those dates. The top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to the Department of National Heritage and its agencies were:

  £

  Sema

  1,280,000.00

  MHG Systems

  155,000.00

  Fraser Associates

  133,000.00

  Select Ticketing

  111,000.00

  Apricot

  74,000.00

  TET

  42,000.00

  Sky High Computers

  34,000.00

  Dell

  34,000.00

  IBEX

  25,000.00

  INMAC

  22,500.00

  1465

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many redundancies occurred in her Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34583]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: No redundancies have occurred in my Department over the last 12 months.

  Unfair Dismissals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against her Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34581]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: No unfair dismissal cases were brought against my Department during the last 12 months.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many consultants have been asked to review the security services at Kensington palace; what they recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of consultants used. [36314]

  (2) how much money the Historic Royal Palaces agency has spent on consultants since its establishment in 1988; and if she will list the consultants concerned; [36310]

  (3) what is the current annual cost of running the security and warding service in the royal palaces; and if she will break the cost down (a) for the standard service, (b) for staffing special functions and (c) for overheads, separately identified for the security services at Hampton Court palace, the security service at Kensington palace, and the warding service at the Jewel house, Tower of London; [36318]

  (4) what financial or other redress the Historic Royal Palaces agency has had to obtain from Group 4 in relation to the state apartment warding at Hampton Court palace

  Year

  1988/89

  1989/90

  1990/91

  1991/92

  1992/93

  1993/94

  1994/95

  Value £k

  N/A

  N/A

  44

  478

  2,956

  3,708

  1,381

  HRPA has used a large numner of consultants in a wide variety of fields including management, catering, gardening, security, building syrveying, architecture, quantity surveying, structural engineering, service engineering, project management, security advice, health and safety advice, fire advice and archeology. This breakdown is all that can be supplied without incurring disproportionate costs. Note: the above figures do not include any consultancy work commissioned by PSA, who were responsible for all building works until the end of 1991/92. The peak in 1993/94 was principally caused by the New Jewel House at the Tower of London.

  No 664

  How many consultants have been asked to review the security services at Kensington Palace; what they recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of the consultants used.
  1466
  arising from (a) unsatisfactory staffing levels and (b) other factors; [36316]

  (5) how many consultants have been asked to review the warding services at the Tower of London; what these consultants recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of consultants used; [36312]

  (6) since the contract for state apartment warding at Hampton Court palace was placed with Group 4 in april, what complaints there have been either from (a) the Historic Royal Palaces agency and (b) members of the public; [36315]

  (7) how many reports have been commissioned regarding security at each of the royal palaces; and what these reports have recommended; [36311]

  (8) what particular skills are regarded as being essential in relation to the warding of (a) the Jewel house in the Tower of London, (b) Kensington palace and (c) Hampton Court palace; and what aspects of these skills prohibit the mounting of an in-house bid for the administration of the service in each case; [36317]

  (9) how many consultants have been asked to review the security services at Hampton Court palace; what they recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of consultants used. [36313]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for the subjects of these questions has been delegated to the Historic Royal Palaces agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Beeton. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and place copies of his letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 26 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the National Heritage has asked me to reply to your questions concerning security, warding and consultancies within the Historic Royal Palaces Agency. Your questions and my responses are set out below.
  No 666
  How much money the Historic Royal Palaces Agency has spent on consultants since its establishment in 1988; and if she will list the consultants concerned.
  The Agency has spent the following amounts on consultancies.
  Two consultancies have reviewed the security services at Kensington Palace, within the last 2 years, as part of an overall review of these services at all the Historic Royal Palaces. Whilst the content of these reports must remain confidential for security reasons, their recommendations will continue to be taken full account of in the contracting out process which will not alter security standards. These will remain HRP's responsibility.
  The cost of these consultancies was £9,276.
  No 669
  What is the current annual cost of running the Security and Warding Services in the Royal Palaces; and if she will break the cost down (a) for the standard service, (b) for staffing special functions and (c) for overheads, separately identified for the Security Services at Hampton Court Palace, the Security Service at Kensington Palace, and the Warding Service at the Jewel House Tower of London.
  1467

  Security and Warding

  Hampton Court Palace £k

  Kew Palace £k

  Kensington Palace £k

  Jewel House (ToL) £k

  Other (ToL) £k

  Banqueting House £k

  Total £k

  Security

  Warding

  Total

  820

  1,200

  40

  269

  553

  2,392

  46

  5,320

  The cost of staffing for special functions and the cost of overheads are together not thought to exceed 10 per cent. of the total but to produce a more detailed analysis would incur disproportionate cost.

  No 671

  What financial or other redress the Historic Royal Palaces Agency has had to obtain from Group 4 in relation to the State Apartment Warding at Hampton Court Palace arising from (a) unsatisfactory staffing levels and (b) other factors.
  Financial redress during the first three months of the contract was less than 0.5 per cent. of the contract value due to temporary shortfalls in manning levels. That is no more than occurred with the previous in-house operations. No redress has been required in respect of any other factors during that period.

  No 673
  How many consultants have been asked to review the warding services at the Tower of London; what these consultants recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of consultants used.Two consultancies have reviewed various aspects of the warding services at the Tower of London within the last 3 years and made a number of recommendations regarding the administration of the service which have been taken full account of in the contracting out process. The cost of the consultancies was £47k.
  No 675
  Since the contract for State Apartment Warding at Hampton Court Palace was placed with Group 4 in April, what complaints there have been either from (a) the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and (b) members of the public.The Historic Royal Palaces Agency has recently discussed with Group 4 a shortfall in its manning levels during July. These were the result of a backlog in security clearances, not caused by Group 4, nor by the security status of their proposed employees. This shortfall is now resolved.There have been 2 complaints from members of the public concerning the State Apartment Warders, during that period, together with many more letters of praise.
  No 676

  How many reports have been commissioned regarding security at each of the Royal Palaces; and what these reports have recommended.
  In the last 2 years 12 security reports were commissioned as part of a general security review at each of the Palaces and for some specific projects (e.g. Crown Jewels project). Whilst the contents of these reports must remain confidential for security reasons their recommendations will, where relevant, continue to be taken full account of in the contracting out process which will not alter standards.

  No 680

  What particular skills are regarded as being essential in relation to the warding of (a) the Jewel House in the Tower of London, (b) Kensington Palace and (c) Hampton Court Palace; and what aspects of these skills prohibit the mounting of an in-house bid for the administration of the service in each case.
  The essential skills are those needed to provide the high standards of warding service in the Palaces including honesty, integrity, security awareness and good communications. These skills are already available through the existing staff who will transfer over to the new contractor. It was not any perceived lack of skills which prompted the decision not to allow an in-house bid, but the considered view of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency that in future the warding of the Palaces could be provided more effectively with no loss in standards by contracting out day to day operation of the service to manpower management specialists. The Agency will work
  1468
  in close partnership with them and will continue to be responsible for setting the standards of service and monitoring them. It will also ensure that the staff employed have all the necessary skills to deliver the specified service.

  No 681

  How many consultants have been asked to review the security services at Hampton Court Palace; and what they recommended regarding the administration of the service; and what was the cost of consultants used.
  One concultant was employed to review the security services at Hampton Court Palace during the last 2 years at a cost of £17,000. Whilst the content of this review must remain confidential for security reasons, the recommendations will continue to be taken full account of in the contracting out process which will not alter security standards.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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 results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Newton
  The functions of the Privy Council Office do not include the provision of assistance to small businesses.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the annual expenditure for the National Audit Office for the last year for which figures are available. [27969]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The appropriation account for 1994–95 for the National Audit Office, class XIX B, was published on 5 July as House of Commons Paper No. 476. Gross expenditure for the year totalled £42.2 million, and net expenditure, after taking account of appropriations in aid, totalled £36.2 million, a saving of about £0.3 million on planned net expenditure for the year.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff were employed by the National Audit Office during the last year for which figures are available. [27970]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  During 1994–95 the National Audit Office employed around 750 staff, comprising 650 permanent employees and around 100 on short-term contract or seconded in, the latter mainly in support of value-for-money investigations.
  1469

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will estimate the number of surviving relatives of former hon. Members who may have suffered financial loss as a result of the delay in implementing the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations in improvements in the hon. Members' pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [35318]

  Mr. Newton
  The proposal I put to the House envisages implementing the increase in death-in-service benefit with effect from 1 April 1995. This is one month after I received the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body. The period in question would affect one surviving relative, but no dependants.

  Temporary Secretarial Assistance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the operation of temporary secretarial assistance in hon. Members' staff [27628]

  Mr. Newton
  Temporary secretarial assistance is intended to meet the costs of a member who incurs further expenses in respect of his or her duties in obtaining temporary secretarial or research assistance while a person to whom a salary is paid by him or her is prevented through illness or pregnancy from providing such assistance. A number of practical modifications were made earlier this year as indicated by my answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1232. They were the subject of a circular issued by the accountant in that month.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cocoa
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the UK's share of the proceeds arising from the liquidation of the cocoa buffer stock will be directed towards cocoa research. [36552]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK share of the buffer stock liquidation proceeds will, as required by Government accounting rules, be returned to the Consolidated Fund. In view of the way the buffer stock levy was collected, and in the light of strong representations from the cocoa trade and industry on the need to intensify the UK effort in advanced cocoa research, I am pleased to announce that subject to the necessary approvals, £2.2 million of voted provision will be reallocated by the Ministry in order to provide money for new research in the United Kingdom into cocoa production.

  This sum will be administered through a newly established trust fund enabling key cocoa research projects to be funded and managed from the income generated by the trust fund capital. I plan to make a further announcement about the details later this year.
  1470

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the BSE epidemic. [36395]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The BSE epidemic continues to decline. Some 44.6 per cent. fewer suspect cases are being reported now compared with the same period—January to June—1994. There are now about 300 new cases a week compared with over 1,000 at the peak of the epidemic.

  The decline in the number of cases demonstrates that the ruminant feed ban, the key control measure, is proving successful in bringing the epidemic under control. It is estimated that the total number of cases is at least—150,000 fewer than would have occurred in the absence of the ban. However, we are continuing to see cases of BSE in animals born after the introduction of the feed ban in July 1988. This suggests that there has been some continued leakage of BSE infective material into animal feed.

  We have already taken steps to prevent this by:

  introducing new requirements, in April 1995, on the staining of specified bovine offal.

  reviewing the controls on SBO to consolidate and strengthen them;

  introducing new EC standards at rendering plants and withdrawing from use a system which was found, in experiments, not to inactivate the BSE agent;

  identifying, with the industry, the potential for cross-contamination in feed mills so that systems can be tightened up;

  introducing the use of a new test to detect the presence of ruminant protein in animal feed.

  I will shortly be making the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 which will consolidate and streamline the existing rules on SBO and strengthen them in some respects. The main changes to be introduced by the order will be:

  (i) to require all rendering plants, head-boning plants, incinerators and collection points for specified bovine offal to be approved by Ministers. Rendering plants will have to have a totally dedicated processing line for specified bovine offal;

  (ii) movement permits for specified bovine offal issued by local authorities will no longer be required in view of tighter controls being introduced on approval and record keeping throughout the disposal chain;

  (iii) the brains and eyes of a bovine animal of six months or more may no longer be removed from the head so that the part of the skill containing brains and eyes, after removal of the head meat and tongue for human consumption, will have to be disposed of as specified bovine offal.

  It is clear from the surveillance of slaughterhouses and head-boning plants that has been undertaken by my officials since the Government took over full responsibility for control of such premises in April this year that current practice on the separation and staining of the specified bovine offals can be improved. Most of the failings we have identified are comparatively minor in nature—for instance, using the wrong stain—and plant operators have been given clear instructions on what they must do to put things right. But some could have resulted in BSE infected material entering the animal feed chain. Further follow-up visits are being made to ensure that the faults have been rectified. Where failings are not corrected we are prepared to bring prosecutions if necessary.
  1471
  Although these lapses in our animal health control system are unsatisfactory, consumers have no cause for alarm. I am satisfied that these findings have no implications for human health and that measures to ensure that no infective material enters the human food chain are working effectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of compensating Welsh farmers with suspected BSE cases in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34974]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible without disproportionate costs to identify separately the payments made to farmers in Wales. The total amount paid out in BSE compensation in Great Britain during 1993–94 and 1994–95 was £35.2 million and £18.4 million respectively. The total number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered as BSE suspects on which compensation would have automatically have been paid in Wales during 1993–94 and 1994–95 was 3,708 and 2,080 respectively. The total number of cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects in Great Britain for those periods was 35,274 and 22,205 respectively.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has from his Ministry or other institutions of the maternal transmission of BSE. [35590]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. There is no experimental or epidemiological evidence available to confirm that maternal transmission of BSE occurs. Results of research to test the hypothesis that the disease might be transmitted maternally will not be available for another two years. It is clear, however, that if maternal transmission does occur, it does so too infrequently to be detected with our current statistical techniques.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many recent cattle identified as suffering from BSE are within the age range that could account for the disease being passed on by maternal transmission. [35591]

  Mrs. Browning
  Age at clinical onset is not an indicator of the route of transmission, and other routes of transmission, most notably by feed, cannot be excluded simply on the basis of the date of birth.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the future of the Central Science Laboratory, Torry in Aberdeen. [36069]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I confirm that the Torry laboratory will be closed in 1996 as previously announced on 6 June,Official Report, columns 1–2, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I will make a further announcement soon on the consequential changes for the work currently undertaken by the laboratory.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reconsider the financial provisions for environmentally sensitive areas. [33384]
  1472
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The financial provisions for environmentally sensitive areas in England are set at levels considered sufficient to meet the needs of this voluntary scheme over the next few years.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the number of environmentally sensitive areas in England. [33388]

  Mr. Boswell
  We have no plans at present to increase the number of environmentally sensitive areas in England.

  Bovine Immunodeficiency-like Virus
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking to produce a reliable serological test for BIV. [34437]

  Mrs. Browning
  A three-year programme of research on molecular studies to improve the serological diagnosis of bovine immunodeficeincy-like virus is under way at the Central Veterinary Laboratory and Glasgow university veterinary school.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the areas of food safety under investigation for deregulation. [34411]

  Mrs. Browning
  The food law deregulation plan, prepared jointly by my Department and the Department of Health, was issued on 14 September 1993. The plan, which recognises both the important need for consumer protection and the need to work with our partners in Europe to achieve greater harmonisation, is divided into six sectors. Two of these—hygiene and food additives and contaminants—deal with food safety.

  The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 will implement the EC General Food Hygiene Directive from 15 September. In addition, the Department of Health is planning revisions to statutory food temperature controls. Together, these will result in the repeal of 11 sets of regulations when they enter into force later this year.

  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995, which implement the EC Directive on milk hygiene, have resulted in the repeal of nine sets of regulations and the consolidation of existing milk hygiene regulations in England and Wales.

  We are encouraging the European Commission to simplify and rationalise product-specific EC food hygiene rules.

  Food Additives and Contaminants
  My Department has issued draft UK regulations for consultation on implementing EC directives on sweeteners and colours. It shall also be issuing shortly draft UK regulations for consultation on implementing an EC directive on food additives other than sweeteners and colours. These directives fully harmonise legislation controlling the use of the principal classes of food additives throughout the EC. They will enable six sets of UK regulations to be revoked.
  Consolidation of the regulations setting limits for lead, arsenic and aflatoxin in food, is in abeyance, whilst discussions about introducing EC harmonising regulations in this area are on-going.

  Bananas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an estimate of the impact on the consumption of bananas in the United Kingdom of abolishing all impediments to trade in the banana industry; and if he will make a statement. [34996]

  Mr. Baldry
  Consumption of bananas in the United Kingdom has almost doubled in the last 10 years and retail prices are now at historically low levels in real terms. Since the single market for bananas came into force two years ago, consumers have been offered a wider choice than ever before.

  Intervention Board (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions have been undertaken by the Intervention Board for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [34731]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply direct.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about prosecutions due for answer on 18 July 1995, as this is a matter within my operational responsibility.
  The position on prosecutions undertaken by the Intervention Board since 1990 is:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Total

  Successful

  8

  6

  6

  7

  2

  1

  30

  Unsuccessful

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  The success rate over the period is 83‥ which is commendable given the generally complex nature of the EC support systems managed by the Intervention Board.
  The reduced levels of activity in 1994 and 1995 substantially reflect the extent to which support is not targeted directly to farmers through the Agriculture Departments, following the reform of the CAP in 1992.
  Prosecutions covering the external trade area of the Agency's business are conducted by HM Customs and Excise. The achievements over the same period were:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Total

  Successful

  1

  1

  3

  3

  0

  0

  8

  Unsuccessful

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  The success rate for external trade cases is 80‥, quite close to the level achieved on internal market support schemes.

  Food Disposal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of illegal or irregular disposal of food have been brought to the attention of the Intervention Board for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [34732]
  1474
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply direct.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about reports to the Agency of illegal or irregular disposal of food as this is a matter within my operational responsibility.
  Reports of irregular disposals of food under the Surplus Food Scheme in the last five years were:

  Calendar Year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Number of reports

  1

  1

  6

  15

  7

  Four of the current cases under investigation by the Intervention Board's Anti-Fraud Unit or the Police. The investigation of 2 further cases has been concluded. The papers on one have been sent to the Procurator Fiscal for this consideration; the other case has proceeded to court but has been adjourned after the initial hearing until September.
  The introduction of the Surplus Food Regulations (SI 184/95) with effect from 1 February 1995 enables the Intervention Board to address vigorously any case of abuse under the arrangements, to prosecute offenders and to seize all misappropriated produce and re-direct it to those whom the Scheme is intended to benefit.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of salmonella in farm animals were recorded in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [34973]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of incidents of salmonella in farm animals in Wales reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Zoonoses Order 1989 since 1990, and up to 13 July 1995, are shown in the table:

  Species

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Cattle and Calves

  202

  156

  139

  237

  249

  159

  Sheep

  20

  17

  13

  14

  30

  36

  Pigs

  2

  3

  2

  4

  3

  1

  Poultry

  135

  95

  45

  43

  16

  4

  Other Species

  23

  7

  1

  14

  12

  14

  Total

  382

  278

  200

  312

  310

  214

  The reporting system was enhanced in 1993. Data for earlier years are not directly comparable with that collected since 1993.

  It is encouraging to note that reported incidents of salmonella in poultry continue to decline. Recent data show that cases of salmonella typhimurium DT104 infection have been increasing in other farmed animals, most notably cattle. A case control study in cattle has been set up to try to discover why the incidence of this organism has increased.

  The Government remain committed to firm but proportionate action against salmonella and continued protection for the consumer while avoiding disproportionate burdens on producers.
  1475

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of accepted applicants for the five-year set-aside scheme between 1988 and 1991 were Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement. [34985]

  Mr. Baldry
  Approximately 1 per cent. of accepted applicants in the UK for the five-year set-aside scheme between 1988 and 1991 were Welsh farmers.

  Welsh Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of fishing vessels operating out of Welsh ports in 1993; and if he will make a statement. [34883]

  Mr. Baldry
  Information about the number of fishing vessels operating out of Welsh ports in 1993 is not readily available. However, at 31 December 1993 there were 574 vessels licensed in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Welsh fishing vessels are 40 ft and over; what is the corresponding proportion for the United Kingdom fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement. [34885]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 1 January 1995, 13 per cent.—75 vessels—of the Welsh fleet, and 23 per cent.—1,923—of the UK fleet were 40 ft—12.20 m—or over in length.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the nominal value of landings by Welsh fishing vessels in each year between 1990 and 1993; and if he will make a statement. [34884]

  Mr. Baldry
  The first-hand sale value of all landings by vessels licensed in Wales in the years 1990 to 1993 were respectively £12.1 million, £20.4 million, £22 million and £26.7 million respectively.

  North Sea Fisheries
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider proposing measures to limit the voting powers of EU member states on matters concerning the North sea to nations with a coast on the North sea, as part of the common fisheries policy review. [34877]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am committed to effective conservation and enforcement in all waters where European Community vessels fish. If voting rights were to be limited only to EU member states with a coastal interest, the UK's scope for influencing decisions on matters concerning waters where we do not have a coastline would be lost.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an estimate of the impact on average British food bills of eliminating state intervention in European agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [35130]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to the hon. Member for Taunton 1476
  (Mr. Nicholson) on 9 March 1995, Official Report, column 328.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the total number of employees of the Intervention Board and (b) the cost for each of the last five years. [34735]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply direct.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about (a) the total number of employees of the Intervention Board and (b) the cost for each of the last five years as this matter is within my operational responsibility.
  The total number of employees and pay bill costs are published in the Departmental Report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  The figures are as follows and include the cost of overtime and casual staff:

  Period

  Total Number of Employees (Staff Years-Fulltime Equivalent)

  Pay Bill Costs (£ million)

  1990–91

  997

  12

  1991–92

  1,030

  14

  1992–93

  1,049

  16

  1993–94

  1,006

  17

  1994–95

  989

  17

  Beef and Sheep Extensification Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the participants in the beef and sheep extensification schemes in 1990–91 were Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement. [34984]

  Mr. Baldry
  Approximately 13 per cent. of UK participants in the beef and sheep extensification schemes in 1990–91 were Welsh farmers.

  Fruit and Vegetables (Destruction)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of each fruit and vegetable destroyed, even though fit for consumption, by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the whole European Community as a result of the common agriculture policy in each of the last three years. [35092]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: Information for the last three years for which statistics are available is as follows:

  Destruction of fruit and vegetables for which EU withdrawal compensation was paid

  (tonnes)

  Product

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Apples

  179,589

  26,088

  968,617

  Pears

  5,422

  652

  55,079

  Cauliflowers

  15,365

  40,480

  126,727

  Tomatoes

  7,122

  44,179

  32,850

  Apricot

  36,880

  937

  19,503

  Nectarines

  39,660

  36,387

  164,690

  1477

  Destruction of fruit and vegetables for which EU withdrawal compensation was paid

  (tonnes)

  Product

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Peaches

  409,734

  337,120

  720,262

  Lemons

  17,334

  13,448

  80,941

  Aubergines

  82

  553

  148

  Grapes

  85

  291

  3,222

  Satsumas

  —

  —

  3,587

  Mandarins

  3,296

  2,723

  2,492

  Clementines

  578

  1,655

  43,856

  Oranges

  204,396

  154,877

  504,794

  of which the UK statistics were:

  Apples

  9,969

  669

  20,019

  Pears

  56

  40

  17

  Cauliflowers

  3,369

  4,657

  13,810

  Tomatoes

  0

  0

  3

  Source:

  European Commission

  Milk (Butterfat Content)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will calculate the cash value at current prices to a milk quota holder of the additional annual production which would be allowed if the butterfat content of that milk was underestimated as being 3.5 per cent. instead of an assumed 4 per cent. base. [35103]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: An underestimation of the butterfat content of milk deliveries would normally have the effect of allowing a producer to deliver more milk against his or her quota. But the precise volume and value of those extra deliveries would depend on a number of factors including the amount of quota held by the producer, the butterfat base of that quota and the price of the milk. Milk with a lower butterfat content generally attracts a lower price.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure standardisation in the testing of butterfat content of milk in the assessment of compliance with milk production quotas; and if he will make a statement. [35102]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The Intervention Board executive agency, which is responsible for administering milk quotas, has commissioned the Central Science Laboratory to check standards at laboratories which are approved to carry out butterfat tests on milk. The first round of proficiency testing will start this month. All approved laboratories will be required to participate. Any laboratory failing to meet an acceptable standard will be excluded from testing for milk quota purposes.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the size of the black market in milk associated with systematic underestimation of butterfat content; and what action is being taken to tackle his problem. [35104]
  1478
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The Intervention Board is investigating allegations that butterfat contents have been deliberately underestimated. It is not possible at this stage to say whether there is any substances to these allegations.

  "Foodsense"
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's booklet "Foodsense" has been distributed bilingually throughout Wales; and if he will make a statement. [34892]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  The "Foodsense" publications have not been produced in Welsh. I understand, however, that the Welsh Office produces a range of publications in Welsh about food safety matters.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the 1994–95 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is due to be published. [36388]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to report that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's annual report and accounts for 1994–95 was published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The report confirms the continuing success of the directorate as a next steps agency, and I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their considerable achievements during the year.

  Central Veterinary Laboratory
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the annual report and accounts for the Central Veterinary Laboratory is due to be laid before Parliament. [36553]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Central Veterinary Laboratory's annual report and accounts were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the House Library. The report demonstrates the continuing progress and success of the laboratory as a next steps agency and I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their considerable achievements during the year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income-Related Benefit Recipients
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the number of children, and (b) the number of children as a proportion of all families that were living in families dependent on income-related benefits for each year since 1979 for each region. [32928]
  1479
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available on a consistent basis for all benefits or prior to 1991. The

  Proportion of children in each region living in families receiving income-related benefits

  Region

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  East Anglia

  London (Inner and outer)

  South east (including London)

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales

  1991

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  628

  1,012

  816

  415

  1,340

  2,154

  900

  1,095

  1,345

  591

  1,024

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  200

  280

  180

  70

  410

  380

  190

  320

  420

  290

  160

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (percentage)

  31.9

  27.7

  22.1

  16.9

  30.6

  17.6

  21.1

  29.2

  31.2

  49.1

  15.6

  1992

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  634

  1,024

  827

  432

  1,365

  2,177

  910

  1,104

  1,355

  596

  1,026

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  210

  310

  220

  80

  510

  440

  210

  340

  440

  320

  170

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (percentage)

  33.1

  30.3

  24.2

  18.5

  37.4

  20.2

  23.1

  30.8

  32.5

  53.7

  16.6

  1993

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  639

  1,035

  835

  415

  1,391

  2,196

  920

  1,114

  1,367

  602

  1,032

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  210

  310

  220

  100

  560

  510

  240

  360

  480

  320

  190

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (percentage)

  32.9

  30

  26.3

  24.1

  40.3

  23.2

  26.1

  32.3

  35.1

  53.2

  18.4

  Notes:

  1. Child population figures have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Children in families receiving income-related benefits has been rounded to the nearest 10,000. All percentages have been rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Children in families receiving income-related benefits does not include those in families receiving Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance only—a regional breakdown is not available.

  3. Children may be in families receiving more than on income-related benefit. Overlaps between benefits have been taken into account.

  4. Children are defined as aged 15 and under.

  5. Standard statistical regions have been used.

  Proportion of children in Great Britain in families receiving an income-related benefit.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  11,318

  11,433

  11,547

  Number of children in families receiving Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance only (thousands)

  430

  500

  620

  Number of children in families receiving one or more income-related benefits (thousands)

  3,340

  3,720

  4,100

  Proportion of children in families receiving one or more income-related benefits (per cent.)

  29.5 per cent.

  32.5 per cent.

  35.5 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Child population figures have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Children in families receiving income-related benefits has been rounded to the nearest 10,000. All percentages have been rounded to one decimal place. 2. Children may be in families receiving more than one income related benefit. Overlaps between benefits have been taken into account.3. Children are defined as aged 15 and under.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics May 1991–1993.

  Family Credit Statistics April 1991-April 1993.

  Disability Working Allowance Statistics 1992–1993.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Survey mid term estimates 1991–1993.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each year from 1979 to the latest year for which information is available, what was the estimated number of(a) males and (b) females aged (i) under 10, (ii) 10–13, (iii) 14–16 and (iv) 17–20 years
  1480
  information that is available is set out in the tables. Data on population are not yet available for 1994.

  respectively in households receiving (1) supplementary benefit/income support and (2) supplementary benefit, income support or housing benefit. [34465]

  Mr. Evans
  The information available is set out in the tables.
  1481

  Table 1: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support—thousands

  Number of dependents

  Number of claimants

  Number of partners

  Aged under 10

  10–13

  14–16

  17–20

  Males

  Females

  All claimants aged 16–20

  Aged 16–20

  1979

  574

  236

  135

  9

  89

  105

  194

  15

  1980

  693

  271

  149

  12

  152

  147

  299

  27

  1981

  949

  369

  214

  18

  235

  187

  422

  42

  1982

  1,097

  424

  244

  28

  320

  238

  558

  48

  1983

  1,145

  433

  261

  29

  333

  268

  601

  51

  1984

  1,267

  449

  287

  30

  339

  270

  608

  51

  1986

  1,420

  458

  313

  36

  323

  270

  593

  44

  1987

  1,458

  421

  309

  48

  256

  246

  501

  38

  1988

  1,472

  410

  275

  39

  188

  203

  391

  33

  1989

  1,463

  384

  250

  42

  146

  161

  307

  30

  1990

  1,480

  382

  245

  43

  148

  164

  312

  25

  1991

  1,713

  466

  264

  54

  190

  184

  373

  30

  1992

  1,946

  544

  303

  81

  219

  202

  420

  29

  1993

  2,097

  620

  346

  101

  238

  213

  452

  33

  1994

  2,080

  629

  369

  106

  214

  199

  412

  30

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding some of the totals may not tally.

  2. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in 1988.

  Source:

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1979–93.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1994.

  Table 2: Housing Benefit without Supplementary Benefit/Income Support—thousands

  Number of dependants

  Number of claimants

  Number of partners

  Age under 10

  10–13

  14–16

  17–20

  Males

  Females

  All claimants aged 16–20

  Aged 16–20

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  187

  69

  51

  8

  —

  57

  —

  6

  1990

  205

  78

  56

  11

  —

  60

  —

  5

  1991

  213

  87

  55

  14

  1

  17

  —

  5

  1992

  227

  95

  55

  15

  —

  17

  —

  5

  1993

  254

  101

  59

  14

  1

  18

  —

  6

  1994

  284

  104

  61

  16

  1

  17

  —

  4

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding some of the totals may not tally.

  2. "—" denotes nil or negligible.

  3. Information is not available prior to 1989.

  4. Tables does not include HB recipients with IS.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information Systems 1 per cent. sample at May each year.

  Fraud
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost to public funds of social security fraud; and if he will set out in detail how he arrives at his total. [35050]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Department is currently undertaking a series of systematic review of the major benefits to gauge the level of incorrectness in the benefit system. We have recently published the results of the review of income support and unemployment benefit. The findings indicate that £1.4 billion a year is lost through fraudulent claims to these benefits.
  1482
  A copy of the report, which includes details of the methodology used, has been placed in the Library.

  Young People (Leaving Care Grant)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a leaving care grant to ensure young people leaving care are financially supported. [35014]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans to introduce a leaving care grant. However, community care grants from the social fund are available for people who are leaving care and are receiving, or are likely to receive, income support.
  1483

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exclude specialist housing and services, provided to vulnerable persons, from forthcoming housing benefit changes limiting rents to averages for property; and if he will make a statement. [35134]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Regulations laid before the House on 29 June—SI 1995 No. 1644—provide that the following accommodation which caters for tenants with particular needs will be exempt from the forthcoming housing benefit changes for tenants in deregulated private sector accommodation:Hostel accommodation for people without a fixed way of life which is funded under Schedule 5 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1980;
  Accommodation provided by housing associations, registered charities or voluntary organisations where care, support or supervision is provided by, or on behalf of, the provider to residents.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had or proposes to have with mortgage lenders in respect of mortgage protection insurance and mortgage indemnity insurance and the need to explain fully the cover offered by these policies with particular reference to exclusion clauses; and what assessment he has made of the views of the Building Societies Ombudsman on this matter. [35379]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department has had frequent meetings with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the new arrangements for income support mortgage interest. We share the view of the Building Society Ombudsman that lenders who sell mortgage protection policies should abide by the code of practice of the Association of British Insurers.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money his Department expects to save as a result of the new regulations relating to assistance for mortgage interest payments; and what the estimate is of the average saving per claimant. [35472]

  Mr. Evans
  The projected savings are estimated to be £200 million in the long run; this equates to about £7 per claimant per week.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has conducted and what consultations he has had with mortgage lenders concerning the categories of home owners who currently do not qualify for mortgage insurance indemnity policies and if he will make a statement. [35327]

  Mr. Evans
  The Department has conducted no research on this form of insurance.

  The term "mortgage insurance indemnity policies" is conventionally used to cover insurance for the risk of a mortgaged property selling for less than its valuation, and such may be a condition of granting the mortgage in some cases, as the parties may determine.

  The issue is not a responsibility of this Department. However, this Department has regular consultations with the Council for Mortgage Lenders concerning mortgage matters.
  1484
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to introduce a standardised rate of interest payment on behalf of borrowers on income support; what estimate he has made of the number of borrowers for which its introduction will constitute a shortfall in payments; and what estimate his Department has made of the present arrears of borrowers who will receive a shortfall in payments. [35368]

  Mr. Evans
  This Department is committed to introducing a standard rate of interest at or around the average rate charged and to change the rate in response to fluctuations in this rate. The standard rate will be introduced on 2 October and will be based on the average rate published in the August edition of "Financial Statistics". Precise estimates of gainers and losers can be made only once this baseline has been established.

  National Insurance
  Ms Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of anomalies in the benefit system caused by the extent of a person's NI contribution liability depending on the length of the pay interval or earnings period; and if officers are allowed to exercise discretion in cases when the person would have satisfied the qualifying conditions for benefit had the pay interval been different. [35266]

  Mr. Heald
  We have made no assessment of the effect of different earnings periods on the qualifying conditions for benefit. However, we are aware that cases can arise where someone just fails to qualify because he is not liable to pay national insurance contributions on earnings in a particular pay period.

  Broad rules are inevitable in a national insurance scheme which must cater for a wide variety of methods by which earnings may be calculated and paid. The earnings period for national insurance contributions is the interval at which an employee is normally paid. The interval of payment depends upon the employee's contract of employment with the employer. When an employee starts work, the expected regular earnings period operates from the outset even if the employee starts work part way through that period. The Secretary of State has no discretionary powers to alter the earnings period in these circumstances.

  Arrangements already exist within the national insurance system which may help someone to qualify for benefit in certain circumstances. For example, if an employee starts work towards the end of the tax year and the salary is paid after the end of the tax year, there are provisions which enable the Secretary of State to re-allocate primary (employee) class 1 contributions from one tax year to another.

  Income Support
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers of income support claimants in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [35222]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  1485

  Numbers of Income Support claimants in Scotland and the United Kingdom since 1979

  SupplementaryBenefit/Income Supportclaimants in Scotland (000s)

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support claimants in UK (000s)

  1979

  286

  2,969

  1980

  304

  3,233

  1981

  371

  3,823

  1982

  423

  4,422

  1983

  440

  4,518

  1984

  468

  4,785

  1985

  —

  —

  1986

  506

  5,122

  1987

  535

  5,086

  1988

  499

  4,536

  1989

  486

  4,344

  1990

  481

  4,369

  1991

  487

  4,683

  1992

  519

  5,293

  1993

  543

  5,858

  1994

  550

  —

  Notes:

  Source: Supplementary benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual/Quarterly Enquiries 1979–1994.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in 1988.

  4. The UK figure for 1981 is incomplete because industrial action affected the Northern Ireland count.

  5. Figures are not available for 1985 due to industrial action.

  6. A UK figure for 1994 cannot be compiled because data for Northern Ireland is not yet available.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what difficulties have been experienced in the last two months with the retrieval by computer of income support details(a) in north Tyneside and (b) nationally in each case how many records have had to be retrieved manually; and what has been the additional cost. [36111]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Stephen Byers, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about difficulties with the retrieval by computer of Income Support details in North Tyneside and nationally.
  The North Tyneside District Office have had difficulty retrieving information on only one case in the last few months. There are problems with the retrieval of information from the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) that could affect all offices. This will only be experienced on a limited number of cases, for example, if a customer moves address on more than one occasion over a short period of time.
  Where problems do occur with the retrieval of information on ISCS, a record print is obtained from the Information Technology Service Agency (ITSA).
  In the period since the beginning of May 1995, the ITSA have received 27 requests for record prints which could not be obtained locally. Each case requires an average of half a days action by a computer technician. The associated computer costs and action taken locally make it difficult to establish the exact cost.
  Work is continuing to resolve the data retrieval problems, for example, a backlog of information has been moved from one part of the ISCS system to another. As a result, data previously unavailable on a local basis has now become available. The Benefits Agency and ITSA recognise that there are problems with data
  1486
  retrieval and every effort is being made to resolve these problems as a matter of urgency.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  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. Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Yes. It is planned to disregard the value of such vouchers in income support and family credit.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will publish its review of the qualifying criterion for PD D12 (chronic bronchitis and emphysema); and if he will make a statement. [35376]

  Mr. Heald
  I understand that the council expects to complete its review by the end of the year. The council's reports are usually published within two or three months of their submission to Ministers. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations that the council may make.

  Domiciliary Services
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the number of local authorities which have introduced new systems of paying for domiciliary services which take into account a person's attendance/disability allowance in the financial assessment; what guidance he has issued to the Benefits Agency in respect of the introduction of these new systems and if both existing and new claimants are being warned or compensated in regard to new deductions that will occur. [35324]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Payment of attendance allowance and the care component of disability living allowance is not affected by any charges that a local authority might make for domiciliary services. This is not a matter, therefore, on which it would be appropriate to issue guidance to the Benefits Agency. Information about the number of local authorities whose financial assessments take into account attendance allowance or the care component of disability living allowance is not collected centrally by the Department of Health.

  Incomes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the shares of total income for each decile of the population, after housing costs were deducted, in(a) 1979 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [35223]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table. Figures for 1992–93 may be subject to slight revision. The information is presented including and excluding the self-employed, whose reported income may be an unreliable guide to their actual standard of living. A further response will he given as soon as possible.
  1487

  Percentage shares of total weekly income after housing costs received by individuals in each decile group of the UK income distribution

  Decile group

  Including self-employed

  Excluding self-employed

  1979

  1992–93

  1979

  1992–93

  Bottom

  4.0

  1.9

  4.1

  2.3

  2

  5.6

  4.1

  5.7

  4.2

  3

  6.5

  5.0

  6.6

  5.2

  4

  7.5

  6.3

  7.6

  6.4

  5

  8.5

  7.6

  8.6

  7.8

  6

  10

  9.0

  10

  9.2

  7

  11

  11

  11

  11

  8

  12

  12

  12

  13

  9

  14

  15

  14

  15

  Top

  21

  28

  20

  26

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for the bottom 10 per cent. should be treated with caution as they are sensitive to data of uncertain reliability at the bottom end of the income distribution.

  2. All members are presented to two significant figures.

  3. Income is current weekly disposal income.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current average social security cost per claimant and in each year since 1980 at 1994 prices. [36290]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. A claimant can receive more than one benefit at a time and therefore it is not possible to identify the overall number of people receiving benefits.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated reduction in expenditure on social security benefits and on welfare foods and free school meals for social security benefits recipients if everybody between the ages of 16 to 65 years who was fit and able to work entered(a) £120 per week gross of tax and national insurance contributions, (b) £140 per week gross and (c) £160 per week gross. [36289]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current total administrative and overhead costs required to administer social security claims and payments, including the current numbers of civil servants and benefit centres, and what was the costs in each year since 1980 at 1994 prices. [36296]

  Mr. Burt
  Available information on administrative costs is drawn from table 10 of the social security departmental report (Cm 2813). Total costs of administration 1994–95 are estimated to be £4,408 million. This includes the cost of collecting national insurance contributions, administering the child support system, expenditure by the Department of Employment administering benefits for the unemployed and expenditure by local authorities administering housing and council tax benefits.

  Figures at 1994–95 prices for previous years are as follows:
  1488

  Costs of administration (at 1994–95 prices)

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  4,408

  1993–94

  4,373

  1992–93

  4,203

  1991–92

  3,954

  1990–91

  3,725

  1989–90

  3,530

  1988–89

  3,392

  1987–88

  3,366

  1986–87

  3,129

  1985–86

  2,911

  1984–85

  2,774

  1983–84

  2,839

  1982–83

  2,720

  1981–82

  2,599

  1980–81

  2,392

  Notes:

  (a) 1983–84 and prior year costs include the estimated DSS proportion of total DHSS administrative costs.

  (b) 1987–88 and prior year costs relate to gross running costs. From 1988–89 the costs include capital costs.

  At the last count—1 April 1995—the Department of Social Security employed the equivalent of 89,334 full time civil servants. The Benefits Agency currently uses 11 disability benefit centres and three benefit centres, handling clerical work relocated out of some London offices.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what cognisance has been taken of the recent findings of the King's Fund in relation to the high incidence of illness and disability among those living on low incomes in the setting of levels of incapacity benefits; and what safeguards exist for the protection of those sufferers of less overt disabilities who are refused cover under private insurance arrangements. [36172]

  Mr. Burt
  We have noted the contents of the report. The level at which benefits for incapacity are set reflects our commitment to provide national insurance benefits for people who are incapable of work within a structure that is sustainable and affordable in the long term. Income support is available for people whose income, from private health insurance or elsewhere, is insufficient to meet their needs.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical examination's for the all work test of incapacity have taken place(a) in total and (b) by region; and how many (i) in total and (ii) by region have been scheduled for examination but have not yet taken place. [35251]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of medical examinations for the all work test of incapacity that have taken place (a) in total and (b) by region; and how many (i) in total and (ii) by region have been scheduled for examination but have not yet taken place.

  1489
  Figures for the total number of examinations that have been carried out and for the number of scheduled are available to the end of May 1995. There are as follows:

  Examinations carried out: 650

  Examinations scheduled but not carried out: 5,284

  Figures are not available by region.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may IBSO all-work test questionnaires have been issued by his Department(a) in total and (b) by region; how many of these have (i) been returned and (ii) not been returned by the claimant within the time allowed; and how many are still outstanding. [35296]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Incapacity Benefit all-work questionnaires.The information requested is not available by region and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The total number of IB50 all-work test questionnaires issued by computer system up to an including 31 May 1995 is 200,311.From this total, 77,203 were returned up to and including 31 May 1995, 2,800 were not returned by customers within the time allowed and the number still outstanding is 123,108.In addition to system produced questionnaires, a small number of questionnaires are issued clerically by Benefits Agency district offices. Statistics relating to the numbers of questionnaires issued clerically could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training has been given on mental health to the Benefits Agency Medical Service staff who have been recruited to undertake the new test of incapacity. [35298]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the training given on mental health to the Benefits Agency (BA) Medical Service staff who have been recruited to undertake the new test of incapacity.All doctors employed by BA Medical Services are full registered medical practitioners with previous clinical experience. The majority of the doctors employed on a sessional basis are either practising or retired General Practitioners with experience of treating patients with mental health problems. In addition, every doctor who will carry out all work test assessments has to undergo specific training to do the work.All full-time and short-term contract doctors attend a two day further medical education conference during which there is a session devoted specifically to the assessment of mental health problems. This session is led by a consultant psychiatrist and covers the latest thinking in the treatment of mental health problems. It also includes discussion of a video recording of demonstration assessment interviews.In addition, all doctors, full-time, contract and sessional, who are to carry out the all work test assessment undergo a process of approval to do the work. The approval process starts with four days of classroom based training. This includes a module designed 1490 specifically to cover the assessment of mental health problems. The module also incorporates discussion of demonstration mental health interviews.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Motability
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the vehicle leasing market for disabled users will in future benefit from competitive tendering; [35032]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the procedures for contracting out of goods and services by the directors of the Motability charity; [35036]

  (3) what is his policy in relation to competitive tendering in relation to the expenditure by Motability of money provided by his Department; [35033]

  (4) if he will make it his policy that the governors of the Motability charity should not enter into any contracts for goods or services in excess of £50,000 without prior departmental approval; [35037]

  (5) if it is his policy that the governors or directors of Motability may not issue guarantees, indemnities or letters of comfort except with the consent of the Secretary of State; [35046]

  (6) if he will list the amounts paid in grant in aid to the Motability charity in each of the last three years; and if future payments of grant in aid are to be made conditional upon the efficiency with which Motability is managed; [35034]

  (7) if he is informed by the governors of Motability, on an annual basis, of the charity's performance on providing best value for money services to its disabled users; [35038]

  (8) if, in the event of Motability's articles being revoked, all assets acquired with grant in aid moneys would revert to his Department after all creditors claims had been met; and if he will make a statement. [35045]

  Mr. Burt
  The detailed conditions on payments of the grant in aid for administration are set out in the financial memorandum, a copy of which is in the Library. The financial memorandum contains a requirement that the charity should endeavour to provide best value for money for both the disabled customer and the tax payer. One method of providing would be through competitive tendering. The amounts paid in grant in aid to Motability in each of the last three years are given in the table.

  £million

  Grant-in-aid

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mobility equipment fund

  1.075

  2.050

  1.935

  Administration

  1.835

  2.085

  3.260

  Total

  2.910

  4.135

  5.195

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the charitable status of the Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust in relation to Motability Finance Ltd.'s charitable donations; and what sums of public money were involved in respect of the Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust; [35041]
  1491
  (2) if funds held in the Motability Finance Ltd. Contingency and Tenth Anniversary funds are considered to be assets acquired with grant-in-aid monies provided by his, or any other, Department; and if he will make a statement; [35044]

  (3) if he will list the beneficiaries of Motability Finance Ltd.'s charitable donations in each year between 1990 and 1993; and what assessment his Department has made of the beneficiaries in allocating funding of motability for disabled people; [35042]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for the auditing and accounting in respect of Motability Finance Ltd. in each year between 1988 and 1995; what assessment he has made of the independence of the senior auditor at KPMG responsible for the affairs of the charity; and if he will make a statement. [35035]

  Mr. Burt
  Motability Finance Ltd. is an independent company and its audit and accounting arrangements have to comply with company law. It is for MFL to make arrangements for auditing its accounts. It is not a matter for the charity.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what discounts Motability users were offered in hire purchase and contract hire price lists sent to them in(a) 1992 and (b) 1995; what sums of public money were involved; and if he will make a statement; [35040]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the status of Motability Finance Ltd. in relation to the Motability charity; and what assessment he has made of the status in determining the provision of public funds; [35043]

  (3) if he will instruct independent experts to advise him as to the size of the discounts available to fleet leasing purchasers, in relation to the funding by his Department of the mobility of disabled people. [35047]

  Mr. Burt
  Motability Finance Ltd. is a supplier to the Motability scheme. It is a wholly separate organisation neither funded from, nor accountable to, the Department of Social Security. Motability's governors have the responsibility to ensure that suppliers to the scheme offer good value for money. Motability reviews its financial arrangements annually. The financial memorandum requires Motability to provide good value for money for its disabled customers.

  Any questions on the discounts offered by manufacturers through the Motability scheme should be directed to Motability.

  Disability Issues
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult organisations representing people with learning difficulties in respect of the implementation of future disability discrimination legislation. [34831]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government intend to consult extensively over the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Bill. These consultations will include contact with organisations representing people with learning difficulties.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy towards making available publications concerning disability 1492
  issues in pictorial and simple text format for people with learning difficulties. [34832]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Bill will ensure that information, including Government information, is made more accessible to disabled people. This Department will comply with these requirements while ensuring that its information is accurate and unambiguous.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that any future disability discrimination legislation will be made available in pictures and will adopt a simple text format for people with learning difficulties. [34833]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Bill will ensure that information, including Government information, is made more accessible to disabled people. The Government intend to publish information—in the simplest terms possible—explaining the provisions of the Bill once it receives Royal Assent. However, while every effort it made to ensure that legislation is as clear and understandable as possible, only an exact reproduction of parliamentary legislation can have any legal validity, and this is not achievable in pictorial form or in simple language.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policies will be implemented in legislation to ensure that the right of people with learning difficulties are protected following the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [34836]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Bill defines a disabled person as one who has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It will, therefore, protect those with learning difficulties who fall into this category by introducing new rights in employment and in relation to access to goods and services. The Bill also establishes a new National Disability Council and will ensure that advice and support is available to help disabled people secure their rights under the new legislation.

  Child Care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spends on(a) child care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35551]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In October 1994, we introduced help with child care charges in family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit. The scheme applies where the charges are incurred for a child under 11 who is cared for by a registered childminder, play scheme or day nursery. In the long term, we estimate 150,000 families will benefit, including 50,000 taking up work, and that the help will cost up to £60 million.
  1493
  The new provisions will provide a substantial contribution to child care charges and increase the effectiveness of family credit, in particular, as an incentive for families to find and remain in employment.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female
  (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35465]

  Mr. Burt
  The numbers of permanent industrial and non-industrial staff as at 1 April 1995 on a head-count basis were as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Benefits Agency

  21,445

  514

  37,731

  11,323

  Child Support Agency

  1,831

  67

  3,437

  1,056

  Contributions Agency

  3,084

  47

  4,818

  1,536

  Information Technology Services Agency

  2,262

  1

  1,179

  161

  Resettlement Agency

  74

  1

  51

  14

  War Pensions Agency

  374

  8

  821

  149

  DSS Headquarters and Independent Statutory Bodies

  1,136

  15

  1,503

  218

  Total

  30,206

  653

  48,540

  14,457

  The breakdown of staff by grade is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Grade (including equivalent professional and other grades)

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 3

  12

  0

  4

  0

  Grade 4

  7

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 5

  84

  0

  22

  3

  Grade 6

  263

  12

  71

  22

  Grade 7

  522

  0

  158

  12

  Senior Executive Officer

  982

  5

  360

  18

  Higher Executive Officer/Higher Executive Officer (D)

  3,180

  12

  2,241

  239

  Executive Officer

  9,520

  126

  11,346

  3,546

  Administrative Officer

  11,691

  297

  27,236

  8,418

  Administrative Assistant

  3,921

  200

  7,035

  2,182

  Others

  20

  1

  64

  17

  Totals

  30,206

  653

  49,540

  14,457

  Note:

  1. Staff on loan or secondment and not being paid by the Department.

  2. Staff on unpaid leave for more than 3 months or on unpaid maternity leave.

  3. Casual staff.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its agencies for each year since 1985. [35685]
  1494
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested but details by grade and gender for the Department as a whole, including the executive agencies, can be found in table 5 of civil service statistics for each year from 1985 to 1994—copies available in the Library. Details for 1995 will be published later this year. I also refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong).

  Mr. Donohue
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35671]

  Mr. Burt
  This Department is committed to equality of opportunity for all members of staff. It is also fully committed to the Cabinet Office programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service. In addition, the Department was an early member of Opportunity 2000, a national campaign to improve the quantity of women's participation in the workplace

  All parts of the Department, including its executive agencies, have equal opportunities action plans and all staff are encouraged to develop to their full potential. Women's development courses are widely available and all senior promotion panels include at least one woman.

  The proportion of women is increasing at all management levels, women make up 67 per cent. of the Department and over half of all management grades. Over a quarter of the top three grades are currently held by women, two of the Department's agency chief executives are women and in September this year, the Department will have a female permanent secretary, Ann Bowtell.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current position of the appeal against the commissioner's decision concerning the rate of invalidity benefit paid to women after they reach pension age, with particular reference to the deliberations of the European Court of Justice; and when he expects the appeal to be(a) heard by the Court of Appeal and (b) concluded. [35705]

  Mr. Burt
  The hearing before the European Court of Justice took place on 6 April 1995 and the Advocate General's opinion was published on 15 June. The timing of the European Court's judgment, and of the subsequent hearing by the Court of Appeal, are matters for the courts.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of people present claiming invalidity benefit in the London borough of Wandsworth. [34075]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefit Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of people claiming Invalidity Benefit in the London Borough of Wandsworth.
  With effect from 13 April 1995, Invalidity Benefit (IVB) and Sickness Benefit were replaced by Incapacity Benefit (IB). Claims for IB from customers resident in the Borough of Wandsworth are

  1495
  dealt with by the Benefits Agency (BA) South West Thames District. These claims are, however, processed at the BA Broadstairs Benefit Office which also administers IB claims for residents of London Central District.
  Separate statistics relating to the numbers of IB customers resident in the Borough of Wandsworth are not kept and could only be available at disproportionate cost.
  I am sorry that this reply could not be more helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. P. Sutton, national insurance number ZS 06 67 D, will receive information about the gross earning figures used to calculate his additional pension paid with invalidity benefit. [35152]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about when Mr. P. Sutton, national insurance number ZS 06 52 67 D, will receive information about the gross earnings figures used to calculate his additional pension paid with his Invalidity Benefit.
  A full reply, informing Mr. Sutton of the earnings figures used in the calculation of his Invalidity Benefit and subsequent Incapacity Benefit, was issued on 14 July 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number in receipt of one or more means-testedbenefit000s

  Number in receipt of Income Support 000s

  Average weekly payment

  Number in receipt of Family Credit 000s

  Average weekly payment

  Number in receipt of Housing Benefit 000s

  Average weekly payment

  Number in receipt of Council Tax Benefit 000s

  Average weekly payment

  Number in receipt of Community Charge Benefit 000s

  Average weekly payment

  Number in receipt of Disability Working Allowance 000s

  Average weekly payment

  1990

  8,090

  4,180

  38.52

  315

  28.23

  3,975

  21.48

  0

  0

  6,500

  5.53

  0

  0

  1991

  7,970

  4,487

  46.52

  347

  31.32

  4,022

  25.40

  0

  0

  6,330

  3.43

  0

  0

  1992

  8,410

  5,088

  51.89

  397

  37.69

  4,320

  30.03

  0

  0

  6,550

  4.23

  0

  0

  1993

  8,530

  5,643

  54.77

  488

  43.34

  4,520

  33.73

  5,251

  6.11

  0

  0

  3

  36.90

  1994

  8,480

  5,675

  55.78

  551

  47.10

  4,650

  36.55

  5,497

  6.38

  0

  0

  4

  42.38

  Notes:

  1. Figures for recipients are rounded to the nearest thousand except for "Numbers in receipt of one or more means-tested benefit" which have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. Average amounts for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit have been rounded to the nearest penny.

  3. Figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  4. Disability Working Allowance was introduced in April 1992.

  5. Council Tax Benefit replaced Community Charge Benefit from April 1993.

  6. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures exclude cases where there is no entitlement only because of non-dependent deductions.

  7. Council Tax Benefit figures do not include second adult rebates.

  Benefits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 July, what information he holds relating to the percentage of the population receiving funds from his Department. [36264]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Exact information in the form requested is not available but, in the 1993–94 family resources survey, 76 per cent. of responding households included at least one member in receipt of a benefit—including state retirement pension—at the time of interview. The survey relates to private households in Great Britain only and therefore excludes people in institutions like nursing homes and bed and breakfast accommodation. Although the survey is designed to be representative, survey responses are subject to biases which would have to be corrected to give a reliable estimate for the total population.
  1496

  Social Security Claimants
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the latest figures indicating the number of social security claimants who are in employment and the weekly average level of benefit paid to this category; [36301]

  (2) what are the latest figures for the number of social security claimants who are unemployed and the weekly average benefit paid to this category. [36302]

  Mr. Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of means-tested benefit claimants, broken down into those in receipt of income support, family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit; and what have been the average weekly payment levels made to claimants in each category; and what were the figures for each year from 1990 to 1994. [36297]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table. Figures relate to benefit units.

  Column 1 provides the total number of benefits units in receipt of one or more means-tested benefit after overlaps have been taken into account. The remaining columns show the number of benefit units who receive each individual benefit and give the average amount of that benefit in payment.

  Social Fund
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the discretionary social fund; and if he will make a statement. [36599]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are introducing some small amendments to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance on the help available for minor repairs and improvements from the discretionary fund, in the light of the proposed changes to the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1995 from 2 October 1995.

  In addition, as part of our routine monitoring of the social fund, we have identified scope for some minor improvements to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance.
  1497
  Details of the amendments and a revised copy of the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to take effect from 2 October 1995 have been placed in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he proposes to make for the reorganisation of fraud investigations under the jobseeker's allowance. [36600]

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have agreed that, with the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, the work of fraud investigators in the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency will be brought together within the Benefits Agency, which is responsible for the financial aspects of the allowance.

  Skin Disease
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many working days are currently estimated to be lost as a result of skin disease. [35968]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the form requested. The only figure which can be provided relates to the number of days of certified incapacity where a claim has been made to sickness and/or invalidity benefit as a result of diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue.

  In the period 6 April 1992 to 3 April 1993, this was 4,589,000.

  Employers are not required to keep information on the nature of incapacity in statutory sick pay cases.

  Source: based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims in the period 6 April 1992 to 3 April 1993 and rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Note: diagnosis code group 52 from "International Classification of Diseases, 1975" has been used to compile the table.

  Figures are for Great Britain.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many man-hours were expended in total on Child Support Agency business in the financial year 1994–95; how many man hours were expended in total on matters relating to the Child Support Agency by staff within the Department of Social Security that are not employed by the Child Support Agency; and if he will give a breakdown of the figures. [34458]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about man-hours expended on Child Support Agency business.
  An estimated 8,674,568 man-hours were expended on. Child Support Agency business by our own staff in Great Britain in the financial year 1994–95.
  1498
  Information on the number of man-hours expended in total on matters relating to the Child Support Agency by staff within the Department of Social Security is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current number of Child Support Agency assessments in respect of which part, but not the whole, of the amount currently payable, excluding any arrears, is being actually received by the Child Support Agency itself; what is the average weekly amount currently payable, excluding any arrears, under these assessments; and how many of these assessments are interim assessments of category A or D; [34439]

  (2) what is the current number of CSA assessments, other than nil assessments, in respect of which the full amount currently payable, excluding any arrears, is actually being received on a regular basis by the Child Support Agency itself; what is the average weekly amount currently payable, excluding any arrears, under these assessments; and how many of these assessments are interim assessments of category A or D. [34440]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about child maintenance paid in full or part, excluding any arrears.
  You asked for this information broken down between full maintenance assessments and Category A and D interim maintenance assessments (IMAs). As Category D IMAs were only introduced in April this year and none have so far been issued, we have therefore assumed that you were interested in Category B IMAs which have been used since April 1993. These are imposed when the absent parent fails to provide information on a second partner's income.
  Although the information is not available in the specific form you request, I hope you will find the following, which reflects the position as at 29 May, helpful. It relates to payments of regular maintenance and maintenance due for the period before the assessment was completed (known as the initial payment period).

  Full payment1

  Partial payment2

  Average assessment3

  Full maintenance assessment4

  25,676

  55,943

  5£43.46

  Interim maintenance

  5,756

  12,921

  £96.34

  1 Full means nothing due at 29 May 1995.

  2 Partial means at least one scheduled payment had been received.

  3 Data obtained from a one per cent, statistical sample carried out on 11 March 1995. Includes cases in which no payment has been made.

  4 Includes Category B interim maintenance assessments.

  5 Relates to cases in which the absent parent is in employment. Excludes absent parents on income support.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect on manpower of moving some of the operations of Child Support Agency into local offices as stated in the agency's most recent business plan;
  1499
  and what measures will be adopted to monitor the costs of such a development. [34459]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the effect on manpower of moving some work into local child support offices.
  As with any transfer of work within an organisation there will be a commensurate movement of resources. This will ensure that staff in local child support offices are properly equipped and trained to complete some maintenance assessments. Proper management controls will be in place to monitor costs arising from the movement of this work.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he will be making to the Child Support Agency's computer system to allow assessments to be carried out in local offices; what will be the cost; who will be the contractor and how they will be chosen; what quality assurance measures will be taken; when the changes will be completed; and what measures are to be taken to guarantee the security of the system. [34457]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne dated 19 July 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the changes to the Child Support Agency's computer system to maintenance assessments to be carried out locally.
  Full access to the child support computer system which will allow staff in local offices to make some maintenance assessments will be introduced in early 1996 and we have asked the Information Technology Services Agency to arrange for this work to be carried out. Details such as the total cost of the plan, quality assurance, security of the system and final rollout will be addressed during the planning process.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of Child Support Agency offices in the United Kingdom at 19 June. [34766]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 June 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of Child Support Offices in the United Kingdom.
  As at 19 June 1995 there were 320 local Child Support Agency offices in Great Britain. I am unable to provide you with information for the whole of the United Kingdom as the operations of the Agency in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a monthly breakdown of the number of parents with care who cease to claim benefit within four weeks of intervention by the Child Support Agency. [34834]
  1500
  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of parents with care who cease to receive benefit within four weeks of being contacted by the Child Support Agency.
  During 1994/95 over 60,000 parents with care ceased their claim to Income Support within four weeks of action by the Child Support Agency. The table at annex A shows a monthly breakdown of this figure.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Cases where parent with care ceased to claim Income Support within four weeks of contact from the Child Support Agency: April 1994 to March 1995

  Month

  Volume

  April

  5,737

  May

  5,977

  June

  6,282

  July

  4,791

  August

  4,565

  September

  5,352

  October

  5,109

  November

  5,129

  December

  3,329

  January

  4,163

  February

  4,448

  March

  5,344

  Total

  60,226

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many forms 676 indicating that parents with care have been moved off benefit as a result of the payment of child support maintenance have been issued from the Child Support Agency to the Benefits Agency; and if he will provide a monthly breakdown for the financial year 1994 to 1995. [34835]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of parents with care who have moved off benefit following the payment of child maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency (Maintenance Cessations).
  The information that you have requested is shown in the table below.

  Month

  Maintenance Cessations

  April

  614

  May

  403

  June

  905

  July

  1,378

  August

  655

  September

  560

  October

  451

  November

  975

  1501

  Month

  Maintenance Cessations

  December

  552

  January

  546

  February

  628

  March

  511

  1994–95

  8,178

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of hon. Members' queries to the Child Support Agency are fully answered within the time laid down in the Child Support Agency charter; and what percentage of the general public's queries are fully answered within the charter time. [35039]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mr. Ken Purchase, dated 19 July 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's performance in replying to correspondence.
  The Agency does not use a charter standard for measuring the time taken to reply to MP's correspondence. Instead, it follows the Departmental target of replying to MP's letters within 20 days. The table below shows the performance against this target which highlights the improvements achieved over recent months.

  Percentage

  1–20 days

  21–40 days

  Over 40 days

  September 1994

  14

  55

  31

  May 1995

  56

  44

  0

  The Agency has a charter standard to reply to written enquiries from the public "within 10 working days". During 1994/95 the Agency replied to 35% of written enquiries within the charter standard.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 432, to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) how the figure for benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency was arrived at; and if he will give a detailed breakdown. [27998]

  Mr. Mitchell
  [pursuant to the reply of the Minister of State for Social Security 12 June 1995, c. 492]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 July 1995:
  I wrote to you in reply on 13 June in reply to PQ2406/1993/94 which concerned the benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency during 1994/95.
  Unfortunately there was a small typographical error in the annex attached to my letter. The entry in the table "Income Support exceeded rate of benefit" should have read "Maintenance exceeded rate of benefit". Please find a corrected copy of the table attached.
  Please accept my apologies for this error.
  1502

  Category of benefit savings

  Amount (£ million)

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  119.52

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State

  7.00

  Resulting from CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  13.76

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of state

  47.94

  Deductions from income support payments made to absent parents

  2.38

  Income Support claim cessation:

  Maintenance exceeded rate of benefit

  23.83

  Income support claim withdrawn within 4 weeks of CSA action

  199.53

  Reductions in Family Credit or Disability Working allowance resulting from CSA assessments

  12.84

  Housing benefit/Council tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  52.25

  Total

  479.05

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the internal guidance that is currently available to local DSS staff which enables them to determine whether a person should be regarded as employed or self-employed. [34572]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 19 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme. I have been asked to reply to your question about the publication of the internal guidance which enables staff to determine whether a person should be regarded as employed or self-employed.
  The Agency has decided against publishing its current internal guidance at this time because there appears to be little likelihood of sufficient demand for a sight of them to warrant the cost of formal publication. But under the Government's Code of Practice we will respond to any individual request for copies of our internal guidance; and we intend to keep the options under review in the light of demand.
  I hope this reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the present circumstances and conditions under which officials from his Department evaluate a home visit to claimant as necessary; and what plans he has for changes in procedures as a result of his announced proposals to reduce benefit abuse. [35369]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Home visits are the responsibility of the chief executives of the Benefits Agency and of the War Pensions Agency, who will write to the hon. Member.
  1503
  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Roger Godsiff, dated 18 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the reasons for home visits by officials of the Department and the planned changes in procedures.
  Benefits such as Child Benefit, Family Credit, Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Disability Working Allowance, Attendance Allowance (AA), Invalid Care Allowance, Disablement Benefits and Retirement Pensions are centrally administered by the Benefits Agency (BA) and if a home visit is required BA District staff are locally based to carry them out. A visit may be appropriate if a customer is having difficulty in completing their claim form, perhaps because of illness or disability or because a customer has failed to return an order book that had been requested.
  As well as carrying out visits for centrally administered benefits, BA District staff routinely visit customers in connection with claims to Income Support (IS), Social Fund, Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance. As a result of the announced proposals to reduce benefit abuse 300,000 additional home visits will be made on new claims for IS during the financial year 1995/96. An additional 187,500 home visits will be made to customers currently in receipt of IS. These home visits will be targeted at claims where there is a significant risk that they are incorrect. The criteria for these visits has been determined through a detailed examination of the outcome of a number of home visits. The aim is not only to reduce benefit abuse but also to reduce customer error and errors by the BA. It will also allow the BA to identify circumstances in which customers are entitled to additional Social Security benefits.
  The Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) doctors conduct medical examinations in connection with claims for DLA and AA in the customer's own home in order to assess needs within the home environment. Most other claims for benefit that require a medical examination are carried out at the Medical Service's examination centres. A BAMS Medical advisor will consider the available evidence and recommend a home examination if in his opinion it is required because of the customer's medical condition.
  Annex A outlines the existing criteria for visits to customers claiming locally administered benefits. This list is not exhaustive. Priority would always be given to visits that involved questions of benefit entitlement. Attached at Annexes B and C are the additional criteria applied to new and existing IS claims from which cases may be selected for home visits.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Existing criteria for visit by BA staff Annex A
  The customer is unable to complete a postal claim form or Social Fund application and is not able to attend the office for interview.
  The customer, excluding those that are required to be available and actively seeking work, requests a visit after the issue of a claim form, even if the form has been completed.
  Difficulties are revealed which cannot be resolved by any other method.
  In IS cases where a routine case check is due in respect of pensioners appointees.
  The customer, excluding those that are required to be available and actively seeking work, fails to return a review form A2.
  It is the only way of verifying the customer's identity and/or address or the validity of the claim.
  Appointee action is required, if a customer is unable to handle their own affairs.
  A visit to a customer with a chronic or mental illness who has for no apparent reason stopped submitting medical evidence.
  The case is included in the random selection of claims made under Trade Dispute procedures.
  The case is selected for a random check.
  Visits to UK nationals who are approaching 100 years of age.
  Retrieval of order books when postal methods have failed.
  Where there is suspicion of fraud or other irregularity.
  1504
  Additional criteria for visits on new IS claims Annex B
  Unexplained background to claim or claim incomplete.
  Number of children inconsistent with the amount of Child Benefit declared.
  Customer has no National Insurance Number.
  Customer has recently separated from partner.
  Customer has no fixed address, claim form gives address but customer states he is not residing there.
  Customer requests that their claim is backdated more than one month.
  Customer indicates on their claim form that the Habitual Residence Test is appropriate.
  Customer lives at a multi occupancy address or address where there are problems with the postal arrangements.
  Customer may be living as husband and wife with another person not declared as their partner.
  Additional criteria for visits on current IS claims Annex C
  Customer is a Lone Parent and not receiving One Parent Benefit.
  Child Benefit inconsistent with the number of children the customer is claiming for.
  Non-householders aged 25 to 35.
  Customer, or their partner, was self employed prior to claiming IS.
  Customer, or their partner, is currently self employed.
  Customer, or their partner, is working as an employed earner.
  Customer, or their partner, has income other than earnings or other Social Security Benefit.
  Customer is over 75 years of age.
  Payment of IS is made by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT).

  Letter from Brian Sweet to Mr. Roger Godsiff, dated 19 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about home visits. Mr. Mathison is away from the office today and has asked me to reply on his behalf.
  Within the War Pensions Agency, home visits are carried out by the War Pensioners' Welfare Service (WPWS). The visiting policy of the WPWS was agreed by consultation with staff, ex-service organisations and War Pensions Committee members and sanctioned by the Central Advisory Committee following ministerial approval.

  The policy is as follows:

  1. To respond to requests for assistance within set target times.

  2. To visit war widows pensioners aged 60 plus, assessed at 30 per cent. or more disabled and all widows aged 60 plus.

  3. To visit all current invaliding cases.

  4. To visit all war widows within 6 weeks of the receipt of notification of a pensioner's death.

  5. To offer a visit to all inter-war cases by arrangement with the Ministry of Defence.

  6. To offer a visit to all pensioners whose accepted disablement suggests:

  a) life threatening condition

  b) attendance/mobility needs

  c) psychiatric disorder

  d) greater disablement.

  A standard formula is in use to fully evaluate the visit and an action plan is produced, for resolution of any problems, in each case.
  There are no plans for changes in WPWS procedures as a result of the Secretary of State for Social Security's proposals to reduce benefit fraud; as such matters are dealt with by the Benefits Agency on our behalf.
  1505
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many home visits have been made by Benefits Agency staff in the course of their duties in the latest period for which figures are available; and what were the equivalent figures(a) three, (b) five, (c) 10 and (d) 15 years ago. [34444]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: I am unable to provide the figures for all of the home visits

  Annex A

  April 1994-March 1995

  April 1991-March 1992

  April 1989-March 1990

  April 1984-March 1985

  April 1979-March 1980

  Effective IS visits

  498,819

  552,191

  803,795

  3,001,362

  6,686,752

  Effective CB visits

  49,186

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  IS Income Support CB Contributory Benefit

  Data is provisional and is subject to amendment.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his most recent estimate of the average sum paid to(a) female pensioners and (b) male pensioners over their period of entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [33086]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested. An estimate of the average amount of retirement pension paid over their lifetimes to (a) male pensioners retiring now at 65 and (b) single female pensioners (never married) retiring now at 60 is given in the table.

  Estimated RP receipt1

  1994 prices

  Age in 1994

  Average receipt in 1994

  Average lifetime2 receipt3

  Male4

  65

  £73.79 per week

  £61,800

  Female, never married

  60

  £62.72 per week

  £78,900

  1 RP includes Basic RP, SERPS and GRADS. Dependent additions are excluded.

  2 Life expectancies are for GB.

  3 Individuals are assumed not to suffer any change in circumstances, marital or otherwise, which may affect pension entitlement. RP is assumed to be uprated in line with prices.

  4Excluding widowers.

SCOTLAND

  National Roads Directorate
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reached a conclusion on the prior options study of the Scottish Office National Roads Directorate and whether he will make a statement. [36602]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The prior options study examined a number of options for the future conduct of the management of the trunk road network. It took into account that, over a number of years, the Scottish Office has successfully pursued a series of policies which have increased the level of private sector involvement in the directorate's activities, through contracting out and the development of new contract forms. The directorate made
  1506
  we make as the figures on some areas of work are not collated nationally.

  I have, however, attached at annex A a table giving the available figures. It includes income support visits for all the periods requested and contributory benefits visits for the year April 1994 to March 1995 only.

  a valuable contribution to the study through identification of further scope for private sector involvement, some of which is already being pursued. The study concluded that this can best be achieved by retaining the National Roads Directorate within the Scottish Office. I do not therefore propose to create a next steps executive agency.

  Past policy development in relation to trunk roads has been consistent with next steps principles; and the directorate will seek to extend the application to its work of those principles as developed in "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", Cm 2748.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the framework which is being proposed for the transfer of property on 1 April 1996 from existing councils to their successors. [36603]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office is today issuing for consultation a draft order which sets out the arrangements by which it is proposed that existing local authority property should transfer on 1 April 1996 to the new councils, joint boards and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. I am placing copies of the draft order in the Library. Views on the draft property transfer order have been invited by 14 August 1995. The finalised order will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

  It is proposed that, wherever possible, new councils should come together to agree on the allocation of property. I hope that most property will be allocated in this way but I acknowledge that this may not always be possible. Accordingly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be setting up a small independent property commission which will be charged with determining the authority to which disputed property should be transferred. The draft order contains proposals for the principles to which the commission should adhere in making its determinations. It is intended that the property commission will be set up from September 1995. Consideration is currently being given to its membership and precise remit.
  1507

  Veterinary Services
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on reviewing the Highlands and Islands veterinary services scheme and if he will make a statement. [36604]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  A review of this scheme has been completed and revised arrangements, which have been agreed with the British Veterinary Association, will be introduced which will ensure the availability of an adequate veterinary service at reasonable cost to crofters and persons of like economic status in the former crofting counties in respect of animals kept for agricultural purposes. Grants paid to participating veterinary practices will include mileage grant, supplementary travel grant and, in certain of the western islands, difficult area practice grant. The standard visit fee to be paid by the crofters will also be increased to £12.50.

  I am very glad that we have been able to introduce this revised scheme of assistance towards the provision of veterinary services to crofters. It will protect animal health and welfare and contribute to improving the productivity of livestock which is of such importance to the economy of the crofting areas. The scheme targets resources at the areas where there is greatest need and makes provision for additional veterinary practices to join the scheme.

  The revised scheme will be introduced with effect from 1 April 1995. Further details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions on which he and his ministerial colleagues have been on overseas trade missions in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; how many such visits are programmed for 1995–96; and if he will give the out-turn, estimated or anticipated cost for each year. [19219]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Electronic Data Systems
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33172]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office has no contracts with EDS—Electronic Data Systems.
  1508

  Departmental Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the past five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33424]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Civil Servants (Party Political Activity)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules apply to the provision by his Department, including his special advisers, of advice, briefing notes, draft speeches or other information to Conservative Members; what such material has been made available in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is an established principle that civil servants should not engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to criticism that officials paid for out of public funds are being used for party-political purposes.

  Accordingly, the following rules apply:

  (a)civil servants in their official capacity are prohibited from attending conferences arranged by political parties;

  (b) they may not attend meetings of policy or subject groups of the parliamentary parties;

  (c) they may not attend all-party subject groups or committees except to accompany a Minister and to respond to factual questions;

  (d) these rules need not inhibit factual briefings by officials of MPs on overseas or regional visits;

  (e) Ministers may also arrange factual briefing by officials, for MPs of one party provided that a Minister attends the meeting and similar facilities are offered to MPs of other parties;

  (f) Ministers should always be present when MPs are to discuss sensitive areas of public policy with officials.

  Written briefing material provided by officials to Ministers may be distributed to Back-Bench Members provided that it would be released to any genuine inquirer and that hon. Members of all parties may have access to it.

  The rules do not prevent agency chief executives and managers of local offices, with the Minister's approval, from communicating with hon. Members about problems of individual constituents.

  A record of the material made available to hon. Members could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Party Political Activity)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions over any recent convenient period he has granted leave to civil servants, at a level to be in contact with himself as Secretary of State, to participate in party political activity. [33004]

  .Mr Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: None.
  1509

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) 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; [33435]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980; [33454]

  (3) how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33565]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is currently not held centrally and is therefore not available. Steps are, however, being taken to establish a central record of such information.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts and for what total sum were let out 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, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33908]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The information requested is currently not held centrally and is therefore not available. Steps are, however, being taken to establish a central record of such information.

  Guidance to staff considering the use of external consultants is available from my Department's efficiency unit and purchasing and supply division.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all recipients of woodland grant scheme payment over £1,000 in Scotland in 1993–94 by(a) name, (b) location of woodland, (c) amount and (d) date paid. [33758]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Library.

  Fisheries
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total catch of(a) sandeels and (b) other fish in the Shetland sandeel fishery during 1995. [34128]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In total 1,165 tonnes of sandeels were caught and under 10 tonnes of by-catch taken from the Shetland sandeel fishery during 1995.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many vessels fished, and for how many days in 1995, within 5 km of the special protection areas(a) around Noss, (b) around Foula and (c) in Mousa Sound; [34130]
  1510
  (2) what was the total catch of sandeels during 1995 within 5 km of the special protection areas (a) around Noss, (b) around Foula and (c) in Mousa Sound. [34129]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested cannot be provided as fisheries statistics are not collected in this form.

  Departments of Employment and Education (Merger)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of the Department of Employment and Department of Education merger for the Scottish Education Department; and what responsibilities the Secretary of State for Scotland will take over from the Department of Employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of water pollution have been recorded in each year of the last five years, by region. [34630]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Statistics recording the number of water pollution incidents for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are set out below for each river purification board area in Scotland. Figures for earlier years are not available on a comparable basis.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clyde

  1,036

  791

  Forth

  711

  622

  Highland

  271

  283

  North east

  324

  439

  Solway

  238

  347

  Tay

  289

  394

  Tweed

  151

  205

  Departmental Computer Equipment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [34560]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [34613]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 159 redundancies in my Department in 1994–95, all of which were voluntary.

  The costs of redundancies are met from the Department's running costs provision and accounted for along with the costs of various forms of early retirement.

  1511
  A breakdown of the costs of redundancy alone could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the gross cost to the Scottish Office in 1994–95 of all early leavers was £2.4 million including £0.9 million for the Scottish Prison Agency. This sum will be more than offset over time by consequential salary savings as staff numbers reduce.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [35123]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The estimated outturn for the financial year 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 is £90.1 million. This represents 22.7 per cent. of the United Kingdom total.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the beef special premium scheme for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34989]

  Mr. Robertson
  Payments under the beef special premium scheme in Scotland in the financial year 1994–95 totalled £27.4 million.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34990]

  Mr. Robertson
  The estimated outturn for the financial year 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 is £48.7 million.

  Mr. Tipping
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of landowners receiving payments under the arable area payments scheme of(a) less than £25,000, (b) between £25,000 and £50,000, (c) between £50,000 and £1 million and (d) above £1 million, for the latest year for which figures are available. [35361]

  Mr. Robertson
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of producers excluded from the 1994 suckler cow premium scheme by virtue of late submission of an application. [35720]

  Mr. Robertson
  Four applications under the 1994 suckler cow premium scheme were formally lodged with the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department after the final date for receipt of valid applications.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what aspects of European regional development fund moneys channelled through the Scottish Office were the subject of the recent inquiry by the EU Regional Aid Commissioner; what information was provided by the Scottish Office in response; and if he will make a statement. [35140]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  1512

  Scottish National Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 790, if he will list the (a) conservation bodies, (b) farmers, (c) landowners, (d) countryside sports body and (e) other bodies addressed by the chairman of Scottish National Heritage since its inception.

  Mr. Kynoch
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Agri-environment Programme
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to review the operation and effectiveness of the agri-environment measures operating in Scotland. [34845]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  All aspects of the operation and effectiveness of the agri-environment measures are kept under review.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline his policy towards environmentally sensitive areas; for what reasons farmers and crofters in Scotland are subject to financial limits on the annual environmentally sensitive area payments they receive; and what plans he has to harmonise their treatment to accord with practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. [34843]

  Mr. Robertson
  The environmentally sensitive areas scheme is an important part of Scotland's agri-environmental programme and has operated since 1987, for the benefit of many farmers and crofters and Scotland's unique natural heritage. The financial limits are designed to ensure that the resources available for the scheme are not absorbed by a small number of large farms at the expense of smaller units which could demonstrate conservation benefits. The scheme has been tailored specifically to reflect Scottish conditions and I have no plans to harmonise the detail of the scheme to accord with the approach adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what community environmental objectives will be met by the agri-environment programme in Scotland as required by article 3.3(c) of the EU Agri-Environment Regulations 2078/92. [34846]

  Mr. Robertson
  The objectives of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, the heather moorland scheme, the habitats scheme, the organic aid scheme and the set-aside access scheme are in compliance with respectively, article 2.1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g), 2.1(c) and (d), 2,1(f), 2.1(a) and (d) and 2.1 (g) of regulation (EEC) 2078/92.

  In addition, the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, the heather moorland scheme and the habitats scheme also reflect the objectives of the habitats directive—92/43/EEC—and the birds directive–79.409/EEC.

  Alcoholic Drinks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the contribution of alcoholic drinks production to the Scottish gross domestic product in the latest year for which figures are available, and if he will make a statement. [34983]
  1513
  Mr. Kynoch
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual budget for each of the Scottish environmentally sensitive areas, the number of agreements approved to date in each environmentally sensitive area and the number remaining to be processed; and if he expects the budget to be fully spent in 1995–96. [34842]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Financial provision for the environmentally sensitive areas scheme as a whole in Scotland for 1995–96 is £5.7 million. Funds are not allocated to individual environmentally sensitive areas. The number of plans approved in each area and the number under consideration as at the end of May are set out in the table:

  Number of ESA plans approved

  Number of ESA plans under consideration

  Breadalbane

  177

  17

  Loch Lomond

  68

  6

  Stewartry

  240

  24

  Central Borders (formerly Whitelaw and Eildon)

  35

  10

  Machair of the Uists and Benbecula Barra and Vatersay

  612

  52

  Central Southern Uplands

  115

  34

  Western Southern Uplands

  51

  32

  Cairngorms Straths

  14

  30

  Argyll Islands

  55

  36

  Shetland Islands

  14

  13

  Total

  1,381

  254

  It is too early to say whether the budget for 1995–96 will be fully utilised.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of staff hours taken up in assessing whether applications breach the financial limits on annual payments in environmentally sensitive areas, indicating how much time elapses, on average, between receipt of environmentally sensitive area applications and their approval. [34844]

  Mr. Robertson
  There is an automatic computer check on the extent to which applications comply with the specified financial limits but this is only one of many aspects covered in the assessment process and it is not possible to estimate how much time is devoted to any single part of the process. The average period of time between receipt of an acceptable application and the issue of an offer of agreement is 111 days.

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home-Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consideration of the affairs of the Algrade trust by the Scottish Charities Office; if he will make further provision, to improve the accommodation and care of 1514
  residents on the trust's premises at Humbie; and if the Crown Office intends to take any action against the former trustees. [34773]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Scotland were affected by(a) dampness and (b) condensation in the last year for which figures are available. [35220]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Local authorities estimated that the number of public sector houses affected by(a) dampness total 55,554 and (b) condensation total 142,684 as at 31 March 1994.

  Information for Scottish Homes and the new town is not held centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Scotland were classified as below the tolerable standard in the last year for which figures are available. [35221]

  Mr. Robertson
  The latest available information on the number of houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard is published in the statistical bulletin HSG/1994/8 "Dwellings below the Tolerable Standard (BTS) in Scotland: Estimates by Local Authorities for March 1994 and Details of Action on such Dwellings". This bulletin is available in the Library.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Government guidelines or circulars issued by his Department to islands councils and district councils in Scotland since 1 January 1993 relating to the discharge of these councils' functions as housing authorities. [35711]

  Mr. Raymond Robertson
  The list of guidelines or circulars issued by the housing group of the Scottish Office Environment Department since 1 January 1993 to district and islands councils in Scotland is as follows:

  Date

  Guidelines/Circulars

  1993

  ENV 7/1993

  Local Authorities Etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993.

  ENV 12/1993

  New Style Housing Plans, Annual Policy Statements and Housing Capital Programmes.

  ENV 14/1993

  Guidance on Strategic Priorities and Option Appraisal in Housing Investment.

  ENV 15/1993

  Housing and Community Care: Bridging Finance.

  ENV 19/1993

  Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993: Commencement of Provisions Relating Exclusively to Scotland.

  ENV 20/1993

  Extension of Rent to Mortgage Scheme to Local Authority Tenants

  ENV 21/1993

  Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993: Commencement of Part II, Chapter II Provisions.

  1515

  Date

  Guidelines/Circulars

  ENV 24/1993

  Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993: Commencement Order and Associated Orders.

  ENV 26/1993

  Housing for People Leaving the Armed Forces.

  1994

  ENV 2/1994

  Housing and Crime Prevention.

  ENV 8/1994

  Right to Compensation for Improvements.

  ENV 12/1994

  Right to Repair.

  ENV 23/1994

  Housing Management Plans.

  ENV 27/1994

  Community Care—The Housing Dimension.

  ENV 30/1994

  Improvement and Repairs Grant System: Aims and Objectives.

  ENV 32/1994

  Housing (Scotland) Act 1987: Part XIV: Defective Housing Ending of Scheme of Assistance.

  September 93

  Refurbishment Contracts: Guidelines for the more effective involvement of tenants in the repair and improvement of their homes. Tenant Feedback: A Step-by-Step Guide to Tenant Satisfaction Surveys.

  1993–95

  A series of 5 Housing Management Good Practices Notes on Rent Collection and Rent Accounting, Rent Arrears Management, Void Management, Tenant Participation and Tenancy Management.

  1994

  9 reports of pilot studies carried out in England by the Department of the Environment on housing management CCT covering aspects including organisational change, tenants consultation, contract specification and information technology.

  May 95

  Housing Management CCT—Issues for Authorities with Dispersed or Sparse Housing Stock.

  Unemployment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered unemployed there were in Scotland on the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent figure for 1979. [35226]

  Police establishment

  Police strength1

  Civilian establishment2

  Civilian strength2

  At 1 April 1994

  Central

  650

  658

  203

  173

  Dumfries and Galloway

  384

  386

  177

  147

  Fife

  780

  791

  273

  237

  Grampian

  1,178

  1,193

  479

  422

  Lothian and Borders

  2,522

  2,558

  1,183

  965

  Northern

  654

  658

  352

  321

  1516
  Mr. Kynoch
  In June 1995, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in Scotland was 197,600. The equivalent figure in 1979 was 138,500.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered unemployed there were who had been out of work for more than a year in Scotland on the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent figure for 1979. [35227]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In April 1995, 70,100 people in Scotland had been claimant unemployed for more than a year.

  An equivalent figure for 1979 is not available.

  Nurses
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many nurses in training there were in Scotland in each year since 1979; [35652]

  (2) how many nurses were employed in the Scottish NHS in each year since 1979. [35651]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of people being cared for in private nursing homes and private residential homes for the elderly in Scotland in(a) 1979, (b) 1990 and (c) the last year for which figures are available. [35655]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows the available information:

  1985

  1987

  1990

  1993

  1994

  Private nursing homes

  n/a

  15,063

  110,311

  117,012

  15,676

  Private residential homes for the elderly

  901

  1,960

  3,195

  3,295

  n/a

  1 Number of places.

  The earliest year for which information is available for private residential homes is 1985 and 1987 for nursing homes.

  Police Force
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the establishment and (b) the manpower of each police force in Scotland in terms of (i) numbers of police officers and (ii) numbers of civilian support staff as at (1) 1 April 1994 and (2) 1 April 1995. [34322]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  1517

  Police establishment

  Police strength1

  Civilian establishment2

  Civilian strength2

  Strathclyde

  6,954

  6,860

  2,066

  1,548

  Tayside

  1,079

  1,070

  438

  364

  Total

  14,201

  14,174

  5,171

  4,177

  At 1 April 1995

  Central

  652

  656

  217

  185

  Dumfries and Galloway

  384

  391

  177

  162

  Fife

  780

  789

  284

  235

  Grampian

  1,178

  1,194

  487

  427

  Lothian and Borders

  2,522

  2,539

  1,222

  1,003

  Northern

  654

  649

  368

  318

  Strathclyde

  6,954

  7,014

  2,231

  1,618

  Tayside

  1,085

  1,091

  464

  399

  Total

  14,209

  14,323

  5,450

  4,347

  1 Includes officers on secondment.

  2 Includes traffic wardens, clerical and technical staff, cadets, domestics, cleaners, and Dart-time staff.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current ratio of police officers to civilian support staff in(a) each police force in Scotland and (b) overall in Scotland. [34323]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Force

  Ratio of police officers to civilian support staff at 1 April 1995

  Central

  3.5:1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2.4:1

  Fife

  3.3:1

  Grampian

  2.8:1

  Lothian and Borders

  2.5:1

  Northern

  2.0:1

  Strathclyde

  4.3:1

  Tayside

  2.7:1

  Scotland

  3.3:1

  Police numbers include officers on secondment. Civilian numbers include traffic wardens, clerical and technical staff, cadets, domestics, cleaners (except in the case of Strathclyde where cleaning services have been contracted out) and part-time staff.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department or the Lord Advocate were consulted on Scottish issues in connection with the Government's fourth periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. [34669]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish office was fully involved in the preparation of the United Kingdom's fourth periodic report to the human rights committee under article 40 of the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Wildlife
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the globally endangered and endemic species of wildlife found in Scotland and their current conservation status; and what sum is currently being spent by Scottish Natural Heritage on safeguarding these species. [34924]
  1518
  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is given below:

  List of globally threatened and threatened endemic species occurring in Scotland

  Globally threatened species

  Common name

  Red data book status

  Fungi

  Tulostoma niveum

  —

  Vulnerable

  Lichens

  Collema dichotomurn

  River jelly lichen

  Vulnerable

  Schistmatoma

  —

  Vulnerable

  graphidioides

  Bryophytes

  Lejeuna mandonii

  —

  Endangered

  Gymnostonum insigne

  —

  (Localised)

  Vascular plants

  Artemisia norvegica

  Norwegian mugwort

  Rare

  Euphrasia spp (x5)

  Eyebrights

  Rare

  Trichomanes

  Killarney fern

  Endangered

  speciosum

  Invertebrates

  Hirudo medicinalis

  Medicinal leech

  Rare

  Margaritifera

  Freshwater pearl

  Scarce

  margaritifera

  mussel

  Formica aquilonia

  —

  Scarce

  Formica lugubris

  —

  Scarce

  Vertigo angustior

  —

  Endangered

  Vertigo genesii

  —

  Endangered

  Vertigo geyeri

  —

  Endangered

  Herpetofauna

  Dermochelyidae/

  Marine turtles

  Endangered

  Cheloniidae (x4)

  Birds

  Crex Crex

  Corncrake

  Red data book listed

  Mammals

  Delphinapterus leucas

  white whale, beluga

  Insufficiently known

  Monodon monoceros

  narwhal

  Insufficiently known

  Phocoena phocoena

  harbour porpoise

  Insufficiently known

  1519

  List of globally threatened and threatened endemic species occurring in Scotland

  Globally threatened species

  Common name

  Red data book status

  Lagenorhynchus albirostris

  white-beaked dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Lagenorhynchus acutus

  Atlantic white-sided dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Grampus griseus

  Risso's dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Tursiops truncatus

  bottlenose dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Stenella coeruleoalba

  striped dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Delphinus delphis

  common dolphin

  Insufficiently known

  Pseudorca crassidens

  false killer whale

  Insufficiently known

  Orcinus orca

  killer whale

  Insufficiently known

  Globicephala melas

  long-finned pilot whale

  Insufficiently known

  Mesoplodon bidens

  Sowerby's beaked whale

  Insufficiently known

  Mesoplodon densirostris

  Blainville's beaked whale

  Insufficiently known

  Mesoplodon nurus

  True's beaked whale

  Insufficiently known

  Ziphius cavirostris

  Cuvier's beaked whale

  Insufficiently known

  Hyperoodon

  northern bottlenose

  Insufficiently

  ampullatus

  whale

  known

  Physeter

  sperm whale

  Insufficiently

  macrocephalus

  known

  Kogia breviceps

  pygmy sperm whale

  Insufficiently known

  Eubalaena glacialis

  northern right whale

  Endangered

  Balaenoptera

  minke whale

  Insufficiently

  acutorostrata

  known

  Balaenoptera borealis

  sei whale

  Vulnerable

  Balaenoptera musculus

  blue whale

  Endangered

  Balaenoptera physalus

  fin whale

  Vulnerable

  Megaptera

  humpback whale

  Vulnerable

  novaeangliae

  Threatened endemics

  Bryophytes

  Bryoerythrophyllum

  —

  (Localised)

  caledonicum2

  Pictus scoticus2

  —

  Data deficient

  Pohlia scotica2

  —

  (Localised)

  Spagnum Skyense2

  —

  Data deficient

  Bryum dixonii2

  —

  Scarce

  Fossombronia

  —

  Scarce

  fimbriata1

  Algae

  Chara muscosa

  Mossy Stonewort

  Indeterminate

  (possibly extinct)

  Vascular plants

  Athyrium flexile2

  Newman's lady fern

  Scarce

  Calamagrostis scotica
  22

  Scottish small-reed

  Vulnerable

  Cerastium nigrescens2

  Shetland mouse-ear

  Rare

  Cochlearia micacea2

  Mountain scurvy-grass

  Rare

  Epipactis youngiana2

  Young's helleborine

  Vulnerable

  Senecio cambrensis2

  Welsh groundsel

  Rare

  Primula scotica2

  Scots primrose

  Scarce

  Invertebrates

  Procas granulicollis

  —

  Indeterminate

  Thinobius newberyi

  a rove beetle

  Vulnerable

  Aricia artaxerxes

  northern brown argus

  Scarce

  1520

  List of globally threatened and threatened endemic species occurring in Scotland

  Globally threatened species

  Common name

  Red data book status

  Birds

  Loxia scotica

  Scottish crossbill

  Red data book listed

  1 Endemic to Britain and Ireland rather than Britain alone.2.Species that occur in Scotland only

  NB. The sea mammals listed are those which have been recorded in the UK.Few acutlly breed ing UK waters.

  During the financial year 1994–95 the amount spent by Scottish Natural Heritage—SNH—on safeguarding these species was £66,000. For the year 1995–96, the amount allocated is £120,000. The 1995–96 figures include expenditure under SNH's species action programme.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consideration has been given to extending the coverage of the rough sleepers initiative to Scotland; [34928]

  (2) what is the amount of public funding which has been specifically targeted on people sleeping rough in Scotland in each year since 1991–92; and how many units of accommodation have been provided through such funding. [34925]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information is not available centrally on publicly funded services provided specifically for rough sleepers by housing, health and social work agencies, including voluntary bodies receiving grants from public funds. Facilities for rough sleepers are usually also used by other categories of homeless people; though some will be of particular benefit to rough sleepers, for example temporary accommodation and drop-in centres. We would expect local housing authorities, which have the primary statutory responsibility for tackling homelessness, to give particular priority to assisting those who are, or are at risk of, sleeping rough, and to work closely with other agencies. Future policy on rough sleepers will be informed by research into the prevalence of rooflessness in Scotland, from which findings will be available in mid 1996.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what are the intended and actual frequencies of inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of schools for(a) local authority-run nursery schools and (b) private nursery schools. [34814]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Her Majesty's inspectors of schools—HMI—inspect a sample of about 6 per cent. of local authority nursery schools and nursery classes attached to primary schools each year leading to a published report and follow-up inspection. They inspect nursery provision attached to independent schools. In addition, HMI has promoted self-evaluation in the pre-school sector by the recent publication of performance indicators for pre-school provision. Further inspection visits lead to the publication of aspect reports such as the HMI report "The Education of Children Under Five in
  1521
  Scotland." Further consideration will be given to future patterns of inspection in the context of the Government's current initiative on pre-school education.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will estimate the cost of administering a voucher scheme for nursery education; and if such administration will include checks on fraud and exchange or the sale of vouchers. [34815]

  Mr. Robertson
  As my right hon. Friend announced on 6 July, we shall be consulting on the detail of the voucher scheme in Scotland. It would be premature to comment on specific details of the scheme in advance of that consultation but necessary safeguards will be included.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many new private nursery schools will open in the highlands and islands following the introduction of a voucher scheme. [34816]

  Mr. Robertson
  At this stage, it is not possible to forecast how many private nurseries or playgroups may open in the highlands and islands following the introduction of the voucher schemes. The position will become clearer in due course.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the capital and revenue of providing nursery school places for all children in the three to five-year age group. [34817]

  Mr. Robertson
  The revenue cost of local authority nursery schools and classes for children aged two to five in 1993–94, the most recent year for which returns are available, was £62.2 million. In September 1993, 47,682 children aged three to five were in a mix of full-time and part-time local authority nursery schools or classes. Children generally enter primary school in Scotland in August where their fifth birthday falls between the previous March and the following February. Excluding five-year-olds, the estimated revenue cost of providing the same mix of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the year given would have been around £162 million. Information on the associated capital costs is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide(a) a breakdown of the completed nursery school building programme, and the conversion of primary school classrooms for nursery education in each year since 1979 and (b) a breakdown of present such programmes by local education authority, together with location and cost of each proposed development. [34818]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the information collected for the Scottish Education Department's 1988 review of provision for under-sixes; and if he will order and publish an update of that information. [34819]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so. The position regarding pre-school provision has changed significantly since that review was undertaken. Since then, there has been a large increase in provision by education authorities as well as by the voluntary and private sector. The new initiative,1522
  based on vouchers, which my right hon. Friend announced on 6 July 1995 will build on that progress but also offer parents real choice.

  More generally, information on levels of provision for pre-school education in Scotland is now published on a regular basis by the Scottish Office in statistical bulletins.

  Child Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to publish guidelines on the interviewing of children in cases of suspected child sexual abuse; and if he will make a statement. [34926]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance on interviewing children in cases of suspected child abuse forms part of wider guidance on joint investigation of such cases by police and social work. This has been prepared by a working group set up by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate following the publication of Lord Clyde's report of the Orkney inquiry. It will be issued shortly for consultation and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Libraries
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that public libraries will remain in the public sector. [34859]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change local authorities' statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate library facilities for all persons resident in their area. The report on the scope for contracting out in the public library service prepared for the Government by the consultants KPMG and CPI is being published today and the Scottish Office Education Department will consult local authorities and interested bodies about it.

  A92
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce when construction on dualling of the A92 between the Balmedie bypass and Tipperty is to begin. [35373]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am unable to say when construction on the upgrade of the A92 trunk road between the Balmedie bypass and Tipperty will commence. Officials in the Scottish Office Industry Department are currently considering a report prepared by consultants which recommends a route for the A92. Following the identification of a detailed scheme statutory authority to proceed will be sought. The scheme will thereafter compete with others for resources in the trunk road construction programme.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of dental practices(a) in Scotland and (b) in Gordon which continue to register national health service patients. [35263]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is held on dental practices. The number of individual dentists registered at 31 March 1995 on health board
  1523
  dental lists to provide national health service general dental services in Scotland was 1,763, of whom 20 practised in Gordon district. General dental practitioners are independent contractors who are free to decide whether to offer NHS treatment to each individual patient.

  Courts Administration
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to terminate the existing immunity of the Scottish courts administration from the consequences of negligence, following the case of Meekison v. Uniroyal Englebert Tyres Limited 1995, GWD 336. [35365]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The basis of the judgment of sheriff principal Gordon Nicholson QC in the appeal in this case was that courts in Scotland do not have a power at common law to make an award of expenses against someone who is not a party to a litigation, except in the cases of a dominus litis and a law agent. The Government have no plans to change the law in this respect.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees. [35456]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of permanent industrial and non-industrial staff on 1 April 1995 on a head-count basis were as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  The Scottish office and its executive agencies (excluding the Scottish Prison Service)

  3,310

  24

  2,009

  336

  The Scottish Prison Service

  3,815

  94

  406

  31

  The breakdown by grade of non-industrial staff in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service was as shown in the table. No breakdown of industrial staff by grade is available. The Scottish Prison Service has undergone a pay and grading review, and no longer uses civil service grades: it is therefore not possible to provide a breakdown of staffing numbers as requested.

  Department: The Scottish office and its executive agencies

  Male

  Female

  Grade

  Full-time

  Pan-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Unified Gl

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G3

  20

  —

  2

  1

  Unified G4

  13

  —

  3

  —

  Unified G5

  92

  1

  9

  8

  Unified G6

  68

  —

  11

  1

  Unified G7

  308

  3

  61

  16

  SEO

  130

  1

  23

  3

  HEO(D)

  13

  —

  6

  —

  HEO

  342

  2

  153

  35

  AT

  3

  —

  4

  —

  EO

  246

  2

  287

  45

  AO

  299

  3

  432

  84

  AA

  215

  —

  367

  43

  Senior Econ Assistant

  10

  —

  1

  1

  Econ Assistant

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1524

  Department: The Scottish office and its executive agencies

  Male

  Female

  Grade

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  3

  —

  11

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  9

  1

  3

  —

  Information Officer

  6

  —

  5

  —

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Librarian

  1

  —

  5

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  2

  —

  6

  —

  Legal Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Legal Trainee

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Curatorial Grade D

  3

  —

  4

  —

  Curatorial Grade E

  4

  —

  2

  1

  Curatorial Grade F

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Conservation Grade D

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Conservation Grade E

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Conservation Grade F

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Map and Chart Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Map and Chart Officer

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Map and Chart TGI

  1

  —

  1

  —

  SPTO

  84

  1

  7

  —

  HPTO

  36

  —

  —

  —

  PTO

  83

  —

  —

  —

  TGI

  2

  —

  2

  —

  TG2

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Graphics Officer

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Research Officer (S)

  4

  1

  6

  2

  Senior Research Officer (R)

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Typing Manager

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  —

  11

  —

  Personal Secretary

  1

  —

  186

  29

  Typist

  4

  —

  189

  43

  Trainee Typist

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Senior Scientific Officer

  40

  —

  3

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  54

  —

  16

  —

  Scientific Officer

  30

  —

  22

  3

  Asset Scientific Officer

  20

  —

  28

  4

  Museum Support Grade 1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Museum Support Grade 2

  7

  —

  1

  —

  Museum Support Grade 3

  4

  —

  5

  —

  Museum Support Grade 4

  36

  5

  12

  6

  Museum Support Grade 5

  12

  —

  9

  5

  Higher Photographic Officer

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Photographic Officer

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Proc. and Gen. Super Group Grade D

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stores Officer C

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Support Manager 2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Support Manager 3

  4

  —

  4

  —

  SGB1

  18

  —

  8

  —

  SGB2

  122

  —

  31

  4

  Agricultural Officer

  113

  —

  5

  —

  Area Meat and Livestock Inspector

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Asset Inspector Fire Service

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Asset Chief Inspector Social Work

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Chief Dental Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Executive NHS

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Food and Dairy Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Ind. Pollution Inspector

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Medical Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Nursing Officer

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Commandant (Fire School)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Commandant (Police College)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dental Officer

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Department Chief Ind. Pollution Inspector

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Farm Manager

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1525

  Department: The Scottish office and its executive agencies

  Male

  Female

  Grade

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  First Officer (Executive)

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Food and Dairy Officer

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Higher Agricultural Officer (T)

  43

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Agricultural Officer

  16

  —

  1

  —

  Higher Horticultural Officer

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Higher Marketing Officer (Horticulture)

  4

  —

  —_

  —

  Higher Marketing Officer (Poultry)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

  —

  1

  —

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of schools

  42

  1

  12

  —

  HM Staff Inspector

  24

  —

  3

  —

  HM Inspector of Constabulary

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Horticultural Officer

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Inspector of Social Work Services

  6

  —

  3

  —

  Marketing Officer (Horticulture)

  4

  —

  2

  —

  Marketing Officer (Poultry)

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Nursing Officer

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Principal Agricultural Officer

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Principal Horticultural Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Principal Reporter

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Reporter

  9

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Asset Inspector of Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Agricultural Officer

  45

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Dental Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Horticultural Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Planner

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Agricultural Officer (Poultry)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Telecoms Engineering Technician

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Telecoms Technical Engineer 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Telecoms Technical Engineer 2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Engineer

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Collector of Fisheries Statistics

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Commander

  8

  —

  —

  —

  First Officer (Safety)

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Engineer Superintendent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Fishery Officer 1

  21

  —

  —

  —

  Fishery Officer 2

  40

  —

  1

  —

  Inspector of Sea Fisheries

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Marine Superintendent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Second Engineer

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Second Officer

  12

  —

  2

  —

  Third Engineer

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Constable (Royal Parks)

  9

  —

  1

  —

  Sergeant (Royal Parks)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2,914

  24

  2,005

  336

  Child care
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spends on(a) child
  1526
  care provision for under-fives and (b) out-of-school provision for the over-fives, both directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, and indirectly through resources made available to local authorities and other organisations; what form of provision is provided; and how many full-time and part-time places are provided. [35550]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office supports the provision of various forms of day care through the urban programme and through grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In 1994–95, over £6.7 million was made available from these sources. Local enterprise companies are also now funding child care projects for children under five and also for older children. The Government have in addition put some £45 million into expanding after-school care and this is being delivered in Scotland through local enterprise companies.

  Within the local authority expenditure settlement for 1994–95 provision of £28.106 million was made for day care for children.

  The latest available information about the form and level of day care provision in Scotland at March 1994 is follows:

  Number of places

  Day nurseries

  116,000

  Playgroups

  43,335

  Childminders

  31,797

  1 Estimated

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tendering procedure was adopted by Ayrshire and Arran health board in appointing Allan Clark Associates to conduct its public relations. [35749]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  South Ayrshire NHS Trust
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tendering procedure was adopted by the South Ayrshire NHS Trust in appointing its public relations advisers; and which companies were involved in this process. [35748]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Non-Domestic Properties (Valuation)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals have been lodged against the valuation of non-domestic properties arising out of the 1995 valuation in each valuation area; how long it takes to deal with each appeal on average; how many appeals have been dealt with so far; and how many have been successful. [35718]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As the initial period for lodging appeals is not yet concluded, none of this information is currently available centrally. Information will be sought on a regular basis once that period has passed and while the disposal of appeals continues.
  1527
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of appeals lodged against the valuation of non-domestic properties in each valuation area on the last occasion this was undertaken; and what was the average amount of time it took to deal with these appeals and number of appeals which were successful. [35681]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The table shows the number of appeals, by region and island areas, arising from the 1990 revaluation. A total of 79,467 appeals were lodged with assessors throughout Scotland. No information was collected centrally concerning the time taken to dispose of appeals or the eventual outcome of individual appeals.

  Number of appeals from 1990 revaluation

  Borders

  2,073

  Central

  4,282

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,347

  Fife

  5,247

  Grampian

  8,100

  Highland

  4,168

  Lothian

  9,740

  Strathclyde

  35,679

  Tayside

  7,136

  Orkney

  174

  Shetland

  228

  Western Isles

  293

  Scotland

  79,467

  Source:

  Appeals returns submitted to LGF Statistics Unit by the Scottish Assessors.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure was adopted by Irvine development corporation in replacing the managing director of the development corporation; and what was the involvement of the Scottish Office in this matter. [35750]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Irvine development corporation, as the employer, sought applications for the post of managing director from senior staff serving in the five new town development corporations in Scotland. Following consideration and interviews, John Murdoch was appointed to succeed Brigadier Rickets on his retiral. The matter was discussed as part of the regular exchanges between the chairman of the board and officials of the Scottish Office Industry Department.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent by each development corporation in supporting housing associations or co-operatives within their areas; and if he will list the bodies which have received this funding and the amounts involved. [35729]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Expenditure up to 30 June 1995 is set out in the table:

  Development corporation

  Housing association

  Amount £

  Cumbernauld

  Abronhill housing association

  10,500

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride and district housing association

  105,990

  Glenrothes

  Glenrothes community housing association

  25,782

  1528

  Development corporation

  Housing association

  Amount £

  Irvine

  Irvine housing association

  1311,770

  Livingston

  Almond housing association

  68,205

  1 This figure includes the costs of two staff seconded from Irvine
  development corporation to Irvine housing association.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a)
  the number of residential properties in each of the new towns which thus far have been
  transferred to other landlords and (b) the number of properties transferred in each case;
  to which landlord the properties were transferred; and what was the capital receipt accruing to
  the development corporation in each case. [35727]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information as at 30 June is set out in the table.

  Development corporation

  Housing association

  Number of properties transferred1

  Capital receipts £ million2

  Glenrothes

  Kingdom

  234

  7.58

  Link

  30

  1.35

  Collydean

  190

  6.65

  Hillcrest

  216

  *3.14

  Total

  670

  18.72

  East Kilbride

  Loretto

  20

  .90

  Link

  60

  2.70

  East Kilbride and District

  294

  *2.28

  Total

  374

  5.88

  Cumbernauld

  Bield

  64

  2.10

  Link

  163

  *4.30

  West of Scotland

  136

  5.07

  GAP

  57

  *1.22

  YWCA

  23

  0.51

  Abronhill

  146

  *0.94

  Total

  589

  14.14

  Livingston

  Almond

  184

  *1.06

  Castle Rock (Livingston)

  76

  *0.45

  Edinvar in Livingston

  44

  *0.21

  Canmore

  92

  2.41

  Total

  396

  4.13

  1 These are made up of new build and, except in Glenrothes, older
  stock. The split is different in each of the 3 towns and affects the level of receipts and the
  average price paid.

  2 The basis of valuing housing stock for transfer was changed in May 1993 to a basis compatible with the RICS Guidance "The Valuation on Transfer of Local Authority Housing Stock". This approach reflected more closely the conditions of sale, in particular retention in the socially rented sector, and ended the need for purchasers to receive Housing Association Grant (HAG) from Scottish Homes. The Associations which have not received HAG are marked with an asterisk.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which companies indicated an interest in the industrial assets of Irvine development corporation. [35693]
  1529
  Mr. Kynoch
  Sale particulars of Irvine's industrial portfolio were circulated widely and strong interest was noted from nine companies, six of which submitted informal bids. Five companies, whose bids were above the asking price, were invited to submit, and submitted, formal offers. The names of companies are commercially sensitive and, save for the successful purchasers, are not made public.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Irvine development corporation first entered into negotiations with Ashtenne Irvine Ltd. relating to their purchase of Irvine new town's industrial assets. [35694]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Astenne Irvine Ltd., along with the other four companies asked to submit a formal bid, were interviewed by the corporation over a two-day period on 8 and 9 November 1994.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was raised by the sale of Irvine development corporation's industrial assets; and how much of this revenue will be used for investment in Irvine new town after the wind-up of Irvine development corporation. [35695]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Information about sales prior to April 1992 is not held centrally. For the period from April 1992 to June 1995 industrial disposals by Irvine development corporation realised £30.2 million. These resources have been allocated by the Secretary of State to his programmes, including those for the new towns, in the year in which they were generated. Accordingly, none of these particular receipts will be available for investment after the winding up of the development corporation.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by Irvine development corporation in supporting the Irvine housing association. [35730]

  Mr. Kynoch
  At 30 June 1995, Irvine development corporation had provided £311,770 to support Irvine housing association. This included the costs of the two staff on secondment to the association from the corporation.

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies were invited by his Department to tender for the study into how the private sector might be involved in all or part of the business of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. [35714]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Nine companies were invited to submit written proposals for the study.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost to the public purse of the study into how the private sector might be involved in all or part of the business of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. [35715]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The overall cost of the study will not exceed £60,000 including VAT.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the precise terms of reference given to Quayle Munro Ltd in respect of their study of how the private sector might be involved in all or part of the 1530
  business of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd; and if he will eventually publish the finding of the study.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A copy of the terms of reference for the consultancy study has been placed in the Library. No decision has yet been made on whether any findings will be published. [35713]

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within the Scottish Office and its executive agencies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department and its executive agencies are committed to equality of opportunity for all its enployees. Women represent 45 per cent. of non-industrial staff in the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service.

  The proportion of women is increasing at all management levels—at executive officer level—the first management level—up from 26 per cent. in 1987 to 42 per cent. in 1995. At higher executive officer level, the proportion of women has risen from 19 per cent. in 1987 to 30 per cent. in 1995. This is an important breakthrough for the future. The proportion of women at the top is rising steadily as more and more women's careers develop. At grade 3 the proportion of women is currently 16 per cent. a fourfold increase on 1987.

  Part-time work operates in the Scottish Office as elsewhere. Since 1990 the number of part-time staff has risen to 326 to 390—over 15 per cent. of all women now work part-time. Part-time work is an option for all staff—some individuals in all grades up to grade 3 work part-time, 47 per cent. of grade 5s work part-time.

  The Scottish Office, in common with other civil service Departments, has set a clear benchmark against which to measure progress; that, by the year 2000, 15 per cent. of top Scottish Office posts grades 1 to 3 are expected to be held by women.

  Recruitment and promotion are on merit. Recruits to the senior grades as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order 1991 applies.

  My Department had made considerable progress on equal opportunities for women. Its initiatives have been based on the 1984 and 1992 report on equality of opportunity in the civil service.

  Details of these initiatives can be found in the following Cabinet Office publications:
  Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service —10 Year Progress Report 1984–94.

  Annual Progress Reports on Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service 1992–93

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 593 if he will list the numbers of (a) staff and (b) women employed at head teacher, assistant head

  1531
  teacher and deputy head teacher levels for (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools for each education authority within Scotland for each year since 1992. [35713]

  Education authority primary schools—total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1994 (provisional)1

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  2,201

  1,612

  710

  631

  777

  708

  Borders

  72

  48

  14

  14

  6

  5

  Central

  111

  85

  51

  46

  39

  36

  Dumfries and Galloway

  104

  64

  24

  22

  12

  8

  Fife

  141

  101

  57

  55

  43

  40

  Grampian

  257

  175

  80

  70

  59

  52

  Highland

  184

  129

  29

  27

  14

  11

  Lothian

  225

  151

  130

  113

  86

  78

  Strathclyde

  850

  683

  259

  228

  446

  416

  Tayside

  181

  117

  62

  53

  51

  43

  Orkney

  18

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shetland

  26

  18

  3

  2

  8

  7

  Western Isles

  32

  27

  1

  1

  11

  10

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  71

  52

  8

  7

  6

  6

  Ayr

  145

  106

  45

  37

  73

  67

  Dunbarton

  110

  92

  45

  41

  66

  62

  Glasgow

  216

  180

  64

  61

  109

  103

  Lanark

  204

  169

  45

  38

  107

  98

  Renfrew

  103

  83

  52

  44

  86

  81

  1 Totals may not be equal to the sum of their rounded components.

  Education authority secondary schools—Total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1994 (provisional)

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  394

  18

  395

  47

  1,031

  250

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  1

  27

  5

  Central

  17

  1

  20

  1

  49

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  0

  16

  0

  32

  4

  Fife

  19

  0

  18

  4

  69

  18

  Grampian

  38

  1

  37

  5

  98

  24

  Highland

  26

  0

  26

  1

  42

  6

  Lothian

  44

  3

  44

  6

  123

  30

  Strathclyde

  167

  11

  174

  22

  491

  126

  Tayside

  30

  1

  30

  4

  86

  28

  Orkney

  6

  0

  2

  0

  5

  1

  Shetland

  8

  1

  8

  1

  3

  1

  Western Isles

  14

  0

  12

  2

  7

  2

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  10

  0

  10

  1

  22

  2

  Ayr

  29

  2

  27

  3

  80

  12

  Dunbarton

  23

  1

  27

  4

  77

  30

  Glasgow

  40

  3

  44

  5

  120

  36

  Lanark

  37

  3

  36

  2

  111

  26

  Renfrew

  28

  2

  30

  7

  81

  20

  Local Authorities (Circulars and Guidelines)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy to place in the Library copies of all circulars and guidelines issued by his Department to local authorities in Scotland. [35712]

  Mr. Kynoch
  It is not regular policy to place copies of circulars and guidelines issued to local authorities in the Library. These documents are publicly available and may be obtained on request to the Department.
  1532
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is collected biennially. Provisional figures for 1994 are given.

  Piers (Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to Highland regional council in respect of the future availability and usage of the piers at Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin for future ferry use; and if he will make a statement. [35850]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have not given advice to Highland regional council on the usage of the piers at Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin for future ferry
  1533
  use. This is a matter for Highland regional council. The Scottish Office, however, would not be prepared to permit any parking or queuing for a ferry on the trunk road in Kyle.

  Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) secondary and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each of the last five years; [35846]

  (2) how many (a) secondary and (b) primary school children have been permanently excluded in each local education authority in each of the last five years and as a proportion of the total school roll. [35842]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information sought is not at present held centrally. However, under the terms of a circular issued by the Scottish Office Education Department, education authorities are to collect and provide information on exclusions on a school by school basis for school year 1994–95, and subsequent years, as part of the annual exercise to collect statistics on attendance and absence.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) secondary and (b) primary school children who have been permanently excluded have received tuition (i) at home and (ii) in a pupil referral unit in each of the past five years. [35839]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information sought is not held centrally.

  Police Boxes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will have the remaining in-situ blue police boxes made listed buildings; and if he will make a statement. [35950]

  (2) what action he has taken in conjunction with his agency Historic Scotland to preserve and renovate the remaining in situ blue police boxes; and if he will make a statement. [35951]

  (3) if he will list the locations of the remaining four in-situ blue police boxes. [35952]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Since these are matters for Historic Scotland, I have asked the agency's chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. A copy of Mr. Munro's letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Selected staff employed in the NHS in Scotland1 by health board area: at 30 September 1994

  Whole time equivalent

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  (a) General and senior managers

  79.4

  148.2

  26.0

  33.5

  79.7

  73.0

  167.2

  138.1

  (b) Administrative and clerical staff

  1,391.1

  870.7

  308.6

  462.8

  942.6

  702.4

  1,586.4

  3,736.9

  (c) Nursing and midwifery staff3

  4,118.2

  3,094.2

  1,021.1

  1,686.8

  3,004.2

  2,986.6

  5,070.6

  11,122.0

  1534

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects on deep ocean eco-systems likely to have resulted from the dumping of the Brent Spar and other installations. [32680]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish share of inward investment projects into the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years, as measured by(a) number of projects and (b) numbers of jobs created. [35174]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: The information is as follows:

  Scottish share of inward investment projects recorded by the Invest in Britain Bureau

  Per cent.

  Year

  Projects

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  1985–86

  12.4

  16.7

  24.2

  1986–87

  9.8

  11.7

  2.5

  1987–88

  15.4

  16.3

  14.5

  1988–89

  12.4

  17.6

  4.5

  1989–90

  9.3

  21.7

  1.3

  1990–91

  11.0

  23.9

  1.5

  1991–92

  10.8

  17.2

  2.9

  1992–93

  18.3

  25.2

  9.6

  1993–94

  20.2

  25.0

  6.7

  1994–95

  18.7

  20.8

  6.1

  These figures are based on information provided by the companies concerned at the time of the decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Health Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [35391]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The information requested is shown in the table:
  1535

  Whole time equivalent

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian2

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  (a) General and Senior Managers

  114.9

  121.3

  289.3

  5.2

  8.0

  143.6

  13.9

  (b) Administrative and Clerical Staff

  588.4

  1,200.5

  2,532.5

  32.2

  56.0

  1,419.2

  78.5

  (c) Nursing and Midwifery Staff3

  2,083.6

  4,478.8

  7,521.7

  222.0

  223.8

  5,036.4

  344.3

  Thousands

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries arid Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  (a) General and Senior Managers

  80

  149

  26

  34

  80

  73

  170

  141

  (b) Administrative and Clerical Staff

  1,605

  1,002

  376

  554

  1,130

  829

  1,884

  4,270

  (c) Nursing and Midwifery Staff3

  5,069

  3,692

  1,250

  2,130

  3,617

  3,533

  6,148

  13,254

  Number

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetlands

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  (a) General and Senior Managers

  118

  122

  292

  6

  6

  144

  15

  (b) Administrative and Clerical Staff

  708

  1,382

  3,074

  37

  65

  1,667

  86

  (c) Nursing and Midwifery Staff5

  2,541

  5,468

  9,222

  271

  260

  6,013

  447

  Notes:

  1 Excludes State Hospital and Common Services Agency.

  2 Revised.

  3 Excludes teachers, nurses in training and students on '1992' courses in nursing and midwifery.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics (NAMS) Information and Statistics Division of the CSA.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Scottish Office has issued to Scottish health boards relating to the provision of private medical insurance as part of the benefit packages of senior management staff within these bodies. [35731]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such guidance has been issued.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Scottish Office has made of savings within the senior management of health boards and NHS trusts arising out of trusts status and general practitioner fundholding initiatives. [35696]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such assessment has been made.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State, pursuant to his answer of 9 December, Official Report, columns 427–8 if he will provide the latest annual figure for NHS trust start-up costs. [35443]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: There have been no further start-up costs incurred since the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 9 December.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds within each NHS trust in Scotland he has designated amenity beds for each financial year since their establishment. [35701]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  1536
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the date of establishment of each NHS trust in Scotland. [35699]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  NHS Trust

  Establishment date

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  25 March 1992

  Angus NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  17 June 1994

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  24 January 1994

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  1537

  NHS Trust

  Establishment date

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  31 March 1995

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Perth and Kinross NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  31 March 1995

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  29 November 1994

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 January 1992

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  6 December 1993

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 December 1993

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  1 January 1993

  Senior management and administrative and clerical staff employed in the NHS in Scotland; whole time equivalent at 30 September

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Senior management1

  —

  —

  623.6

  800.6

  1,151.60

  1,720.0

  Chief executives and general managers2

  —

  —

  71.0

  73.0

  83.0

  254.0

  Senior managers—grades 0–121 3

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  1,212.9

  Senior managers—old grades

  —

  —

  452.6

  727.5

  1,068.60

  453.1

  Administrative and clerical

  15,222.9

  15,923.8

  16,060.6

  16,839.0

  17,386.9

  17,754.4

  Grades 1–104

  15,002.9

  15,703.8

  15,741.5

  16,519.0

  17,076.1

  17,441.7

  Ambulance and control officers

  220.0

  220.0

  223.0

  221.0

  227.8

  229.0

  Miscellaneous6

  —

  —

  96.0

  99.0

  83.0

  83.7

  Notes:

  1The increase in numbers can be partially accounted for by the assimilation of nursing, professional and A and C staff to senior manager grades.

  2 Some chief executives may be included in "senior managers-old grades" or they may not be correctly identified as chief executives under the new grading system.

  33 From 30 September 1993, a new grading system was introduced for general and senior managers. There is no correspondence between the old and new pay spines which would allow staff to be shown in a common grade (spine point range) analysis.

  4For the years prior to September 1991, management grades are included in A and C grades 1–10.

  5Includes obsolete management grades and management trainees.Source:

  National Manpower Statistics (NAMS).

  Information and Statistics Division of the CSA.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Scotland what has been the cost of supplying cars to senior management in the Scottish NHS in each year since 1989. [35649]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the administrative cost of running the NHS in Scotland in(a) 1979 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available as expressed in (i) 1994–95 prices and (ii) as a percentage of the NHS budget. [35654]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The administrative cost of running the NHS in Scotland in 1979–80, adjusted to 1994–95 prices was £166,263,000. This represented 6.8 per cent. of the total NHS budget. Comparable figures for the year 1993–94 adjusted to 1994–95 prices are
  1538
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Scottish Office have issued to NHS trusts concerning target times for dealing with correspondence. [35697]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The code of practice on openness in the NHS in Scotland, issued by the management executive of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department in May 1995 to all health boards and NHS trusts makes it clear that requests for information, whether made in person or in writing, must be answered promptly. An acknowledgement must be sent within four working days and, where possible, the information should follow within 20 working days.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees were in senior management, administrative and accountancy posts in the Scottish health service in each year since 1989. [35650]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on whole-time equivalents of employees in senior management and administrative and clerical posts are shown in the table. Information on identifying staff employed in accountancy posts in the NHS in Scotland is not available centrally.

  £212,678,000 which represents 5.6 per cent. of the total NHS budget.

  However, changes in the methods of reporting in annual accounts allows a more detailed analysis of costs. This means certain areas of administration at hospital and community level can be separately identified in the annual accounts. The actual adjusted cost of administration in 1993–94 was £324,851,000. This represented 8.6 per cent. of the total NHS budget for 1993–94. In 1979–80 these costs were contained within running expenses and the figures for this year are not directly comparable with those for 1993–94.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list details of travel expense rates for(a) members of health boards, (b) senior management of health boards, (c) members of NHS trusts and (d) senior management of NHS trusts. [34753]
  1539
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what guidance the Scottish Office issued to Scottish health boards on adjustments to the pay and conditions of board general mangers following the implementation of trust status and GP fundholding within their health board's areas. [35719]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such specific guidance has been issued. New arrangements for the pay of board general mangers were introduced as from 1 September 1993. These arrangements take account of the new roles of health boards.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer on 13 July, Official Report, column 741, if he will provide information on expenditure on trust board members as broken down in his answer for each of the last three years. [35857]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many calls have been made to the NHS helpline in Scotland both(a) interactive and (b) non-interactive in each month since the end of June 1994. [35728]

  Accidents involving injury to school age children (5 to 16 years) travelling in public service vehicles or minibuses, by region and whether travelling to or from school, 1993–19941

  Number of accidents

  1993

  1994

  Region

  Travelling to/from school

  Not travelling to/from school

  Total

  Travelling to/from school

  Not travelling to/from school

  Total

  Borders

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  3

  Centra]

  2

  3

  5

  3

  6

  9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  2

  1

  3

  2

  1

  3

  Grampian

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  4

  Highland

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Lothian

  5

  11

  16

  6

  24

  30

  Strathclyde

  10

  31

  41

  16

  27

  43

  Tayside

  2

  1

  3

  1

  3

  4

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Scotland

  26

  51

  77

  33

  66

  99

  Departmental Staff (Absence through Sickness)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days were lost in sickness 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. [34612]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The table shows the required information, covering the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, separately for the Scottish Office and its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service, and for the Scottish Prison Service. Information on the cost of absence per individual could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1540
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private prescriptions were issued in each financial year since 1979–80 in each health board. [35677]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  Legislative Programme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legislation he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [35304]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]:The Government's plans for legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 1995–6 Session.

  Public Service Vehicles and Minibuses
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of accidents involving public service vehicles and minibuses carrying school children in the last two years for which figures are available. [34794]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The information available is given in the table.

  Total days lost

  Average staffing over year(headcount)

  Days lost divided by (Average staffing x 365)

  The Scottish Office (excluding the Scottish Prison Service)

  77,940

  5,997

  0.036

  Scottish Prison Service

  77,490

  4,371

  0.049

  The figures are extracted from the Department's own records: it has not been possible to adjust the figures to discount weekends and bank holidays, as is the case with the standardized statistical analysis on sickness absence across the civil service prepared by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency.
  1541
  The figures on average staffing levels during the year have been calculated by averaging levels as recorded at the first of each month. In calculating days lost as a proportion of days worked, 365 has been used to gross up the staffing figures.

  Algal Blooms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rivers, canals and lakes have been deemed a hazard to public health as a result of algal blooms in each of the last five years. [34628]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: A total of 124 episodes of blue green algae—cyanobacteria—occurring in fresh waters in Scotland have been reported to he Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health since surveillance commenced in 1992. The annual numbers of episodes reported were:

  1992: 15

  1993: 36

  1994: 45

  1995: 28 (to 30 June)

  In each episode, action has been taken to prevent risk to public health. This has focused principally on the provision of advice to avoid skin contact with, or ingestion of, aigal scums. No human health effects have been associated with blue green algal episodes by the surveillance programme.

  Computer Consultancy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [33854]

  Table A: Expenditure on sewerage per council tax band 1993–94–2 or more adults

  £

  Valuation bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Authority

  Borders

  52.36

  61.09

  69.81

  78.54

  95.99

  113.45

  130.90

  157.08

  Central

  43.54

  50.80

  58.05

  65.31

  79.82

  94.34

  108.85

  130.62

  Dumfries and Galloway

  47.04

  54.88

  62.72

  70.56

  86.24

  101.92

  117.60

  141.12

  Fife

  38.00

  44.33

  50.67

  57.00

  69.67

  82.33

  95.00

  114.00

  Grampian

  31.33

  36.56

  41.78

  47.00

  57.44

  67.89

  78.33

  94.00

  Highland

  40.15

  46.84

  53.53

  60.22

  73.60

  86.98

  100.37

  120.44

  Lothian

  33.61

  39.22

  44.82

  50.42

  61.62

  72.83

  84.03

  100.84

  Strathclyde

  33.61

  39.22

  44.82

  50.42

  61.62

  72.83

  84.03

  100.84

  Tayside

  42.15

  49.17

  56.20

  63.22

  77.27

  91.32

  105.37

  126.44

  Orkney

  30.00

  35.00

  40.00

  45.00

  55.00

  65.00

  75.00

  90.00

  Shetland

  44.23

  51.60

  58.97

  66.34

  81.08

  95.82

  110.57

  132.68

  Western Isles

  64.67

  75.44

  86.22

  97.00

  118.56

  140.11

  161.67

  194.00

  Table B: Expenditure on sewerage per council tax band 1994–95–2 or more adults

  £

  Valuation bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Authority

  Borders

  51.12

  59.64

  68.16

  76.68

  93.72

  110.76

  127.8

  153.36

  Central

  43.58

  50.84

  58.11

  65.37

  79.90

  94.42

  108.95

  130.74

  Dumfries and Galloway

  45.56

  53.15

  60.75

  68.34

  83.53

  98.71

  113.90

  136.68

  Fife

  39.33

  45.89

  52.44

  59.00

  72.11

  85.22

  98.33

  118.00

  Grampian

  31.95

  37.28

  42.60

  47.93

  58.58

  69.23

  79.88

  95.86

  Highland

  40.65

  47.43

  54.20

  60.98

  74.53

  88.08

  101.63

  121.96

  Lothian

  34.57

  40.34

  46.10

  51.86

  63.38

  74.91

  86.43

  103.72

  1542
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The amount spent by my Department and its agencies on computer consultancy in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1990–91

  0.10

  1991–92

  0.16

  1992–93

  0.85

  1993–94

  1.09

  1994–95

  2.13

  Expenditure on computer consultancy is estimated at around £4 million for the current 1995–96 financial year, and £0.8 million for each of the following four years.

  Sewerage Services
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the figures per each house valuation banding in each Scottish local authority for(a) the costs of sewerage services per household in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 and (b) what each household pays for sewerage services in money terms and as a percentage of its council tax bills in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [33310]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 11 July 19951: Costs of sewerage services for households of two or more adults in each valuation band by authority for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are given in the tables.

  Domestic sewerage services are funded from the council tax and, with other services, receive support via the revenue support grant element of aggregate external finance. Actual payments per household for individual services are not separately identified.
  1543

  Table B: Expenditure on sewerage per council tax band 1994–95–2 or more adults

  £

  Valuation bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Strathclyde

  33.69

  39.31

  44.92

  50.54

  61.77

  73.00

  84.23

  101.08

  Tayside

  39.59

  46.18

  52.78

  59.38

  72.58

  85.77

  98.97

  118.76

  Orkney

  32.29

  37.67

  43.05

  48.43

  59.19

  69.95

  80.72

  96.86

  Shetland

  46.92

  54.74

  62.56

  70.38

  86.02

  101.66

  117.3

  140.76

  Western Isles

  74.67

  87.11

  99.56

  112.00

  136.89

  161.78

  186.67

  224.00

  Table C: Expenditure on sewerage per council tax band 1995–96–2 or more adults

  £

  Valuation bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Authority

  Borders

  51.72

  60.34

  68.96

  77.58

  94.82

  112.06

  129.30

  155.16

  Central

  41.11

  47.97

  54.82

  61.67

  75.37

  89.08

  102.78

  123.34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  48.05

  56.06

  64.07

  72.08

  88.10

  104.12

  120.13

  144.16

  Fife

  38.93

  45.42

  51.91

  58.40

  71.38

  84.36

  97.33

  116.80

  Grampian

  33.50

  39.08

  44.67

  50.25

  61.42

  72.58

  83.75

  100.50

  Highland

  44.85

  52.32

  59.80

  67.27

  82.22

  97.17

  112.12

  134.54

  Lothian

  35.15

  41.00

  46.86

  52.72

  64.44

  76.15

  87.87

  105.44

  Strathclyde

  36.09

  42.11

  48.12

  54.14

  66.17

  78.20

  90.23

  108.28

  Tayside

  40.15

  46.85

  53.54

  60.23

  73.61

  87.00

  100.38

  120.46

  Orkney

  41.52

  48.44

  55.36

  62.28

  76.12

  89.96

  103.80

  124.56

  Shetland

  46.41

  54.15

  61.88

  69.62

  85.09

  100.56

  116.03

  139.24

  Western Isles

  72.09

  84.10

  96.12

  108.13

  132.16

  156.19

  180.22

  216.26

  Departmental Travel Expenses
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The information requested is kept, and provided, at actual prices. Figures on the very small amount claimed for bicycle allowance are not separately identified.

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  (i) Public transport

  2,000,933

  1,871,524

  (ii) Car mileage

  496,013

  559,628

  Public Access (Tax Exemptions)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will state the total average of land in Scotland where landowners benefit from conditional exemption form inheritance tax by virtue of there being a right of public access; and what is the total number of estates and buildings in Scotland granted exemption from tax for the granting of public access. [33759]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The area, rounded, of land in Scotland of outstanding scenic interest which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax is 47,000 hectares. There have been a total of 68 designations of land and historic buildings in Scotland. Some of the designations of historic buildings will have extended to surrounding land. Some designations of historic buildings have been for the purposes of the tax exemptions for maintenance
  1544
  funds rather than for exemption of the buildings themselves.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many meetings of the European Council of Ministers have taken place since April 1994; how many Scottish Office Ministers have attended in each case; which minister attended; and what was the subject discussed at each of these meetings. [32231]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: The various European Councils of Ministers meet on average about 125 times per year. The subject matter of their meetings is often not a direct responsibility of the Scottish Office—for example, the Foreign Affairs Councils. Where, however, the matters under discussion are relevant to my responsibilities, Scottish Ministers are consulted on the line to take or attend the meetings as part of the United Kingdom delegation.

  Since April 1994 my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, then Minister for Fisheries in Scotland, attended 6 Fisheries Councils, my noble and learned friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, then Minister for Home Affairs in Scotland, attended two Justice/Interior Issues Councils and one Fisheries Council and my honourable friend the Member for Eastwood, then Minister for Industry in Scotland, attended one Regional Policy Council.

  Agendas for meetings of the Council of Ministers usually cover a number of different subjects, but all within the area of responsibility of the particular Council.
  1545

  Health Service (Computers)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what valuation was placed on national health service computer assets on their last two valuations; and when the last valuation took place; [35215]

  (2) what capital transfer has been made to Scottish health boards to compensate them for the revaluation of national health service computer centre assets; [35214]

  (3) what was the cost and the remit of his Department's contract with Coopers and Lybrand to draw up a service profile relating to the market testing of Scottish national health service computer services; [35213]

  (4) if he will list the service specifications included in the contract put out to tender for running Scottish national health service computer services; and if he will list the bidders who have applied for the contract. [35216]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been allocated to GP fundholders in management allowances in each year since the start of the scheme. [35392]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1990–91

  0.025

  1991–92

  0.252

  1992–93

  1.554

  1993–94

  3.114

  1994–95

  4.336

  Total

  9.281

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the costs of assisting GP fundholders with information technology expenditure in each year since 1991–92. [35387]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Information available centrally relates only to direct payments to GP fundholders for computing costs made by health boards under the statement of fees and allowances. This information from 1992–93—the first year in which it was available centrally—until 30 September 1994 the latest date available, is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  6 months to 30 September 1994

  Total computer costs

  1.247

  2.045

  0.607

  1546
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has undertaken on the effectiveness of general practitioner fundholding and trust status. [35692]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1979 he or his predecessors have refused to accept a recommendation to close a hospital; and if he will list the hospitals. [34801]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Ayshire and Arran Community Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tendering procedure was adopted by the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare Trust in appointing its public relations advisers; and what companies were involved in this process. [35732]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Political Activities
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the terms of contract relating to the conditions other than levels of pay, and the conditions of contract, of Mr. Gregor Mackay, pursuant to the oral answer by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science, to the hon. Member for Gateshead, Official Report, column 15, and if he will define the term "leave" in relation to political activity. [33005]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 24 April 1995, Official Report, 24 April, col 373. Special advisers, like other civil servants, have an annual leave allocation which they can use for their own pursuits.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Holding Company
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the appointment of the chief executive of the proposed nuclear holding company. [36542]

  Mr. Lang
  In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have agreed to the appointments of Dr. Robert Hawley as chief executive of the holding company, Mr. Michael Kirwan as finance director and Mr. Robert Armour as company secretary. Over the next eight months, Dr. Hawley and Mr. Kirwan will progressively reduce their involvement with Nuclear Electric. Their involvement in Nuclear Electric is expected to cease completely at the end of March 1996.
  1547
  Further appointments will be announced in due course.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the draft Bill pertinent to the chemical weapons convention; and if he will make a statement. [33284]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Technology announced to the House on 24 April 1995, Official Report, column 638 that the Government intended to publish a draft of the Chemical Weapons Bill for consultation with a view to its introduction in the coming session. The draft Bill has been published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [36545]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, informed the House on 27 June 1995, Official Report, column 551, that parliamentary approval is to be sought to permit Departments to market test the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme. Subject to this being given, our preferred option would be to contract the work out, provided that it is demonstrated to offer better value for money than continued in-house provision. It will be open to appropriate bodies within Government to compete for this work. In the meantime, officials have been instructed to undertake preparatory work to pursue this option.

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his review of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board; and if he will make a statement. [36546]

  Mr. Nelson
  The purpose of the review, begun in May 1994, was to decide how SITPRO's work should be taken forward. The review, which has taken into account the report of a departmental review team and extensive representations by the SITPRO board, senior staff and other interested parties, is now complete. I am grateful to all those who contributed.

  I am pleased to acknowledge the value of the work undertaken by SITPRO on trade facilitation and in stimulating the application of best practice, including electronic data interchange. A wide range of business representatives has made an extensive contribution over the years to the work of the board and its committees.

  I have decided that the core trade facilitation function should continue, and be conducted at arm's length from the Department, with input from business. My Department, in conjunction with the chairman and the board, will be re-defining SITPRO's role in the light of the Government's wider trade and other policies. The focus will be on international trade procedures and associated information flows.

  I recognise that SITPRO, in co-operation with other
  1548
  bodies, has made a pioneering contribution to the development of EDI standards. However, I believe that it is now appropriate to consolidate this work with other IT standards work led by the private sector. Although SITPRO will cease to play a leading role, it will provide input on the implications for international trade procedures. The Department is therefore negotiating with relevant bodies to ensure that the future focus for EDI standards work will be the relevant EDI standards BSI committee through the United Kingdom Confederation for Electronic Data Interchange Standards, UKCEDIS. To provide a stronger UK voice, with wider industry support, in the UN/EDIFACT process, the Department is negotiating to transfer SITPRO's EDI standards team to the private sector, where its expertise will continue to provide a resource for the lead standards body and the EDI community. The Department will fund this support activity on a tapering basis, to allow the private sector time to put alternative funding in place.

  I share the board's view that SITPRO's software business could now make a greater contribution by being in the private sector. Consequently, preparations are being made to sell the business.

  I believe that this programme of changes represents a way forward which will meet the wider governmental policies and key international trade facilitation needs.

  British Antarctic Survey
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of trade what progress has been made on the restructuring programme on the British Antarctic Survey, with particular reference to the proposed transfer of the Faraday research station in Antarctica to the Government of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement. [36548]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The House was informed on 9 May 1993 that funds to the order of £4 million would be provided to the Natural Environment Research Council from the science budget for the three years up to 1995–96 for restructuring of the British Antarctic Survey's facilities in Antarctica. Work is progressing.

  At the Rothera station, the first year of the construction programme on new accommodation and laboratory facilities has been completed. Work is expected to be finished by the end of the next austral summer. This will enable a greatly expanded inshore marine and terrestrial biology programme to be developed at Rothera. At Signy station, preparation of the site for construction has started. It is anticipated that work on new accommodation and laboratory facilities will be completed next season. In addition, automated equipment has been developed to record meteorological and sea ice conditions.

  On completion, these projects will sustain the world-class research conducted by the survey and will provide enhanced opportunities for visiting scientists from our higher educational institutes and will facilitate international scientific collaboration.

  Negotiations for the handover of the Faraday station to the Government of Ukraine announced to the House on 7 February have been successfully concluded. The terms of agreement to be signed on 20 July provide for the transfer of ownership of the Faraday research station to the Ukraine. It is proposed that the transfer will be concluded before 31 March 1996. The Ukrainian

  1549
  Government have agreed that Faraday will continue to be used for scientific research and that key scientific observations, shall be continued.

  Under the terms of the agreement, the United Kingdom and the international community will continue to receive, free of charge, scientific data to complement existing long term datasets. The Ukraine has also agreed to ensure that its scientific, logistic and support services in the Antarctic are fully in accord with the provisions of the Antarctic treaty and its protocol on environmental protection.

  The arrangement will avoid the expenditure that would otherwise have been incurred had the base been closed and deemed abandoned. Clean-up of abandoned former British bases in Antarctica continues. Four of these bases were designated as historic sites at the XIXth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in May this year.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of British Coal Enterprise. [36547]

  Mr. Page
  Following careful consideration of the options, the Government have accepted British Coal's recommendation that British Coal should invite competitive proposals for all or part of its British Coal Enterprise subsidiary. This will enable British Coal to take a clear view on the best way forward for BCE, having regard to its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to the coalfield communities. British Coal expects that the process will be concluded by March 1996.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the timetable for transferring remaining liabilities from the British Coal Corporation to the Secretary of State. [36544]

  Mr. Page
  The Department had already taken on responsibility for a number of British Coal liabilities, including for concessionary fuel, for certain pension fund contributions, and for health and injury liabilities to former British Coal employees who transferred to the private sector successor companies and the Coal Authority in respect of their past service with British Coal.

  Where remaining liabilities, including those arising in connection with health-damage claims for former British Coal employees who have not transferred to private sector successor companies, are not otherwise dealt with, they will similarly be transferred by the end of 1997.

  The Coal Industry Act 1994 provides that the corporation may be dissolved as soon as it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary for the corporation to continue to exist. I would not expect to reach such a conclusion without being satisfied that there was proper provision for all outstanding liabilities to be honoured.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those organisations and individuals who made representations to his Department supporting the sale of CINven separately from CINMan. [36299]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department and British Coal have received a number of representations on the separate sale of CINVen. The decision to allow for a separate sale was 1550
  made after consideration by all the interested parties, including CINMan, CINVen and trustees of the British Coal pension schemes as well as by British Coal and my Department.

  Dual-use Exports
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the list of destinations subject to special licensing procedures for the export of dual-use goods published on 9 February, Official Report, column 353–54, has been revised. [36543]

  Mr. Nelson
  Yes. Some licence applications for dual use goods to the following destinations are subject to special licensing procedures:Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, China (Peoples Republic of), Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, India, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrghystan, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekhistan, Vietnam, Zaire.

  This list is subject to regular review. In addition, some licence applications for destinations not listed are also subject to special licensing procedures.

  The use of these procedures does not preclude the granting of an export licence.

  Regional Assistance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the amounts of regional preferential assistance of each type invested in each region in each year since 1978–79 in cash and constant prices. [35474]

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of regional preferential assistance from 1978–79 to 1992–93 at current prices and at 1991–92 prices can be found in the Official Report, 31 March 1994, columns 1005–6.

  A regional breakdown of regional preferential assistance at cash and constant prices for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is given in the table.

  More detailed analysis of regional preferential assistance could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices

  Northern

  52.7

  49.2

  38.2

  35.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  35.6

  33.2

  23.0

  21.1

  East Midlands

  1.9

  1.8

  5.2

  4.8

  South West

  9.5

  8.9

  9.2

  8.4

  West Midlands

  14.4

  13.4

  14.7

  13.5

  North West

  40.3

  37.6

  17.4

  15.9

  Merseyside1

  —

  —

  15.0

  13.7

  East

  —

  —

  0.7

  0.6

  South East

  —

  —

  0.9

  0.8

  London

  —

  —

  0.6

  0.5

  England

  154.4

  144.1

  124.9

  114.3

  1551

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices

  Wales

  118.8

  110.8

  2109.2

  2100.1

  Scotland

  121.2

  113.1

  134.5

  123.2

  Great Britain

  394.4

  368.0

  368.6

  337.6

  1 Figures for Merseyside for earlier years are included in those for the North West.

  2 Welsh figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost per job year of the financial inducements given under the regional selective assistance scheme in each year since 1993–95; and if he will make a statement. [34954]

  Expenditure on regional assistance at 1994–95 prices

  Regional development grant

  £ million

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northern

  306.5

  248.9

  277.8

  229.2

  174.4

  145.9

  104.7

  154.1

  North West

  147.0

  223.9

  276.8

  175.3

  142.9

  131.1

  96.6

  152.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  53.8

  82.0

  90.9

  65.6

  40.4

  43.9

  37.6

  40.9

  South West

  12.5

  18.0

  19.9

  19.8

  13.4

  15.6

  13.4

  23.1

  East Midlands

  6.0

  6.8

  13.9

  15.9

  14.1

  6.2

  6.8

  12.7

  West Midlands

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  England

  525.9

  579.9

  679.3

  505.8

  385.2

  342.8

  259.1

  383.6

  Expenditure on regional assistance at 1994–95

  Regional Development Grant

  £ million

  Region

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  87.5

  109.0

  81.4

  41.3

  17.9

  8.7

  1.5

  0.2

  North West

  64.9

  62.4

  35.6

  22.6

  14.3

  1.4

  0.6

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25.2

  25.8

  12.3

  6.4

  1.9

  1.2

  0.2

  —

  South West

  10.0

  8.9

  4.4

  1.2

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  East Midlands

  10.0

  10.5

  10.2

  4.5

  1.6

  0.3

  0.4

  —

  West Midlands

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  England

  197.7

  216.5

  143.9

  76.1

  36.1

  11.6

  2.8

  0.4

  Expenditure on regional assistance at 1994–95 prices

  Regional selective assistance

  £ million

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northern

  37.3

  39.0

  46.9

  40.2

  28.6

  29.8

  28.3

  27.5

  North West

  75.1

  45.6

  30.5

  34.8

  25.3

  26.6

  22.2

  29.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22.0

  13.3

  14.7

  20.2

  16.4

  18.9

  14.5

  16.1

  South West

  8.8

  5.7

  3.5

  5.2

  3.8

  4.3

  4.4

  8.3

  East Midlands

  3.0

  1.3

  2.1

  7.7

  16.0

  12.5

  6.8

  3.5

  West Midlands

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  9.6

  15.7

  Merseyside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  146.3

  104.9

  97.7

  108.1

  90

  92

  85.8

  102.2

  1 Figures for Merseyside for earlier years are included in those for the North West.

  Expenditure on regional assistance at 1994–95 prices

  Regional selective assistance

  £ million

  Region

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  36.7

  48.2

  40.9

  33.3

  30.5

  29.5

  33.5

  36.7

  North West

  28.9

  27.9

  39.5

  29.8

  24.7

  19.1

  20.6

  16.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20.8

  28.7

  14.2

  12.8

  9.6

  8.8

  20.9

  19.1

  South West

  6.3

  6.2

  5.9

  5.1

  6.0

  5.4

  6.7

  8.2

  1552
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The figures requested are as follows: Regional Selective Assistance—England

  Average cost per job

  1992–93: £4,473

  1993–94: £4,083

  1994–95: £4,364

  Based on offers of grant accepted during the specified periods.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his department provided by way of regional assistance to industry in constant prices by region in each year since 1979–80. [34644]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: The figures requested are as follows:
  1553

  Expenditure on regional assistance at 1994–95 prices

  Regional selective assistance

  £ million

  Region

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  East Midlands

  3.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.5

  0.9

  0.6

  0.7

  3.1

  West Midlands

  26.9

  33.8

  24.8

  20.9

  9.5

  11.3

  14.1

  13.7

  Merseyside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.4

  East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  England

  123.1

  146.2

  126.6

  103.5

  81.2

  74.8

  96.5

  113.1

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken to follow up allegations made in January 1995 in relation to the production, export and arrangement of sale of electro-shock weapons and equipment; if he has anything to add to previous parliamentary answers in respect of the allegations relating to electro-shock weapons and equipment; if he will initiate an inquiry in relation to the specific allegations made in respect of(a) ICL Technical Plastics of Glasgow and (b) British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance; and if he will make a statement. [31106]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him and to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) on 6 February, Official Report, column 5 and to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 23 January, Official Report, column 23. I have nothing to add to previous answers.

  Exports to Iran
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [35335]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: No arrangements exist for the provision of information by overseas customs authorities to the Department of Trade and Industry. Any such information would be provided to HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [35342]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: It is not clear what the hon. Member is alluding to. However, if he believes that he has information relevant to a breach of export controls, it would be helpful if he could please provide it to the Department.

  East Midlands Electricity
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he holds on the use of compulsory purchase orders by East Midlands Electricity to obtain leasing rights in connection with the provision of sub-stations on, and wayleaves over, public land; and if he will make a statement. [33698]
  1554
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is currently considering an application for a compulsory wayleave under paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 over land in Leicester whose ownership cannot be identified.

  There is no information that the company has applied for any compulsory purchase orders to obtain rights over public land.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he holds on the levels of payments for leases by East Midlands Electricity in connection with the provision of sub-stations on, and wayleaves over, public land; and if he will make a statement. [33697]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: This information is unavailable since payments for leases and wayleaves are commercial matters for the company.

  Utilities (Pricing)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the private utilities in respect of pricing structure with special reference to the balance between standing charges and unit costs. [35475]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the companies and the directors general.

  Cabling Operations, Essex and Kent
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what conditions he has granted a licence to United Artists Communications to install a cable communication network in Essex and north Kent; if those conditions require the company to make good the pavements which they have disrupted; and if he will make a statement. [35792]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  United Artists Communications has been granted powers under section 10 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to install cable systems in the maintainable highway, and with appropriate consent, on private land. The Telecommunications Act licences it holds for its franchises in Essex and north Kent include conditions designed to ensure the company operates in a responsible manner and adheres to all relevant street works legislation. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations, set the standard of street works. The Act places a duty on the undertaker to carry out the reinstatement of the road surface to standards prescribed in regulation and set out in a code of practice. Local highways authorities are responsible for
  1555
  enforcement of the code. Both interim and permanent reinstatements must conform with the statutory national specification and all cases of defective reinstatement which are identified by the local highway authority must be rectified at the undertaker's expense.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which posts within his Department are currently filled by staff seconded from BNFL. [36298]

  Mr. Eggar
  There are currently two staff seconded from BNFL working in the Department. One is in environment and energy technologies division, and the other is in atomic energy division. Both are at grade 7 level.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his status as a shadow director of BNFL; what powers this gives him; to whom he answers for the exercise of his responsibilities, and if the Companies Act 1985 section 741(2) applies to this role. [36202]

  Mr. Eggar
  The appointment of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as a shadow director, within the meaning of section 741(2) of the Companies Act 1985, of British Nuclear Fuels plc has been notified to the Registrar of Companies. The appointment of itself confers no powers on him. In broad terms, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade answers in Parliament on matters directly relating to Government policy, in so far as BNFL is concerned while day to day affairs of the company are for the board of BNFL.

  Small Business, Yorkshire
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department made of the effect on employment in south Yorkshire of the withdrawal at the end of December 1995 of special aid to small and medium-sized businesses in areas affected by the decline of mining, shipbuilding and textile industries. [34535]

  Mr. Page
  This particular aid which was made under the flexible business support measures scheme was made available by the Government, in mining and shipbuilding areas, through some of the European structural funds programmes during the period 1989–93. These have all been monitored and will be evaluated to assess their impact.

  The needs of small and medium-sized businesses in south Yorkshire have been and will continue to be met, and on a larger scale, in the implementation of the successor structural funds programmes. For example, the Yorkshire and Humberside objective 2 area single programming document approved for 1994–96 provides £10.3 million to be used to increase expenditure on DTI measures to help SMEs.

  Export Promotion Service
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the relative level of satisfaction in respect of the export promotion service recorded for(a) small service businesses and (b) other exporters. [36300]
  1556
  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has a regular customer satisfaction survey that collects information on the satisfaction levels for all chargeable services. This quarterly survey employs a random sample methodology of users. It is not possible, therefore, to separate out the small service companies from the rest.

  However, it should be noted that the overall satisfaction level for all services is 75 per cent.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 25 May, Official Report, column 676, if copies of contracts and purchase orders are supplied in every case of military list exports to overseas Governments; and from which date contracts and purchase orders have been insisted upon in every case. [29761]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The guidance notes on completing an export licence application state that details of contracts or purchase orders are required in support of all export license applications for military list exports to overseas governments. In the past it was not insisted upon in every case: to establish the practice operated at earlier dates would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances copies of contracts or purchase orders from Government Departments of military list export destination countries were not supplied to the export licensing unit in the case of arms contracts with governments; and, in the case of Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, for what reasons such exceptions were allowed. [27341]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is not possible to establish from my Department's records the circumstances in which, in operating the procedure described in my answer Official Report, 15 May 1995, column 21, licensing officers decided that particular types of supporting material were not required in particular cases. The statement by the right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 13 June 1995 referred to a sample taken of licence applications to discover what percentage did not have supporting documentation and for no other purpose. It is not the present practice to allow any exception to the requirements to provide the necessary documents in support of applications for export licences for sales of military equipment to Governments.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences for goods on the military list were granted to Royal Ordnance in 1985 and 1986; and how many did not have full supporting documentation.[35338]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the intelligence reports of July and September 1988 referred to in his recent statement on BMARC were distributed to members of the restricted enforcement unit. [29725]
  1557
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is long-standing Government policy not to provide detailed information on the activities of the security and intelligence agencies. The effectiveness of the restrictive enforcement unit depends on preserving the confidentiality of its work.

  The Trade and Industry Select Committee has announced an inquiry into the role of DTI in granting licences to BMARC for the export of naval guns to Singapore, and this is the proper forum for further research.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Wallsend concerning directors of BMARC due for answer on 19 June. [36105]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 14 July,Official Report, column 841.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total revenue received by the United Kingdom Government from the selling of offshore oil or gas licenses since 1979. [34760]

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1979, tender receipts from offshore licensing have totalled £154 million, of which £33 million was received from the 8th round in 1982–83 and £121 million from the 9th round in 1984–85.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the use already made of pseudo-oil-based drill muds in oil and gas exploration in the Celtic sea. [35531]

  Mr. Page
  Information is submitted to my Department in respect of the fluids to be used in the drilling of any well on the UK continental shelf, including the Celtic sea. In the case of pseudo-oil-based muds, that information relates to the characteristics of the particular mud and the amount of pseudo-oil on the drill cuttings.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission Reports
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total costs involved in producing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports on(a) Stagecoach Holdings plc and Mainline Partnership Ltd., (b) Stagecoach Holdings plc and SB Holdings Ltd., (c) North East of England Buses Monopoly and (d) Stagecoach Holdings plc and Ayrshire Bus Owners (A1 Service Ltd.). [35366]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The estimated total costs in producing each of these reports is:

  (a) Stagecoach Holdings plc and Mainline Partnership Ltd.: £194,000

  (b) Stagecoach Holdings plc and SB Holdings Ltd.: £185,000

  (c) Monopoly report on bus services in North East England: £646,000

  In the case of Stagecoach Holdings plc and Ayrshire Bus Owners (Al Services Ltd.), this inquiry is still under way so it is not possible to provide an estimated total final cost.
  1558

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received from Lloyd's of London in connection with proposed amendments to the Lloyd's Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [35678]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have received no formal proposals, but the chairman of Lloyd's has from time to time suggested that it would be helpful to the evolution of Lloyd's if future chairmen could be selected from a wider pool than the working community at Lloyd's. Such a change would require an amendment to the private Lloyd's Act 1982 and would be for Lloyd's itself to promote.

  Post Office Savings Account
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what stage the Post Office had reached in planning its own savings account; and if he will make a statement. [33649]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Post Office already offers a savings account on behalf of the department of national savings. The two organisation are considering ways in which existing arrangements might be improved for the benefit of customers but the outcome of this work should not be prejudged.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department has taken to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions within his Department and its executive agencies. [35673]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department is committed to equality for all its employees, including female staff. This includes ensuring that recruitment and promotion is made on merit.

  The Department is a member of Opportunity 2000 and has drawn up a number of goals aimed at achieving a better balance work-force. This is supported by a three-year rolling programme of action.

  The proportion of women is steadily increasing at all management levels in the Department. Women now make up 10.6 per cent. of staff at grades 1 to 3. This compares well with the private sector, where women are believed to make up 3 per cent. of directors and 4 per cent. of board members. Women also comprise 18.8 per cent. and 16.2 per cent of staff at grade levels 4 and 5 respectively. Some 5.2 per cent. of staff at grade level 1 to 5 work part time.

  In 1993, the DTI published a summary of progress on equal opportunities for female staff in the Department since 1984. This also includes the departmental action plan and Opportunity 2000 goals. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number officials employed at each of the principal grades and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in his Department and for each of its executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35684]
  1559
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not readily available in the time available. I will write separately to the hon. Member.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received from the security services opposing legislation to outlaw mobile phone cloning; [35704]

  (2) what contracts have taken place between his Department and the Ministry of Defence relating to the legislative position of the cloning of mobile phones. [35703]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In accordance with precedent. the Government do not comment on issues relating to national security. On 13 June I established an industry and Government study group to examine the serious problem of mobile phone fraud, and any recommendations for action coming out of that group, which will report back in September will be subject to consultation within Government in the normal way.

  Departmental Staff, Coventry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list separately, by each office of his Department, the numbers and grades of casuals, fixed appointments and vacancies in the Coventry travel-to-work area. [33779]

  Mr. Page
  The only DTI staff working in the Coventry travel-to-work area are to be based at Coventry business link which opened in May 1995. The permanent staff transferring to work on 24 July will be the higher executive officer, one executive officer and one administrative officer. The remaining administrative assistant post was advertised to Government Departments in the Coventry area but could not be filled. Arrangements are in hand for this remaining vacancy to be filled by a casual appointment.

  Supermarket Pricing Policies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been made of supermarket pricing policies; and what percentage are supermarket prices in the total shopping basket monitoring that comprises the retail prices index data. [35192]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Office of Fair Trading keeps supermarket behaviour under review. A 1992 OFT review of market concentration and the profitability of the leading supermarket chains provided no basis for concluding action under the competition legislation was needed.

  For the calculation of the retail prices index, the major supermarkets are given weights proportionate to their estimated market shares. These weights vary from item to item and from month to month. An estimate of supermarkets' share of the total RPI basket could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
  1560

  Lackenby-Picton-Shipton Power Line
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the inspectors report on the public inquiry into the National Grid proposal for the Lackenby-Picton-Shipton power line. [33652]

  Mr. Page
  The timing of the report is a matter for the inquiry inspectors.

  Nigeria (Military Exports)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued for the export of lethal military equipment to the Nigerian police force since December 1993. [29206]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of export licences or applications for licences unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under ML1 classification included rifles, carbines, revolvers, pistols, machine pistols, machine guns, smooth bore weapons specially designed for military use or weapons using caseless ammunition; [32622]

  (2) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML2 classification included guns, howitzers, cannon, mortars, tank destroyers, projectile launchers, military flame throwers or recoilless rifles; [32623]

  (3) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML3 classification included ammunition for rifles, carbines, revolvers, pistols, machine pistols, machine guns, smooth bore weapons specially designed for military use, weapons using caseless ammunition, howitzers, cannon, mortars, tank destroyers, projectile launchers, military flame throwers recoilles rifles; [32624]

  (4) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML4 classification included bombs, torpedoes, grenades, smoke canisters, rockets, mines, missiles, depth charges, demolition charges, devices and kits, military pyrotechnics, cartridges or simulators; [32625]

  (5) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML6 classification included tanks, self-propelled guns, armed armoured vehicles and vehicles fitted with mountings for arms, gun-carriers or tractors and trailers specially designed for towing or transporting ammunition or weapons systems; [32626]

  (6) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML7 classification included biological agents and radioactive materials adapted for use in war to produce casualties in humans or animals, degrade equipment, or damage crops, or the environment, chemical warfare agents or riot control agents; [32627]

  (7) if the export licence for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML8 classification included military explosives or propellants; [32628]
  1561
  (8) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML9 classification included vessels of war, special naval equipment or accessories; [32629]

  (9) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML10 classification included aircraft, aero-engines, aircraft equipment and related equipment specially designed or modified for military use; [32630]

  (10) if the export licence granted for non-lethal military equipment to Nigeria in 1994 under the ML14 classification included specialised military training equipment. [32631]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answers 10 July 1995]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of export licences or applications for licences unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

  Swimming Pool Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent studies he has evaluated into swimming pool safety at holiday resorts; what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) tour operators guarantee minimum safety standards for tourists equivalent to those in the United Kingdom, (b) that tour operators check the safety provisions at all facilities which are advertised for holidays from the United Kingdom and (c) to make tour operators fully liable for any damage or injury to tourists from the United Kingdom incurred as a result of poor or dangerous facilities that they have advertised. [36190]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am aware of the recent report by the Consumers Association.

  All major holiday companies operating from the United Kingdom observe a strict code of safety practice drawn up, at the instigation of the Association of British Travel Agents, by the International Federation of Tour Operators. This covers swimming pool safety.

  Organisers of packages are liable for the proper performance of the obligations under the contract, irrespective of whether such obligations are performed by the tour operator himself, or by another supplier of services. They may also owe a duty of care to their customers. I am not persuaded of the need to go further.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the National Engineering Laboratory. [34568]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 897.

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the names and addresses of those individuals, firms and companies who have expressed an interest in tendering for the work of the Insolvency Service. [34527]
  1562
  Mr. Oppenheim
  No, this information is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if the £1.3 million allocated to the Insolvency Service for the contracting out exercise has been found from savings from his Department's allocation from the Treasury for this financial year. [34523]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The money allocated to cover the contracting out exercise will be found from within the Department's agreed budget for this financial year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that bankrupts and those who became insolvent are able to comply with the investigation of a contracted-out Insolvency Service with no more travel than is presently necessary. [35073]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A benchmark service standard for any contracting out would be accessibility at current levels. Any reorganisation of official receivers' offices will need to ensure that bankrupts and company directors do not have to travel excessive distances to attend interviews with the official receiver.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff his Department estimates will be required to fulfil the official receiver's investigatory role following the contracting out of his case administration functions. [350175]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Only when negotiations with potential providers have been completed and decisions taken on contracting out will it be possible to determine the size and shape of the Insolvency Service necessary to carry out its investigative and other remaining functions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Insolvency Service staff will be made redundant or transferred should the functions of the official receiver be contracted out. [35194]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Only when negotiations with potential bidders have been completed would it be possible to determine the type of bids to be received—for instance, TUPE or non-TUPE—and, as a result the residual size and shape of the Insolvency Service. If a decision were made to contract out we would wish to avoid redundancies wherever possible.

  Bankruptcies, Huddersfield
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) bankruptcy orders and (b) winding-up orders have been made in Huddersfield county court for each of the last six years. [35015]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The total numbers of bankruptcy and winding-up orders made in the Huddersfield county court in each of the last six years were as follows:

  Year ended 31 December

  Number of bankruptcy orders

  Number of winding-up orders

  1989

  31

  3

  1990

  26

  4

  1991

  83

  7

  1992

  87

  3

  1993

  74

  2

  1994

  66

  2

  1563

  Official Receiver, Sheffield
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcies and companies in liquidation, whose administration has not been finalised, are being dealt with by the official receiver's office, Sheffield at the present time. [34525]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The total number of cases in which the official receiver, Sheffield is still to obtain his release as at 30 June 1995 are bankruptcies: 189, companies: 35.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the official receiver's office, Sheffield, if the work of the Insolvency Service is partially contracted out. [34524]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No decisions have yet been taken in relation to the residual size and location of the Insolvency Service, should contracting-out go ahead. It is not expected that a decision will be able to be made regarding the future of the official receiver's office, Sheffield, until conclusions on contracting out have been reached.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the effects the contracting out of the administrative functions of the official receiver will have on investigation of fraud in the Sheffield area. [34526]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Advice received from consultants was that the contracting out of their administrative functions would enable official receivers throughout the country to concentrate more on their investigatory role.

  Rom Data Corporation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date Mr. John Dawson and Mr. Brad Shephard, formerly directors of Rom Data Corporation in Cornwall, were last interviewed by his Department, and for what reason; and when his Department next intends to interview Mr. Dawson in relation to the company. [34652]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: A departmental official met Mr. Brad Shephard on 29 October 1993 in connection with earlier grant payments. So far as the future is concerned, the company is in the hands of the liquidators, and the Department will review any action following their report.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations were received by his Department in relation to the grant to Rom Data Corporation of Falmouth in 1994; and whether they contained any unfavourable reports about the company or its directors. [34651]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: No grant was paid to the company in 1994. Various exchanges took place with the company and its bankers in connection with the small firms loan guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) wrote to the Government office for the south-west in December 1994 drawing attention to the company's problems.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 720, what action he intends to take against the directors of Rom Data Corporation in Cornwall. [34653]
  1564
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The company is still in the hands of the liquidators who have yet to report their findings. When they have done so I will consider what action, if any, it is necessary to take.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 719, if his Department was aware of the previous business and bankruptcy records of directors of Rom Data Corporation in Cornwall before making grants to the company in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994. [34648]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The Department made certain inquiries into the background of the directors prior to the offer of grant in 1991. However, the bankruptcy record referred to did not come to light at the time.

  No grants were offered in 1994.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors influenced his Department when making a grant in 1994 to Rom Data, Cornwall; and if he will make a statement. [34649]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: No grant was offered to the company in 1994. The National Westminster Bank decided to make a loan available to the company under the Department's small firms loan guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department was first contacted by hon. Members in relation to Rom Data Corporation in Cornwall. [34650]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Contact was first made on 3 December 1992.

  Small Company Liquidations
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many petitions to put small companies into liquidation have been started by Government Departments in each of the last four years. [34505]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is not maintained by my Department.

  Regulatory Policy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what attempts his Department has made to repatriate regulatory policy in line with the principle of subsidiarity; and if he will make a statement. [34955]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government attach considerable importance to the remit given by the Cannes European Council to the Commission to report on progress in applying subsidiarity across the range of the Community's policy areas. The Commission is to present this report for discussion at the Madrid European Council in December. Over the last two years my Department, with others in Whitehall, has suggested to the Commission EC measures which we consider should be withdrawn or amended under the principle of subsidiarity. We shall continue to press them to apply this principle.
  1565

  Samsung, Cleveland
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost to public funds of the financial package offered to Samsung to induce its investment in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement. [35010]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department offered regional selective assistance grant and loans totalling £58 million, against a proposed investment of £450 million by the company, in 1994 to secure the Samsung investment for the United Kingdom. The project is expected to create at least 3,000 jobs in Cleveland. RSA assistance will be paid out over the next ten years or so as the various elements of the Samsung investment proceed and the jobs involved are created. In addition, a number of other agencies agreed to provide local support covering training and employment allowances, the development of a dedicated training centre and necessary infrastructure and premises development related to the investment. Much of this local support will not be in the form of grant to Samsung but will fall in the current and future work and training programmes of the agencies concerned.

  India (Trade Barriers)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has made to the Indian Government regarding trade liberalisation; and if he will make a statement. [34934]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has regularly lobbied the Indian Government regarding trade liberalisation particularly in the context of the Indo-British partnership. Recently India has followed a programme of removal of trade barriers but more needs to be done, particularly on high tariffs, restrictions on imports of consumer goods, transparency of procedures, protection of intellectual property rights, and the opening up of public sector monopolies particularly in finance and insurance.

  In line with the strategy on trade barriers launched by the then President of the Board of Trade on 28 June this Department will continue to press India to remove barriers to trade in bilateral contacts and where appropriate through the World Trade Organisation in concert with our EU partners.

  Sri Lanka (Exports)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual value of United Kingdom exports to Sri Lanka; what proportion of this amount can be attributed to the armaments industry; and if he will make a statement. [34958]

  Mr. Nelson
  The annual value of United Kingdom exports to Sir Lanka are as follows:

  £ million

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Exports

  103.2

  126.2

  153.9

  Statistics showing the proportion of this amount that can be attributed to the armaments industry are confidential.
  1566
  Sri Lanka has been designated a priority market by the DTI for British trade and investment. Two-way trade is on the increase and there are substantial opportunities for British firms across a wide range of sectors.

  Teaching Company Scheme Centres
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the universities at which teaching company scheme centres have been established; and if he will make a statement. [34940]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on 4 July 1995,Official Report, column 148.

  Elimination of Trade Barriers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy in respect of the unilateral eliminations of barriers to trade by the EU; and if he will make a statement. [34935]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department is working for the removal of barriers to trade, both within the European Union and in third markets. Fair and open access to markets throughout the world is vital to the prosperity of the United Kingdom.

  British Investment Overseas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of direct British investment overseas in each year since 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [34950]

  Mr. Nelson
  Direct investment overseas by UK residents amounted to £10.8 billion in 1992, £17.1 billion in 1993 and £16.4 billion in 1994. The UK's earnings from overseas direct investment were a record £21.9 billion in 1994.

  Inward Investments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment in Wales in each year since 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [34947]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 18 July to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give for each of the statistical regions of England the share of all inward investment projects coming to the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years as measured by(a) numbers of projects and (b) numbers of jobs to be created. [35170]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: For the financial years 1984–85 to 1994–95 the proportion of inward investment decisions and number of jobs created in each of the regions of England are as follows:

  1567

  Region

  Percentage of projects

  Percentage jobs created

  1984–85

  East Midlands

  2.5

  2.2

  North east

  8.3

  5.6

  North west

  13.4

  7.7

  South east

  21.2

  23.6

  South west

  4.2

  5.3

  West Midlands

  6.3

  7.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3.7

  1.0

  1985–86

  East Midlands

  5.4

  3.7

  North east

  6.1

  7.5

  North west

  9.2

  8.5

  South east

  22.3

  14.4

  South west

  4.3

  7.0

  West Midlands

  19.7

  21.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3.5

  7.7

  1986–87

  East Midlands

  2.8

  1.9

  North east

  10.6

  13.1

  North west

  6.7

  6.0

  South east

  18.5

  12.1

  South west

  3.0

  2.2

  West Midlands

  18.8

  27.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.6

  1.8

  1987–88

  East

  0.5

  0.08

  East Midlands

  3.3

  1.4

  North east

  6.0

  10.3

  North west

  9.0

  5.7

  South east

  16.2

  29.7

  South west

  3.0

  2.6

  West Midlands

  17.6

  10.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7.4

  5.7

  1988–89

  East

  0.2

  0.06

  East Midlands

  6.3

  5.1

  North east

  10.6

  10.1

  North west

  11.4

  7.5

  South east

  9.7

  9.0

  South west

  1.7

  1.4

  West Midlands

  21.2

  14.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.6

  6.5

  1989–90

  East

  0.8

  0.8

  East Midlands

  3.4

  9.1

  North east

  10.4

  11.1

  North west

  16.0

  8.5

  South east

  4.0

  2.1

  South west

  1.6

  4.1

  West Midlands

  25.4

  20.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.0

  5.6

  1990–91

  East

  1.6

  1.8

  East Midlands

  3.2

  7.0

  North east

  10.9

  9.0

  North west

  18.4

  9.5

  South east

  4.6

  3.3

  South west

  0.8

  2.4

  West Midlands

  19.5

  19.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7.1

  5.2

  1991–92

  East

  3.1

  2.6

  East Midlands

  1.4

  1.3

  North east

  11.0

  16.4

  North west

  21.2

  6.6

  South east

  8.2

  5.1

  1568

  Region

  Percentage of projects

  Percentage jobs created

  South west

  2.5

  9.7

  West Midlands

  13.3

  8.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4.8

  7.3

  1992–93

  East

  2.4

  2.0

  East Midlands

  2.1

  1.0

  North east

  10.5

  12.9

  North west

  9.0

  5.5

  South east

  6.0

  6.8

  South west

  2.1

  1.5

  West Midlands

  12.9

  8.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13.2

  7.2

  1993–94

  East

  3.2

  1.5

  East Midlands

  5.1

  10.5

  North east

  8.8

  7.3

  North west

  7.4

  7.6

  South east

  4.6

  2.9

  South west

  2.7

  3.4

  West Midlands

  19.4

  11.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9.2

  7.6

  1994–95

  East

  2.7

  2.2

  East Midlands

  10.1

  8.2

  North east

  8.7

  15.0

  North west

  11.2

  5.3

  South east

  8.5

  8.7

  South west

  4.8

  3.7

  West Midlands

  14.2

  13.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4.8

  6.2

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of new and safeguarded jobs brought by inward investors into each of the standard regions of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole for each year since 1992–93; and if he will indicate the percentage of the United Kingdom total for each standard region, and the average increase or decrease in proportional terms of this percentage during the last year. [34858]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The number of new and safeguarded jobs associated with inward investment decisions in each of the regions of the United Kingdom for each year since 1992–93 are as follows:

  Region

  New jobs (percentage)

  Safeguarded jobs (percentage)

  1992–93

  East

  363 (2.0)

  10,632 (24.2)

  East Midlands

  183 (1.0)

  405 (0.9)

  North east

  2,312 (12.9)

  3,210 (7.3)

  Northern Ireland

  2,742 (15.3)

  1,357 (3.0)

  North west

  992 (5.5)

  3,763 (8.5)

  Scotland

  4,497 (25.2)

  4,198 (9.5)

  South east

  1,212 (6.8)

  6,128 (13.9)

  South west

  285 (1.5)

  995 (2.2)

  Wales

  2,382 (13.3)

  4,949 (11.2)

  West Midlands

  1,568 (8.7)

  2,669 (6.0)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,286 (7.2)

  5,529 (12.6)

  Total

  17,822

  43,825

  1569

  Region

  New jobs (Percentage)

  Safeguarded jobs (Percentage)

  1993–94

  East

  482 (1.5)

  1,231 (1.7)

  East Midlands

  3,218 (10.5)

  210 (0.3)

  North east

  2,256 (7.3)

  3,981 (5.7)

  North Ireland

  3,030 (9.9)

  601 (0.8)

  North west

  2,322 (7.6)

  2,312 (3.3)

  Scotland

  7,635 (24.9)

  4,639 (6.6)

  South east

  916 (2.9)

  5,950 (8.5)

  South west

  1,065 (3.4)

  1,112 (1.5)

  Wales

  3,913 (12.8)

  2,651 (3.8)

  West Midlands

  3,370 (11.0)

  42,069 (61.7)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,329 (7.6)

  3,998 (5.7)

  UK total

  30,536

  69,754

  Region

  New jobs (Percentage)

  Percentage of change

  Safeguarded jobs (Percentage)

  Percentage of change

  1994–95

  East

  842 (2.2)

  +1.7

  1,620 (3.1)

  +1.4

  East Midlands

  3,028 (8.2)

  -2.3

  8,642 (16.9)

  +16.6

  North east

  5,550 (15.0)

  +7.7

  3,649(7.1)

  +1.4

  Northern Ireland

  3,138 (8.5)

  -1.4

  2,008 (3.9)

  +3.1

  North west

  1,956 (5.3)

  -2.3

  5,267 (10.3)

  +7.0

  Scotland

  7,678 (20.8)

  -14.1

  3,117 (6.0)

  -0.6

  South east

  3,213 (8.7)

  -5.8

  14,775 (28.8)

  +20.3

  South west

  1,386 (3.7)

  +0.3

  707 (1.3)

  -0.2

  Wales

  2,989 (8.1)

  -4.7

  2,014 (3.9)

  +0.1

  West Midlands

  4,797(13.0)

  +2.0

  7,469 (14.6)

  -47.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,299 (6.2)

  -1.4

  1,865 (3.6)

  -2.1

  UK total

  36,876

  51,133

  The unsually high number of safeguarded jobs for the west midlands in 1993–94 includes those arising from BMW/Rover.

  The 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 not account of subsequent developments.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which region of the United Kingdom has seen the largest proportionate increase in manufacturing productivity since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [34953]

  Mr. Nelson
  Regional estimates of manufacturing productivity are not available.

  SMART and SPUR Awards
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of SMART awards in 1994 were given to Welsh individuals or firms; and if he will make a statement; [34941]
  1570
  (2) what proportion of SPUR awards in 1994 were given to Welsh firms; and if he will make a statement. [34959]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1994 the number of SMART awards—stages 1 and 2—in Wales was 31, with a total value of £1.414 million. This was 10 per cent. of the national total. The number of SPUR awards in Wales was 13, with a total value of £1.331 million. This was 13 per cent. of the national total. From 1 April 1994, financial responsibility for SMART and SPUR in Wales has rested with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are employed by his Department's Invest in Britain Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [34953]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are currently 52 people employed by the Invest in Britain Bureau. This number is expected to increase shortly to about 60, as part of the strengthening of the national inward investment promotional effort.

  Export Promoters (Salary)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average annual salary paid to his Department's export promoters; and if he will make a statement. [34956]

  Mr. Nelson
  Companies are asked to bear the full pay roll costs of seconding senior executives, typically for two years. The Department has negotiated a pay roll contribution in some cases where smaller companies cannot bear the full cost of loss of a person and the salary or for geographical markets in which there are fewer experienced executives available. The Department's current average pay roll contribution per export promoter is £19,500, which is considerably less than the average cost to companies of secondment.

  We have now successfully completed the first two and a half years of the initiative. This partnership between Government and the private sector is helping British business to win in overseas markets. We have recruited 124 export promoters so far and have assurances from a number of companies that they are identifying high-calibre people to put forward in order to maintain the numbers at 100 in post.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34619]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In the 12 months starting 1 July 1994 there were 74 redundancies from the Department, of which 61 were voluntary.

  The information requested on the sum spent on redundancy payments will take some time to prepare. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  1571

  Sick Absences
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many days were lost in sickness 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. [34618]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The number of days lost in the 12 months ended 31 May 1995 was 55,107, excluding the Department's executive agencies. It has not been possible in the time available to adjust this figure to take account of sickness absence that has spanned weekends or public holidays and these extra days are included in the total.

  In 1994, the Department's average absence rate, adjusted for weekends and public holidays, was 3.9 per cent. but it is not practicable to calculate an adjusted rate for the 12 months ended 31 May 1995. The cost to the Department of the sickness absence could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Gas Supply (Hampshire)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the potential effect on domestic consumers of the introduction of competition with gas supplying Hampshire. [34757]

  Mr. Eggar
  Domestic consumers in Hampshire will be able to benefit from competition in gas supply which is scheduled to be introduced nationally in 1998. Competition will exert a powerful downward pressure on average prices and provide strong incentives for efficiency and providing the quality of service that customers want. Independent suppliers have said they expect to be able to offer domestic customers average savings of 10 per cent. compared with British Gas's current prices.

  Manuactured Goods
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in percentage change order the 50 classifications of manufactured goods which have shown greatest import growth since 1979 and the balance of trade deficit of surplus n each since then. [35409.]

  Mr. Nelson
  [Holding answer 18 July 1995]: The available information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom Trade £ million, current prices

  Classification

  Imports percentage change 1979–94

  Crude balance1994

  Medical and pharmaceutical products

  898

  1,697

  Office machines and ADP machines

  702

  -1,162

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliance nes

  648

  -690

  Essential oils and resinoids and perfume materials

  586

  790

  1572

  United Kingdom Trade £.million, current prices

  Classification

  Imports percentage change 1979–94

  Crude balance 1994

  Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing equipment

  531

  -211

  Prefabricated buildings; plumbing, heating and lighting fixtures and fitting

  470

  -162

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles nes

  449

  -803

  Dying tanning, and colouring materials

  383

  664

  Rubber manufactures nes

  381

  -68

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  366

  2,133

  Professional, scientific and controlling instruments nes

  364

  709

  Furniture and parts thereof

  347

  -428

  Plastics

  347

  -938

  Travel goods, handbags and similar containers

  326

  -279

  Footwear

  311

  -973

  Road vehicles (including air-cushion vehicles)

  310

  -6,774

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  307

  -2,179

  General industrial machinery and machine parts nes

  295

  209

  Manufactures of metal nes

  273

  -243

  Chemical materials and products nes

  253

  1,061

  Organic chemicals

  244

  1,207

  Paper, paperboard and articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard

  240

  -2,233

  Fertilisers (other than those of group 272)

  236

  -238

  Photographic and optical equipment; watches and clocks

  230

  -272

  Other transport equipment

  205

  412

  Machinery specialised for particular industries

  184

  1,018

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles nes and related products

  166

  -1,570

  Iron and steel

  141

  739

  Inorganic chemicals

  141

  36

  Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  122

  -863

  Non-ferrous metals

  94

  -793

  Metalworking machinery

  80

  61

  Non-metallic mineral manufactures nes

  36

  163

  Leather, leather manufactures nes and dressed furskins

  20

  102

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts and for what total sum were let out 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 Thorton 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, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33907]
  1573
  Mr. Lang

  Company

  Value

  Number

  1993–94

  Coopers and Lybrand

  550,149

  6

  Ernst and Young

  87,102

  7

  KPMG Management Consultants

  588,870

  13

  Price Waterhouse

  1,698,975

  4

  Stoy Hayward

  118,000

  2

  1994–95

  Coopers and Lybrand

  225,980

  3

  Anderson Consulting

  101,200

  2

  Ernst and Young

  57,399

  4

  The figures shown relate to contracts issued centrally and do not include those let independently by the Department's executive agencies.

  I have asked the agency chief executives to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 18 July 1995:
  I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade tabled on 6 July 1995.In 1993–94 LGC did not let any contracts to any of the firms listed.In 1994–95 we let four contracts to Coopers and Lybrand. The total value of these (excluding VAT) was £241,000.
  Letter from S. Reid to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide you with information relating to the Patent Office as part of the reply to your question about consultancy contracts for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95.According to our records, the Patent Office did not let any contracts during the period in question to Coopers and Lybrand, Peat Marwick, Ernst and Young, Arthur Andersen, Price Waterhouse, Grant Thornton, Stoy Hayward, Robson Rhodes, Pannell Kerr Forster or any of these firms' subsidiaries.
  Letter from Peter Clapham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the number and value of contracts let to named consultancy organisations and their subsidiary companies in 1993/94 and 1994/95.NPL awarded one, small contract to Pannel Kerr Forster Recruitment for the services of a temporary accountant during the specified period. The value of the contract was £3,550 excluding VAT. No other contracts have been awarded to the organisations named or to any other company known to be a subsidiary organisation.
  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  I refer to the above PQ from you to the President of the Board of Trade concerning contracts let by NEL to named consultants. I can confirm that the only contract in this category placed by NEL was to KPMG and was in respect of the installation of a Job Evaluation System. The contract was placed in 1994/95 at a value of £40,000 excluding VAT.I trust you will find this information to be satisfactory for your purposes.1574
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 11 July 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the number of contracts and total sum spent on employing Consultants associated with the Companies specified in your question or their subsidiaries.
  This Agency has not had any contracts with any of the companies named.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  CONTRACTS WITH IDENTIFIED CONSULTANCY FIRMS Chief Executives of DTI agencies have been asked to reply direct to your parliamentary question about contracts with a number of specified consultancy firms or their subsidiaries during 1993/94 and 1994/95 as it involves an operational matter for which they are responsible. I am replying in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency.I am aware of only one contract let by this Agency with any of the firms during the period in question. This was with Coopers and Lybrand in 1994/95. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, to disclose the amount would breach commercial confidentiality. I'm sorry that I cannot be more helpful.
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about contracts let to particular accountancy and consultancy firms and their subsidiaries in the last two years.The Insolvency Service has let the following:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Firm

  Number of contracts

  Amounts £

  Number of contracts

  Amounts £

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  nil

  nil

  1

  60,000

  (b) KPMG (Peat Marwick)

  1

  45,000

  nil

  nil

  (c) Ernst and Young

  1

  107,800

  1

  13,100

  (d) Arthur Andersen

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  (e) Price Waterhouse

  nil

  nil

  1

  124,800

  (f) Grant Thornton

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  (g) BDO Stoy Hayward

  1

  76,670

  2

  94,150

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Totals

  3

  229,470

  5

  292,050

  Additionally, accountancy work on individual disqualification cases and accounting support for the work of the Agency has been provided by some of the firms you list, but it is not possible, without incurring disproportionate costs, to provide figures for such work.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  You tabled the following question:To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) Peat Marwick (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Arthur Andersen, (e) Price Waterhouse, (f) Grant Thornton, (g) Stoy Hayward, (h) Robson Rhodes, (i) Pannel Kerr Forster and their subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993/94 and 1994/95.I have been asked to respond direct to you as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.The answer is none.1575

  Auditors (Removal from Office)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many auditors have resigned or been removed from office in each of the last five years. [34100]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This is a matter for Companies House. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Cann to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1995:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question regarding how many auditors have resigned or been removed from office in each of the last five years.I have been asked to reply to you directly as Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies House Executive Agency.The number of notices of auditors' resignation received by the Registrars of Companies for England and Wales and for Scotland was as follows:

  Year

  Number of notices of resignation of auditors

  1990

  12,494

  1991

  15,790

  1992

  18,664

  1993

  17,789

  1994

  20,300

  1995 (to 14 July)

  11,987

  The number of forms notifying removal of auditors' received by the Registrars of Companies for England and Wales and for Scotland was as follows:

  Year

  Number of forms notifying removal of auditors

  1990

  651

  1991

  647

  1992

  616

  1993

  661

  1994

  519

  1995 (to 14 July)

  175

  I hope this is helpful.

  Companies Act Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any partner from an accountancy or legal firm criticised in any of the inspectors' reports published since 1979 is currently acting as an inspector for his Department. [34093]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Two current Companies Act inspectors are partners in accountancy firms which have been the subject of criticism in an inspectors' report published since 1979.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the inspectors' reports published since 1988 have been critical of Ernst and Young and its constituents; and what action he has taken against the firm or its partners. [35097]
  1576
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1988 there have been six inspectors' reports published which have been critical of chartered accountants Ernst and Young or its constituents. A copy of each report has been passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for it to consider the conduct of its members.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the British shares of the market for manufacturers in(a) the EFTA group, (b) the EEC six, (c) the Irish Republic and (d) the Commonwealth in (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1985 and (iv) 1994. [36204]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information for the Commonwealth and for 1970 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is given in the following table.

  UK share percentage of imports of manufacturers (SITC 5–8)

  1979

  1985

  1993

  EFTA

  9.4

  7.5

  6.41

  EC6

  7.4

  7.5

  7.7

  Irish Republic

  51.4

  37.1

  39.5

  1 1992.

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade Data, OECD Database Series C.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which inspectors' reports he is considering publishing; on what dates the inspectors were appointed; on what dates the report were completed; and what were their costs. [34095]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table lists those Company Act inspections—all under section 165 of the Companies Act 1948, now section 432 of the Companies Act 1985—where the inspectors have submitted their completed report but where no decisions on publication have yet been made:

  Company

  Date of appointment of inspectors

  Date of report

  Link Service Stations Ltd.

  11 March 1983

  28 November 1989

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd.

  11 March 1983

  28 November 1989

  British Anzani Plc

  11 March 1983

  28 November 1986

  Bank Street Securities Ltd.

  4 October 1983

  28 November 1989

  Medway Secondry Metals Ltd.

  16 February 1984

  21 October 1987

  The inspections are all related to Pennine Commercial Holdings plc where the inspectors are reviewing their interim report with a view to submitting a final report, following the conclusion in April 1995 of appeals against criminal convictions. When the inspectors have submitted their completed report on Pennine Commercial Holdings, publication of the reports will be considered. The cost of the investigation of Pennine Commercial Holdings plc to date is £391,000 and of related investigations is £74,600.
  1577
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the inspectors' reports relating to public limited companies which have been completed since 1979 but remain unpublished. [34092]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The table lists all inspections into public companies under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 or their predecessor sections where the inspectors' reports have been completed and the reports remain unpublished.

  Date of appointment

  Company name

  Date of report

  12 May 1975

  Bryanston Finance Ltd. (now Ramor Investments Ltd.)

  27 April 1987

  25 July 1980

  Dunlop Holdings Ltd.

  12 November 1981

  8 March 1982

  Euroflame Holdings Ltd.

  27 June 1987

  11 March 1983

  British Anzani plc

  28 November 1986

  25 February 1983

  Hartley Baird plc

  21 December 1983

  9 May 1985

  Hartley Baird plc

  4 June 1991

  Substantial interim reports on Bryanston Finance Ltd. and Dunlop Holdings Ltd. were published on 22 March 1983 and 17 February 1981 respectively. The decision to publish British Anzani plc remains under consideration.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the date on which the inspectors' report on Graylaw Holdings Limited was completed; and when he will be able to publish it. [34094]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Elizabeth Appleby QC and Peter Wilfred Foss FCA of Moores Rowland were appointed inspectors of Graylaw Holdings Limited on 11 March 1983 under the provisions of Section 165(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1948 (now Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985). The inspectors are reviewing their interim report on Pennine Commercial Holdings Plc, a related investigation, with a view to submitting a final report, following the conclusion in April 1995 of appeals against criminal convictions. When the inspectors have submitted their completed report on Pennine Commercial Holdings, publication of the reports will be considered.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the rights of shareholders and employees when companies receive a hostile takeover bid. [34102]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The city code on takeovers and mergers, administered by the takeover panel, applies to takeover bids involving public companies and some private companies. The code and the panel operate principally to ensure fair and equal treatment of all shareholders in relation to takeovers. The code's general principles and its detailed rules are designed to ensure, amongst other things: that all shareholders of the same class receive similar treatment; that they have sufficient information and advice to enable them to reach a properly informed decision and have sufficient time to do so; and that the board of the target company may not take action without the approval of the shareholders which could result in a bona fide offer being frustrated or in the shareholders being denied an opportunity to decide on its merits.
  1578

  Accountants Acting as Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for legislation under which individuals or firms acting as reporting accountants for a bank would be prevented from acting as receivers for the same business. [34099]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no proposals for legislation in this area.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to commission research into the number of reporting accountants who subsequently become receivers. [34098]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no such plans.

  Oil Rigs (Disposal)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what study his Department made of routine onshore dismantling of oil rigs before giving permission to dump the Brent Spar at sea; [36282]

  (2) if the Government ordered an independent body to sample and analyse the contents of the Brent Spar during the currency of the proposal for deep sea disposal; [36279]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the time-scale for the length of time the Brent Spar would take to break up if dumped at sea; and what considerations led him to his conclusions; [36281]

  (4) what is now his policy toward the deep-sea dumping of oil rigs. [36283]

  Mr. Eggar
  Several options, including onshore disposal, were considered for the abandonment of the Brent Spar before the judgment was made that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option in this case.

  Independent surveys were carried out which enabled Shell to assess the contents of the Brent Spar. Copies of the impact hypothesis, which examines the long-term fate of the structure on the seabed, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  It remains Government policy to consider every proposal on a case-by-case basis and in the light of a comparative assessment of the alternative options. This will have proper regard for environmental considerations and other users of the sea, as well as risk, technical feasibility and cost in order to arrive at the best practicable environmental option.

  Single Market Compliance Unit
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the outcome of the single market complaints raised by his Department's single market compliance unit with the internal market advisory committee. [34932]

  Mr. Nelson
  Of the 14 cases listed in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Trade on 24 May 1995,Official Report, column 643–44, those concerning Dutch waste water regulations, the testing of stack gas analysers to German standards and Greek soft

  1579
  drink regulations have been resolved. The single market compliance unit is monitoring the outcome in each case. The unit is pressing for the successful resolution of the other cases.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement of 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. [34685]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In his speech to the Institute of Directors super-highways conference on 14 June 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) announced the launch of the Department's own Internet server on that day, containing publications and practical information such as the DTI guide for business, ministerial speeches, DTI command papers, and so on. This is known as "www.dti.gov.uk" and is complementary to the CCTA GIS Server "www.open.gov.uk", which has made information available since last autumn. Due to the nature of the world wide web, these connect seamlessly to each other. To date, there have been some 9,000 inquiries to the DTI server.

  I am encouraging the Department and others to consider making greater use of this medium, not only for the supply of information—such as export opportunities, scientific reports, DTI services, and so on—but also to enable more efficient and effective methods to be employed in the collection of data from industry, for instance, in order to award licences. The DTI has one of the largest internal E Mail networks in the country and increasingly our dialogue with industry is being enhanced by the use of electronic mail. My own office now regularly corresponds with people outside the Department via the Internet.

  My E Mail address is "taylor @ mintech.demon.co.uk"

  Aircraft Purchases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the effect on the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the United States of America of the decision to buy Boeing 777 aircraft with United States rather than United Kingdom manufactured engines. [36184]

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimated life-time value, including spares, of British Airways' purchase of United States manufactured engines for 30 Boeing 777 aircraft is £880 million.

  Inntrepreneur Leases
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Office of Fair Trading report on Inntrepreneur leases; and if he will make a statement; [35773]

  (2) if he will make available to affected parties copies of the Office of Fair Trading report on Inntrepreneur leases. [35774]
  1580
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am unable to place a copy of the Director General of Fair Trading's report on his inquiry into brewer's wholesale pricing policy in the Library of the House. This is because the report contains information on particular businesses whose disclosure, without the consent of the businesses in question, is prohibited by section 133 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Such consent has not been given. However, the director general issued a press notice on 16 May which contained a summary of the inquiry's findings. A copy of this is already available in the Library of the House. In addition, the affected parties have been provided with some more information on the conduct of the inquiry and its conclusions.

  Telephone Sex Lines
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions exist on where credit card telephone sex lines can be advertised; what agency has responsibility for monitoring such lines; what restrictions exist on the use of credit card facilities to provide explicit sexual services; and what plans he has to introduce regulation similar to premium rate telephone services. [35393]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: The advertising of telephone information services paid for by credit card is presently regulated under the indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and the content of messages under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services is currently consulting on its future remit, and this consultation includes discussion with credit card providers and network operators about the use of credit cards in paying for telephone services.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, on what occasions Oftel has been asked to investigate credit card telephone sex lines. [35394]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 July 1995]: Oftel has received a negligible level of complaints about these services. Oftel is not responsible for the regulation of the content of telephone information services billed by credit card.

  Iraq (Military Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if live biological organisms which could be cultured and grown in fermentation chambers to develop biological warfare agents were sold to Iraq between 1980 and 1990. [35121]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what anti-chemical protective devices were sold to Iraq between 1980 and 1990, with particular reference to anti-nerve gas injectors, gas masks, protective clothing or chemical agent detectors. [35145]
  1581
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 July 1995]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Anti-personnel Mines Exports (Singapore)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department holds on the trading relationship between the British company Casabee and Charter Industries of Singapore in regard to the export of anti-personnel mines. [30517]

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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.

  Mr. Lang
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Oriana Cruise Ship
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom content on importation of the £2 million Oriana. [35319]

  Mr. Eggar
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Earnings
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the number of workers in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom earning less than two-thirds of median male earnings in each years since 1979. [35224]
  1582
  (2) what were the numbers of workers earning less than 68 per cent. of full-time average earnings in each year since 1979. [35225]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Some relevant information is available in the reports of the New Earnings Survey, copies of which are in the Library.

  Table 16 of part A of the reports contain median and average gross hourly earnings of full-time adults. The 1989 report has data for 1979 to 1989 and the 1994 report has data for 1990 to 1994.

  Table 17 contains similar information on gross weekly earnings. The 1993 report contains data for 1983 to 1993 and the 1994 report contains data for 1984 to 1994. The available information for the years between 1979 and 1983 is for full-time men aged 21 and over and full-time women aged 18 and over. The information for 1983 to 1979 is in table 30 of the 1988 report.

  Distributions of gross hourly earnings for categories of employee are in table 20, for the years 1979 to 1981 and 1989 to 1994, and in table 35 for the years 1982 to 1988.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small and medium-sized enterprises have paid corporation tax in each year since 1975. [35068]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the numbers of companies charged to corporation tax at the small, marginal and main tax rates is given in table 11.3 of "Inland Revenue Statistics", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Some further analyses of mainstream corporation tax by size of payment are given in tables 11.6 and 11.8. Further information is not readily available.

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.
Lord Nelson of Stafford Lord Nelson of Stafford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Olympic Games: UK Representation
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it desirable for the United Kingdom to be strongly represented at the Olympic Games, and if so what measures they are taking to achieve this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): Yes, my Lords. The Government actively encourage governing bodies of sport and the British Olympic Association to send the best possible team to the Olympic Games. The Sports Council is to allocate £1.25 million to support our top athletes' preparation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Atlanta next year. Longer term measures to boost sporting excellence in this country and strengthen representation at future Olympic Games was set out in the Government's sports policy statement published last week.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it not unfortunate that in the build-up to the 1998 Winter Olympic Games the Sports Council is reducing its support for the main events of the Winter Olympic Games by over 60 per cent., particularly at a time when we have world championship medallists, we have children among the top three at international level and the highest-ranking skiers we have ever had?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the matter of disbursement for competitive sport at this level is a matter for the Sports Council. The Sports Council has assessed these matters. As my noble friend pointed out, that has led to a reduction in the money it provides. Of course, money from the Sports Council is not the only money that can be made available for competitive sport at this level. The council is currently exploring with the British Ski Federation and commercial interests the possibility of sponsorship in this area.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Government's new sports policy and the creation of a new British Academy of Sport. In the statement announcing that policy the Government said that they would ask the Sports Council to invite bids for the £100 million of lottery money to fund the new academy. Is the Minister aware that Section 26 of the National Lottery Etc. Act speaks of the need to ensure that they do not solicit particular applications? Can he explain that breach of the Act, that hijacking of the lottery? Do the Government now view lottery money as a political
282
pool to finance pre-election initiatives? Is he aware that the lottery Act states that the proceeds of the lottery are to be for five specific good causes? Is he aware that the present Government do not come within that particular definition?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not dissent from the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, of good causes in regard to the lottery. It goes without saying that the Government are a good cause, but not one covered by that particular piece of legislation. The noble Lord runs ahead of himself in this regard. The Government are fully aware of the legislation to which he referred.
To quote from the recently published document, Sport—Raising the Game,
"The Government therefore wants to see established a British Academy of Sport. While it is not for the Government to set up and run such an Academy, this Policy Statement lays down the challenge to the sports world and points the way forward".
That entirely answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may refer further to his document which states that the Government have asked the Great Britain Sports Council and its successor bodies to invite bids by 31st March 1996 from the sports world to establish the British Academy of Sport. I believe that that is a more direct involvement than perhaps he stated.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may elaborate my reply. The sports policy states:
"To take this initiative forward, the Government has asked the GB Sports Council and its successor bodies to:—(i) bring forward proposals by the end of September 1995 setting out what the structure and content of the British Academy of Sport might be; (ii) to consult widely, inviting views by the end of the year on the ideas that emerge and on how the academy might be set up; and (iii) following consultation to invite bids, by 31 March 1996, from the sports world to establish the British Academy of Sport".
That is the challenge which the Government have put to the Sports Council. Let us see what response to that challenge there might be.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 16 year-old winner of last year's overall British ski championship, Miss Sophie Ormond, is unable to ski for Britain due to lack of funding. In two years' time she will apply, and probably obtain, a French passport and ski for France. That will be directly as a result of French recognition and the support that she will receive during those formative years. Is that not bad for this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for drawing the attention of the House to the case of Miss Sophie Ormond. It is precisely in order to deal with that kind of case that the Sports Council has called a meeting to endeavour to raise additional money for skiing.
In this country we are sometimes the beneficiary of such changes. For example, recently in the Tour de France Max Sciandri, a British cyclist but previously an Italian cyclist, won a stage. Another example is Greg Rusedski, the tennis player.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the government sport's policy emphasises team games? While many of us are enthusiastic about team games—the Prime Minister had a wonderful photo opportunity on that aspect last week—the Olympic Games consist largely of individual efforts. In schools and in many athletic clubs the emphasis is now more on the individual. There should be more of a balance. Does the Minister agree that there is too much emphasis now on team games? The Question refers to the Olympic Games. Therefore, there ought to be a change of emphasis to include events in the Olympic Games.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord. Sport is a curious mixture in many instances between individualism and team playing. Depending on which sport one refers to, that balance may adjust. However, it is made quite clear in the statement that the Government are concerned both in regard to team games and individual sports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I must declare an interest, having raced on behalf of Parliament against the Swiss Parliament for 40 years. However, I now have to confess that I have hung up my boots—or those that I hire. Is my noble friend aware that between 1.5 million and 2 million Brits go skiing every year? Is he aware, too, that watching television also promotes that sport? We originated downhill racing—as with so many other sports—for the world to follow. Bearing in mind that this country started the sport of skiing, it seems to me amazing to cut back two-thirds of the sum available in 1994 from the Winter Olympic Games. Cannot something be done to promote that effort and to support the school children who now enjoy it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is a well known skier. It is important to be clear on one distinction. It is not the business of the Sports Council to subsidise people's winter sports holidays. The Question refers to competitive skiing at the highest level. It was because the Sports Council felt that we were not going to be successful in that regard that the sum of money was reduced in the manner in which the noble Lord describes. That does not mean to say that it is the end of the matter. Under this Government, more money is going into sport than has ever been the case. Things like sponsorship, to which I have previously referred, may well provide a substantial increase over and above government funds.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise the tremendous work undertaken by the Animal Health Trust into heat stress in equestrian sports, in preparation for the next Olympic Games? Will the Government support our equestrian teams which are going to Atlanta in the future and give them all the support and help they need?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, the Sports Council is allocating £1.25 million to support our top athletes' preparation.

ACP Countries: UK Aid
2.49 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries will have to protect themselves from the consequences of changes caused by the reductions in United Kingdom contributions to the European Development Fund (EDF).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the ACP will have no need to take such measures. The total size of EDF VIII is broadly the same in real terms as the last.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister of course for that reply. Is she concerned that EDF VII failed to meet its spending objectives? Is it not a fact that UK bilateral aid to the sub-Sahara is set to fall by 16 per cent. in real terms over the next three years? As important, what is the current UK and European Union vision towards a successor agreement to Lomé IV?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that in terms of amounts spent to 30th June 1995, EDF VII had reached about a third of its total size. There are a couple more years to go on it, of course. The noble Viscount is right that there will be a reduction in overall bilateral aid, but it would have been much greater if we had not restricted the amount going through the European Union so as to safeguard bilateral aid so far as possible.
I have a totally open mind as regards what will go on after the year 2000, which will be European Development Fund IX, if it takes place. Our main concern is to ensure that European Union aid resources are directed efficiently where they are most needed and where they can be most effective. It is for that reason that we now have agreed measures to improve the effectiveness and we intend to go on pushing at the European Union to improve the effectiveness still further.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are all agreed that we want effectiveness in our aid programme? However, there is widespread concern about the mean response of the United Kingdom Government to the EDF because the EDF is targeted on some of those in greatest need in the world. Does the Minister agree that between 1990–91 and 1993–94, while the aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa, which has great need, fell by 20 per cent., that to the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe rose by 34 per cent. in our bilateral programme? Is not the problem that the Minister has all the time to spread the butter thinly? While in the past year she has halted the fall as a proportion of GNP in the aid programme, it is destined to fall to 0.27 per cent. of GNP in the next few years, as distinct from 0.31 per cent. at present, on the figures given to the Select Committee in the other place.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no doubt in your Lordships' House and in another place that we wish to see all aid resources—which are, after

285
all, taxpayers' money—spent as effectively as possible. That means that the mechanisms must be in place to ensure that they are properly targeted and properly delivered. That is why we have looked extremely carefully at the under-spend on EDF V, EDF VI and EDF VII—none of which has spent up to the commitment made.
If we were to make a commitment as large as that for which we were first asked and then not spend it, we would be denying the bilateral aid programme the very resources that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, wants to be spent—as I do—in sub-Saharan Africa and targeted on the poorest. We cannot do both. Therefore, I shall go for effectiveness in spending, good targeting and ensuring that the poorest get the resources. We have done that by now making the European Development Fund also target the poorest, which it failed to do prior to the agreement in 1992 under the British presidency.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if the Minister is so determined to help the poorest, will she clarify why aid to sub-Saharan Africa in the bilateral programme has fallen by 20 per cent. in the past three years, while it has risen by 34 per cent. to the former Soviet Union and east Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are dealing with not just two but three separate areas. Before 1989 there was no chance of giving help to the former Soviet Union and central and eastern European countries. The European Union then decided that it wished to give help. We also decided, through our very effective know-how funds, to give help to the areas. We further decided that we must give help to those Mediterranean countries that badly need development assistance.
We must balance what we are doing. The difficulty is that the noble Lord looks at only part of the situation. The African, Caribbean and Pacific countries not only benefit from the European Development Fund, but they also benefit from food aid, aid to the NGOs and the democracy programmes which come out of EC budget spending. Furthermore, there will be up to 1.7 billion ecu of EIB loans to the ACP countries during the lifetime of European Development Fund VIII. The total European Community financial flows will be worth some 18 billion ecu over five years. The European Union will remain far and away the largest donor to Africa. It is only by restricting our funding to other less needy countries that we will able to continue the work we are doing in sub-Saharan Africa.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what specific help we give to South Africa? The most hopeful signs of development and democracy in Africa have been there. Any help we can give—for example, on housing and education—must surely be immensely profitable for this country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, over three years we shall give about £100 million of direct aid to South Africa, both bilaterally and through the European Union. We were helping South Africa for 10 years or more prior to the election of the Government of National Unity in 1994. Throughout all that time, we
286
have concentrated particularly on education, training the teachers of teachers so that one can spread education—a basic need—as far and wide as possible. We have given help through non-governmental organisations for a long time and now we are working with the new Government of South Africa on the reconstruction and development programme, giving training in institution building, government training, training in democracy and training in management. In addition, the Foreign Office provides from its budgets further training for the police force and the unification of the armed forces of South Africa.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how much, in pounds, shillings and pence, we are contributing—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No, in pounds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how much are we contributing in pounds to aid through the European aid budget fund? What proportion of our total aid fund does that represent? Does she also agree with Action Aid which has recently complained that the European Community is distributing money away from Africa and towards the eastern states of Europe? If I may say so, the latter are much better off than people in Africa. Does the Minister also agree with the many charities which say that often the EC distributes aid on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction to press reports?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I counted four questions there. We were spending about 25 per cent. of our total budget through the EC. It is now around 30 per cent. and it will increase to over 40 per cent. That is why I have sought to restrict our funding and ensure that all the money we give is properly targeted and properly spent. As regards the noble Lord's other questions, I shall reply to him separately.

Religious Education in Schools
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the provision of religious education and worship in primary and secondary schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Office for Standards in Education, which is responsible for reporting on religious education and collective worship in schools, has found standards in these areas to be uneven. The Government would like all schools to aspire to the high standards achieved by the best and we have put in place a range of measures to encourage them to do so.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging reply. Does he also agree that it is encouraging that so many schools have responded positively to the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988? That is to the extent that in 1994 Ofsted inspectors could not find a single primary school failing

287
to comply with the law with regard to worship. However, will he also agree that there is still cause for concern? For example, a recent Gallup poll found that 49 per cent. of 16 to 24 year-olds had no idea what Good Friday commemorates, and 79 per cent. did not know what happened on Palm Sunday. Does my noble friend agree that without some knowledge of our basic Judaeo-Christian heritage, not only will our young people not understand our spiritual heritage but also they will not understand our cultural heritage of art, literature, music and architecture, or indeed the history of our political and social institutions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to express that particular message. It is important to remember that the purpose behind religious education is not to spread the faith, desirable though that might be in other circumstances. It is to educate, as is right, our children in what my noble friend describes broadly as our Judaeo-Christian tradition, of which we in Western Europe have been a part for many, many centuries. Like my noble friend, perhaps I may give one example: it is pretty difficult to understand Renaissance art without a suitable grounding in the Bible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when are the Government going to include the fact that some 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the people in this country do not hold any religious beliefs of any kind? Surely the proper teaching of religious education would include at least the basis of humanism, agnosticism, atheism and related views. If the Minister is about to tell me yet again that these views are not religions, will he say in which curriculum they should be included?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I made clear, we are a broadly Christian country and our traditions are broadly Christian. For that reason we feel it is important that children are educated in that tradition.
As regards humanism, I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not a religion and should not be taught as if it were. I can, however, say that a syllabus might, in the context of religious education, were it to be necessary, deal with non-theistic ways of life such as humanism.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the law as it stands on schools worship is extremely flexible, and that, in spite of the fact that it is often said that we are a multi-faith society, the fact is that less than 4 per cent. of the population adhere to non-Christian faiths?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny the figure that my noble friend gave. I can, however, confirm, as I said earlier, that we are a broadly Christian country and our traditions are broadly in the Judaeo-Christian mould. For that reason we believe it important that the children in our schools are taught about that Christian background.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the SCAA's current syllabus for GCSE excludes thematic multi-faith teaching and encourages teaching that respects the coherence and integrity of each faith?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I am satisfied that that is the case. Obviously, this is a matter that staff can keep under permanent review. If the noble Lord wished to write to them and make any suggestions, I am sure that they would be grateful to receive his responses.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I feel that a question from these Benches might be appropriate. Will the Minister accept that on these Benches we are very grateful for the way in which a move was achieved through the Education Reform Act for the improvement of religious education in schools and the encouragement of worship? Will he also agree with me that the best way in which this can be achieved and furthered is not so much by heavy-handedness in applying the regulations, but by using carrots rather than sticks; and that one of the best carrots would be the provision of more, and better trained, religious education teachers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I express the feeling of the House in saying that it is quite appropriate that we should have an intervention from the Benches of the right reverend Prelate. As regards the question as to whether there should be more RE teachers, statistics show that at the moment there is no shortage of such teachers. The problem is that only about half the teachers who have an RE specialism are teaching the subject. We believe that steps to raise the status of the subject are therefore very important. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Teacher Training Agency has taken this on board. It envisages that secondary target intakes for RE students will increase by nearly 10 per cent. between 1995–96 and 1996–97, and by a further 15 per cent. in 1997–98.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I return for a moment to the figures quoted by the noble Baroness who asked the initial Question? Forty-nine per cent. of the age range 16 to 24 do not know what Good Friday commemorates; 71 per cent. in my estimation do not know what happened on Palm Sunday; and 48 per cent. do not know what Lent is. Does that not indicate the total failure of this Government's policy for religious education over the past 15 years? Does the Minister believe that the pathetic proposal of a new half-course at GCSE level will do anything to redeem the disaster?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lord takes a rather heavy hand to these matters. Obviously, I accept that those figures are somewhat depressing. As regards the new exam that the noble Lord mentioned, it has been something of a success and has encouraged a great many of the 14 to 16 year-olds in Key Stage 4 to take up RE because they see the chance of getting a qualification at the end, and children of that age are very minded along the line of getting qualifications. It has been a success. We shall continue to pursue the various initiatives that we have introduced. I hope that even the noble Lord will moderate his tone in future when he recognises just how successful we are being.
Lord Elton: My Lords, cannot the very substantial drain of RE teachers to which my noble friend the Minister referred be countered urgently? Is not one way

289
to declare religious education a shortage subject? Have any conversations taken place between the Government and the Teacher Training Agency in this respect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear to the right reverend Prelate, and make clear again to my noble friend, the Teacher Training Agency is very well aware of the particular problem. As I said earlier, there is overall no shortage of trained RE teachers: I believe that the recent survey showed that there were only 16 vacancies in the entire country. The real problem is that over half the teachers with an RE specialism are not teaching the subject. We shall certainly continue to press the TTA to do what it can in this field. I thought that the targets I mentioned to the right reverend Prelate were really quite challenging: increases of 10 per cent. and a further 15 per cent. in 1997–98. They should go a considerable way towards meeting this problem.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, when discussing religion the most important thing is not the remembering of certain events but the basic message behind them. Will he assure the House that when teaching religion it should be borne in mind what happens when doctrine is too strongly adhered to—as instanced in Ulster and Bosnia? Does the Minister accept that we should not simply rely on learning facts, since facts taken out of context are totally useless?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord quite understood the message that I was trying to get over. I was seeking to make the important point that religious education is not a matter of "spreading the faith" as he seemed to imply, but rather to educate our children in the broadly Judaeo-Christian tradition in which they live.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 70 per cent. of the population are anxious that teaching on religious subjects should take place in schools? Is he also aware that there is no room for complacency, since 80 per cent. of schools with sixth forms teach absolutely no religion whatsoever? Does he agree that it really is time that something was done about this decay in our moral background?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that neither I, nor the department, is complacent. I hope that I have spelt out in some detail some of the various initiatives that the department is pursuing, although I can certainly write to my noble friend in greater detail. There is no room for complacency. Some of the figures quoted in relation to ignorance about religion and our background are very depressing indeed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree that young people in this country are growing up in a broadly Christian tradition, but will the Minister agree that any revision of the religious education curriculum or the way in which religious education is taught ought to have regard to the growing scourge of xenophobia and racism; one example being anti-Semitism? Does he accept the importance of teaching all young people in this country to respect the values of those who hold other faiths, in whatever part of the United Kingdom they may live?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to stress that we need a knowledge of other faiths. My point is that we are a largely Christian country. It is the Christian faith that, in the main, we feel should be taught in schools and should predominate in the acts of collective worship in which, under the 1944 Act, all schools are required to take part each day.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albansrose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Short Title of the Measure indicates that it contains a miscellaneous collection of provisions relating to the Church of England. Their effect is described in the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod which are annexed to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
It is a convention that miscellaneous provisions Measures contain only non-controversial material. That is borne out by the voting in the General Synod last November. There were 229 votes in favour and one vote against. There is always one vote against. It may help the House if I briefly draw attention to two provisions of the Measure which were the subject of scrutiny by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
First, Clause 2 permits Christ Church, Oxford, which is the Cathedral of the Diocese of Oxford, through its constitution and statutes, to appoint two lay canons. Subsection (3) of the clause permits in future the Regius Professorship of Ecclesiastical History to be held either by a residentiary canon or by a lay canon, appointed pursuant to subsection (1) of the clause.
In 1840, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act annexed the Regius Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford to a canonry in the Cathedral. Therefore, the holder of the professorship must be a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of England. For some time, the university has expressed concern about the narrowness of the field of candidates who are eligible to take up that chair of ecclesiastical history. There is no suggestion that the professor should not any longer be a clergyman. Indeed, that will be encouraged because the relationship between college and cathedral is strong and the person appointed will be expected to play a day-to-day role in cathedral life.
But both the university and the diocese recognise that academic talent for that post could be found among the laity or outside the Church of England—perhaps an ordained person of another Church or perhaps a lay person. The Ecumenical Relations Measure 1988 now makes it possible for such a person to take a major part in the daily life of the cathedral.
Clause 2 is included in the Measure at the request of the university, the diocese of Oxford and the cathedral authorities. The Crown appoints the Regius Professor. It

291
has been consulted about the clause and is content with it. I thought that noble Lords would be interested in that provision.
The second provision to which I wish to refer is Clause 6. That amends the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 concerning the composition of the Church Commissioners' Assets Committee to allow the appointment of not less than one and not more than three additional members chosen from the commissioners and elected by and from the General Synod.
When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, it became clear that the provision was regarded as premature by a majority of the committee, in view of the recent report on the Church Commissioners and Church Pensions of the Social Security Select Committee of another place and the impending report of the Archbishops' Commission on the Organisation of the Church of England, which is known as the Turnbull Commission. In view of the misgivings expressed in the committee, the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have indicated that they do not intend to exercise their power under Clause 15 of the Measure to bring Clause 6 into effect pending consideration of those reports.
The Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient. In view of the overwhelming support expressed in the General Synod, I trust that it will find acceptance in your Lordships' eyes as well.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say on a personal note that this week is my final week in your Lordships' House, as I retire next month. Let me simply say to your Lordships, as I want an excuse to do so, how grateful I have been for the kindness and courtesy shown to me by so many Members of the House and also by the staff of the House. I wish the House Godspeed in its continuing deliberations. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his introduction of this wide-ranging Measure. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we wish him a very happy retirement. He is not, I understand, going to Oxford but to Cambridge. I am quite sure that he will be very happy there.
I want to give a particular welcome to Clause 2, which the right reverend Prelate introduced at some length. He explained the background to it and I need not go over that again. But I feel that it introduces a very welcome degree of flexibility into the range of candidates eligible for appointment as Regius Professor. It will help to ensure that the appointment will be of the highest academic quality. It will allow the appointment of a distinguished Church historian from another denomination, if necessary, and—dare I say?—it might even allow the appointment of a woman. In the long run it can only strengthen the Faculty of Theology in Oxford. I particularly welcome it.
292
As the right reverend Prelate said, the other Measures are also to be welcomed. None of them is controversial, with the exception of Clause 6 and the difficulty that arose over that was met by the most reverend Primates. We support the Measure.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee, I welcome the Measure. The Measure is extremely thorough and Clauses 2 and 6 were well dealt with. It shows how efficient and thorough is the General Synod. There are over a dozen clauses in the Measure and nothing has been left out.
I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in wishing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans a good and happy retirement. I remember his maiden speech. It was very interesting and amusing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, from these Benches may I briefly congratulate the right reverend Prelate on the way in which he introduced the Motion. I should also like to join in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Teviot, and demonstrate that on this side of the House we also are entirely in agreement with the Motion.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I thank your Lordships very much for those kind words and for noble Lords' appreciation of the whole work of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It is very rare that the General Synod receives accolades and therefore the words that came from behind me warmed my heart. I shall go into retirement feeling a new person. I only regret that when other people at my age are becoming Members of your Lordships' House, I am leaving it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will need little reminding of the importance of this Bill. Its aim is to provide statutory backing for the payment of compensation to the blameless victims of violent crime. The Bill will provide the framework for an enhanced tariff scheme. That new scheme will concentrate on a simple tariff approach for the majority of victims, while ensuring that generous compensation is paid to those most seriously affected by their injuries. In this way we believe the enhanced tariff scheme provides the right balance between meeting the needs of victims while protecting the interests of taxpayers.
We have, of course, had a non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme since 1964. It provides compensation from public funds to the blameless victims of crimes of violence and to those injured in attempting to catch criminals or prevent crime. When the scheme was introduced the government of the day made it clear that they did not accept that the state was liable for injuries caused to people by the criminal acts

293
of others. But they did believe that the public felt a sense of responsibility for, and sympathy with, the blameless victim. They felt, therefore, that it was right for that feeling to be given practical expression by the provision of a monetary payment on behalf of the community. We remain of that opinion.
Since 1964 the scheme has been run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the first full year of the scheme's operation—1965–66—the board received 2,452 applications and made 1,164 awards, totalling just £403,000. That would be around £4 million at today's prices. In the most recent year for which audited figures are available—1993–94—the board received 73,473 applications. It made 65,293 awards and paid out no less than £165 million. Our criminal injuries compensation scheme is the most generous in the world. We pay out more than the whole of the European continent taken together and we pay out more than the whole of the United States taken together.
Under the current scheme awards are assessed on the basis of common law damages: that means what an applicant might expect to be awarded in a successful action for damages in the civil courts. Calculation of awards on that basis requires finely judged assessments of the degree of suffering and financial loss. That tends to make speedy decision taking more difficult. It also makes it harder to predict and control the costs of the scheme. We all know that under the energetic and able leadership of my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the board has been determined to improve the workings of the scheme. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and his colleagues on the board for all they have done. It has been much appreciated. But, despite those sterling efforts, the backlog of unresolved cases has risen inexorably. It now stands at nearly 110,000. At the same time, the costs of the scheme have continued to increase at a rate that is no longer sustainable for a scheme funded by the taxpayer.
It was against that background that we decided to introduce a new tariff-based scheme in April 1994. That tariff scheme moved away from the one based on individual assessment. It provided for payments to be made on the basis of a scale of awards which grouped together injuries of comparable severity and allocated a financial value to them, based on awards made previously by the board.
The new scheme ran from 1st April 1994 to 5th April 1995, when the Judicial Committee of this House ruled that the method of the tariff scheme's introduction had been unlawful. The scheme was immediately withdrawn and the former scheme reinstated. But I must emphasise here that the legal judgment related solely to the method of the tariff scheme's introduction; it was not concerned with the merits of the scheme itself.
We remain firmly of the view that a tariff-based approach is the right way forward. A tariff scheme is easier for victims to understand. It is easier to operate; and that means that applications can be dealt with more quickly. It also enables costs to be controlled and predicted more easily.
But in revisiting the tariff approach we have, of course, taken careful note of the criticisms made of the earlier scheme, both in this House and elsewhere, and
294
in particular the concern that too simple a tariff approach could have a detrimental effect on those most seriously affected by their injury. We think our new, enhanced tariff scheme meets the major points of concern that were expressed. It will ensure that in the more serious cases payment is made for loss of earnings and earning capacity and for the costs of special care. And, in cases where the victim has, tragically, lost his life, not only will family members receive a fixed tariff payment, but, where they were financially dependent on the victim, they will also receive payment for that loss of dependency and support.
The Bill provides the framework for the new scheme and sets its broad parameters. It makes it clear that it is a tariff-based scheme, but that the tariff would be augmented in appropriate cases by payment for loss of earnings, special care and dependency. It makes it clear that the more important features of the scheme—namely, the tariff itself and other provisions bearing on quantum—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They will require the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament before they can be included in the scheme.
The Bill will also repeal the provisions in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act which would have made the common law damages scheme statutory. It is intended that the Bill should come into force on Royal Assent and that, following parliamentary approval of the details to which I referred, the new scheme should start on 1st April 1996.
Following detailed consideration of the Bill in another place, I suspect that the details of the new scheme are already well known to many noble Lords present today. However, other noble Lords may find it helpful if I briefly rehearse the main features.
There will be a basic tariff of awards. Each injury description is allocated to one of 25 tariff levels which will attract a fixed payment ranging from £1,000 to £250,000. All successful applicants will receive an award from the tariff. But in addition, those who are incapacitated as a result of their injury for more than 28 weeks will be entitled to separate, additional payment for loss of earnings or earning capacity. There clearly needs to be a qualifying period to trigger that extra payment and to differentiate between those who have been most seriously affected by their injury and those whose injuries are less severe. We believe that 28 weeks is the most appropriate trigger, since that is the period for which statutory sick pay is payable by employers. Of course, those who do not qualify for statutory sick pay during that time should qualify for incapacity benefit, or other state benefit as appropriate.
In cases of incapacity for more than 28 weeks there will also be payment for special expenses. That will be payable from the date of the injury and it will cover the costs of special care and future care. In general, if something qualifies for special expenses under the present 1990 scheme, it will qualify for special expenses under the enhanced tariff scheme. Thus the sort of things it will cover include the costs of home mobility equipment, fees for care at home or in a nursing home,

295
and the cost of private medical treatment if, in all the circumstances, both the treatment and the cost are reasonable.
In fatal cases there will be a fixed fatal award of £5,000 per qualifying claimant, unless there is only one qualifying claimant in which case the award will be £10,000. But in addition, where the claimant was financially dependent on the victim, payment will be made for the loss of that dependency—in other words, for the loss of the breadwinner's wage. And a child will be eligible for payment for loss of parental support. Reasonable funeral expenses will continue to be paid in all appropriate cases. The upper limit for awards under the enhanced tariff scheme will be £250,000, double that payable under the old tariff scheme.
Finally, I should mention a most important feature of the new arrangements. That will be the ability to make payments by what are known as "structured settlements". For higher value awards it will enable the claimant to opt for payment by the purchase of annuities which will provide a stream of index-linked payments for life, or other specified period. Those payments will be tax-free. It will considerably enhance the net value of the award to the victim. And I can tell your Lordships that we shall use the Bill to ensure that the benefits of structured settlements can be extended to claimants under the current scheme whose claims have not yet been settled. That will, in fact, necessitate our making a small change to the current scheme plus an amendment to this Bill, which we shall bring forward in Committee.
The tariff itself is based on that used in the earlier tariff scheme which had to be withdrawn. It was derived from nearly 20,000 awards made by the board which enabled us to group the injuries into bands of comparable severity and to set an appropriate level of payment. We have made some adjustments to the tariff in the light of experience of operating the tariff scheme in 1994–95, including the addition of new or amended injury descriptions. The new tariff lists over 300 injury descriptions and is, we believe, now pretty comprehensive.
The new scheme will be administered by a body similar to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administered the earlier tariff scheme. The Bill will enable the administration of the scheme to be market tested at a future date, although we have no plans for that at the present time.
The Bill provides for a two-stage appeals process similar to that under the earlier tariff scheme. The first stage will be an internal review of the case by a more senior member of the authority. The second stage will be a right of appeal to an independent appeals panel. This will comprise members of the present board, and people with experience in medicine, business, commerce, or with a trade union background or other broader relevant experience. The workings of the appeals panel will come under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Apart from dealing with appeals from individual claimants, we regard the panel as an important source of expertise and advice. We have therefore made it clear in the Bill that the panel has an advice-giving role. That
296
means that the Secretary of State may consult the panel whenever he feels it would be helpful, while the panel may in turn give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters and whenever it considers it appropriate to do so.
The rules of eligibility and the procedures for making applications and appeals will remain very much as they were under the 1994 tariff scheme. And that scheme, of course, closely followed the rules of the common law damages scheme. However, the time limit for making applications will be extended from the earlier tariff scheme's one year, to two years. And, as before, the authority will be able to waive that time limit in exceptional circumstances.
I mentioned earlier that the costs of the common law damages scheme were increasing at a rate that was no longer sustainable. In fact, as the Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes clear, we estimate that without reform the annual liability to compensation by the year 2000–2001 would be in the order of £460 million. Under the enhanced tariff scheme, the liability will, of course, continue to grow year by year, but at least at a less rapid rate. By 2000–2001 we think that the annual liability will be in the order of £260 million, and that the total payable under the tariff scheme to then will be about £1.1 billion. That is still an enormous amount of taxpayers' money by any standards and, indeed, we will retain our place in the league tables. It is not surprising, therefore, that our scheme is, and will remain, the most generous scheme anywhere in the world.
We believe that the enhanced tariff scheme provides the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers. It has the benefits of a tariff-based approach which will enable most claimants to get their money quickly and without undue fuss. But it also ensures that the most seriously injured are generously catered for, by paying loss of earnings and the costs of any special care, and by making provision for structured settlements. I hope the House will recognise that we have listened very carefully to the criticisms of the earlier tariff scheme, that we have made a number of very significant improvements, and that the new tariff scheme is much the better for it. No doubt others might wish to go further—we shall hear much of that during the course of the afternoon—but any prudent government must have regard to resource constraints and I believe that, within those constraints, the new tariff scheme is a good and generous one. It is good for victims, and it is good for the taxpayer. This Bill provides the necessary framework for the scheme, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Before the noble Baroness sits down, has she no words of contrition on behalf of the Home Secretary for having acted illegally; more seriously, for having done so in the knowledge that there was a 50:50 chance at least that he was acting illegally; and most seriously, that he was in any case acting unconstitutionally by producing his own scheme in place of the scheme that Parliament had enacted and that was still on the statute book awaiting his bringing it into force?
3.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that he has just made a substantive contribution to the debate rather than an intervention on procedure after the Question has been put. Perhaps I may, with due respect, suggest to him that if he wants to do that the House would be tolerant if he decided to speak in the gap. I do not think it is appropriate to have interventions at this stage of the debate.
It would be beyond the possibilities of human self-restraint if I were not to make some reference to the sorry history which has brought this Bill before the House. I shall, I hope noble Lords will recognise, seek to spend the bulk of my time speaking constructively about the details of the Bill before us, anticipating the way in which we shall be dealing with it when it comes to Committee and later stages. But before doing so I cannot resist saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has a serious point to make about the history of the Bill. After all, since the 1960s we have had a Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which has relied on the Royal Prerogative rather than a statute. It was recognised that that was something of an anomaly. The 1988 Act introduced a statutory basis for the scheme, but did so without setting a commencement date.
Of course it is within the proper scope of government to seek to change the basis of criminal injuries compensation. But if they had, as they did in 1988, decided to make statutory the common law basis which had been working already for 26 years and if they had expected that to be statutory, then surely they ought to have recognised from the very outset that to seek to make a change by Royal Prerogative was an improper procedure. That was recognised in debates in your Lordships' House on th 1993 White Paper; it was recognised in the debates initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the Criminal Justice Bill; and it cannot be said that there has not been plenty of warning from your Lordships' House and from around the country about the impropriety of what the Home Secretary sought to do by introducing a completely different scheme through the use of the Royal Prerogative. That chicken very firmly came home to roost when the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House decided that the Government had sought to make a major change to the whole basis of a scheme which they had put before Parliament but never enacted. I do not think there can be easy forgiveness for the
298
disruption, the additional cost and the confusion and injustice which have arisen as a result of this whole sorry procedure.
It is not even as though there was any adequate justification for the arguments about increases in cost. Of course there have been increases in cost. The Financial Memorandum to the Bill rather disingenuously describes them as increases in cost in any year as being based on the number of cases settled, the proportion attracting monetary award and the average value of the awards. Well, of course, in mathematical terms, that is the case. That is the proximate cause, if one likes, of an increase in cost in any given year.
What is the cause of the increase in cost over a period of years? Clearly, it is the increase in violent crime. It is exactly the result of policies of this Government over years and the refutation of the claims that were made by successive Home Secretaries to Conservative Party conferences that it is the party of law and order. We must bear in mind that in 1979 the chance of any one of us being a victim of violent crime was 1:213. In the current year the chance is 1:64. Although there has been a decrease in some crimes, the increase in violent crime is currently running at approximately 7 per cent. per annum. So there is indeed a very serious cause for the increase in expenditure on criminal injuries compensation, but it is not one that the Government have ever admitted or accepted as being their responsibility after 16 years in office.
I turn to the two alternatives which the House has to consider in making a judgment about the best approach to the compensation of victims of violent crime. It has to be said straightaway that there is no simple answer to this. The common law scheme, which existed until it was replaced by the illegal tariff scheme, had a number of very clear advantages. It removed the difficulty of the injustice between the suffering of someone who is the victim of crime and someone who is the victim of an accident, which can be compensated by an insurance policy or payment from the person who caused the accident. To the victim there is no difference and to that extent the attempt in the common law scheme, which worked for so many years, to equate the pain and suffering of a victim of crime with that of the victim of a non-crime was admirable.
However, as the Minister rightly said, the tariff scheme has a number of advantages. I shall not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, by reading his very powerful speech in the debate on the White Paper against the total tariff scheme. Perhaps he is proposing to repeat it this afternoon. It was the most devastating attack on a change of government policy that I have ever heard. Nevertheless, despite what he said then and what he might say now, a tariff scheme does have advantages. It is easier to understand and it can be implemented more quickly. It does not require an army of lawyers and legal assistants to make the calculations. It makes it easier to control costs.
We now have neither the common law scheme nor the total tariff scheme which was in force in 1994–95. We now have a hybrid scheme, which I believe has been called the "tariff-plus" scheme. It is incumbent on us to

299
concentrate on the tariff-plus scheme which is before us, rather than to think about the theoretical alternatives. I do not believe that it is possible to go back to the common law scheme as it was. I certainly do not believe that it is possible or desirable to go back a shorter time to the total tariff scheme which was introduced illegally.
I cannot resist recording what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in this House on 16th June last year about the hybrid scheme. He said:
"a hybrid scheme would retain the worst elements of common law damages—that is, loss of earnings—and would make for great complexities and delay."—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1847.]
There has been some change, it might be said, politely, in government thinking since that time. I often wonder whether changes in the personnel of government are made at frequent intervals in order to avoid the embarrassment of Ministers having to eat their own words rather than those of their colleagues, which is what the Minister has done today.
Let us look constructively, if we can, at the defects of the scheme which is before us. It has to be said that there are too many of them. Of course, it is acknowledged that there is an increase in flexibility. The scheme itself is more complex in the number of recorded items which are priced. That has gone up to 310 from the earlier smaller number. But even so, flexibility has by no means been achieved by the addition of the loss of earnings provision. For example, what about the difference between the loss of hearing or sight of a child compared with that of an elderly person? That is a totally different situation in terms of life chances and of the cost of living a decent life.
What about the difference between a facial scar on a young woman or a young man actor, let us say (in order to avoid issues of gender), compared with someone who is past it like me? I say this with feeling as a person who is gauche as well as gauchiste, as the French say. What about the difference between the loss of the use of the left hand as opposed to the right? It makes a huge difference in what one can do, but that is not recognised in the scheme. What about the lack of recognition for multiple injuries? I know that that would make the scheme more complicated, but multiple injuries have an effect on each other, which makes a difference to the total suffering of the victim. All these things are omitted from the scheme, but they are perfectly possible because industrial disablement benefit allows them to be considered.
I turn to the loss of earnings capacity. I was slightly unnerved by the Home Secretary on 29th June in the debate at Third Reading in another place. He thought that these additional provisions in the Bill would only occur in the more serious cases. I very much welcome the Minister's view on what the special conditions might be for loss of earnings. But does loss of earnings include loss of future earning capacity, as it should? Does the provision for special expenses cover future special expenses? What about the provision of no compensation for the first 28 weeks? The argument here is that that is the period of statutory sick pay and the period for the lower payments which are made in the absence of statutory sick pay. There are 12 million people who are
300
excluded from statutory sick pay. Many of them are most vulnerable to violent crime. I take the obvious. examples of a self-employed taxi driver or a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. Can we be sure that these people will be adequately compensated for loss of earnings, which are not reflected by other elements of the government benefit system?
I am amazed to find that the 28-week rule also applies for dependency payments. These should not be called "compensation" in quite the same way.
I do not find anywhere here recognition of the conditions of exceptional risk which apply to fire fighters—and I give one example only. I remind the Minister that it was the Fire Brigades Union which brought the Government to their knees in the legal proceedings, which were determined by the House of Lords. I am worried by the provisions for capping the maximum awards. I recognise the value of the settlement procedures and their tax advantages, but we need further debate on maximum awards before we let this provision go through.
I am worried by the provision for the time-limiting of claims. The Minister said that the Government are proposing an increase from one to two years, but the common law scheme allowed three years for claims to be made and, even so, in the last year nearly 4,000 claims were out of time, of which nearly 3,000 were allowed. I wonder whether even three years is enough, let alone the two years which are provided.
I am also worried about the lack of provision for uprating for inflation. After all, the scheme was introduced in 1994, based on 1992 figures, and is proposed to run until 1999 without major revision. We shall have to look into that issue as well. I am also concerned about the independence of advisers and the appeal provisions.
Although in essence we accept that we must have a tariff-plus scheme, a hybrid scheme, we shall have substantial Committee, Report and Third Reading debates in this House. I hope and believe that they will be constructive because they will be concerned with the detail of the scheme and with making sure that we have the best possible scheme that we can afford, which is generous and which recognises the real differences between one victim and another. We owe no less to the victims of violent crime. The House will find us, as always, constructive and forward-looking in the way in which we approach the Bill.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, despite the untypically ungenerous and perhaps even pompous opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I greatly welcome the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who got to the heart of the matter and explained to the House as succinctly as ever why we are discussing this Bill today. Although, as I shall make clear in a moment, I do not want to pursue that matter at length, it should be widely understood and not forgotten that we have this Bill because of the arrogant assumption of the Home Secretary that he could introduce a tariff system without reference to Parliament. All credit to all those who, in

301
their different ways, played their part in exposing that error and in creating the circumstances which obliged the Government to introduce the Bill.
I do not intend to pursue that matter further because the Bill is now before us. Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was not at the Home Office at that time. In any case, given her record, she would nobly defend the Home Secretary with her usual loyalty and panache. My regret is not that the noble Baroness does not find it in her—or has not so far found it in her—to express regret or to make an apology, but that I find it sad and unsatisfactory that in another place the Home Secretary did not in any way express contrition for a decision for which he was wholly responsible.
As for the substance of the Bill, I now await with some trepidation the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I come new to these matters and, reading the Bill and considering the questions that were raised in another place, I, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have concluded that, on balance, I can accept the tariff system. I have to say—it is right that it should be said—that whatever the shortcomings of the system that is now proposed, which we shall he discussing more fully later, the scheme that is set out in the Bill is better than the arbitrary scheme that was imposed by the Minister in April 1994. Let credit be given where it is due.
Some awkward matters of judgment are involved about the quantum of compensation as well as about its distribution. It is one thing to endorse the principle of compensation—it was recognised by Parliament 30 years ago—but I concede that it is another thing to devise the right system for today. Having said that, it is important to challenge what the Minister has just said and what the Home Secretary said in another place about the costs of the present scheme and of any future provision. The Minister twice repeated the fact that the scheme which we have had and the scheme which we are to have will be the most generous in the world. The noble Baroness went so far as referring to a league table. However, I do not think that the issues of a league table and whether the scheme is the most generous in the world are relevant to the question of priorities which is for Parliament to decide. What we must decide, both in this House and in another place, is whether the scheme is adequate, given the need, and how much we are prepared to spend on this aspect of compensating the victims of criminal actions.
The Home Secretary was frank in another place when he said that the factor of costs had led him to proceed in the way that he, quite wrongly, chose. I hope that we shall examine that point more fully later. As it is not entirely clear to me, I ask the Minister how much less the present scheme is likely to cost in due course than the old scheme would have cost had it continued. Having looked in detail at what the criminal injuries compensation scheme is meant to do and at the need for compensation, I have found it extremely difficult to come up with a figure showing that the cost of the new scheme will be substantially lower than the cost had the old scheme continued.
We can compare the cost of £175 million for the first year of the operation of the new scheme with the figure of £260 million which I understand is the sum envisaged
302
in five years' time. We can compare those figures and others. If we do so, I do not think that we shall conclude that, as the Home Secretary said in another place, the cost of £260 million is enormous. It may sound enormous in absolute terms, but it is not enormous comparatively if we consider expenditure in any government department, expenditure on social policy as a whole or the overall figure for public expenditure as set out in the annual document.
Perhaps I may make one or two comparisons. Even if the proposed scheme costs £260 million, it will cost us much less in a year than our intervention in Bosnia, for example. I see the Minister looking despairingly at her colleagues as if that is not a relevant comparison. If she does not think that that is relevant, what about our annual expenditure on prisons? Is she suggesting that that is not a relevant comparison? Annual expenditure on prisons is £1.5 billion in England and Wales in the current year. We are proposing to spend one-tenth of that figure on the proposed scheme at its peak. So, we are spending on the victims of criminal injuries one-tenth of what we spend on keeping people in prison. That is a relevant comparison when we consider whether these figures are simply enormous or are figures which we should accept as desirable on social grounds.
The only question is how much we should be spending to compensate the victims of criminal injury if, as the Government have proposed, victims should be at the centre of penal policy now and in the future. I repeat that I do not think that the figure is enormous. It is relatively modest when compared with expenditure in other areas.
If the scheme that is now proposed begins to overrun its estimated costs, will there be any attempt to revise the benefits? Will the Minister make clear to the House what role Parliament will have in approving any future tariff if Ministers seek to do what I hope that they will not do and what I hope that the noble Baroness will say that they will not do, which is to reduce the quantum or the benefits that are payable?
Having said that about the cost and, with some qualifications, having in general welcomed the principle of the Bill, I must say that most of the points that I wish to pursue are better pursued in Committee. For the most part, I associate myself with the detailed anxieties rightly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may refer to four points which cover part of the ground that he dealt with.
First, reference was made to the new scheme being quicker than the common law scheme. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of those who lodge their claims are expected to receive their compensation within the first year of lodging them? How will that compare with the time that elapsed under the common law scheme? As those in her department must have made judgments about how much quicker the new scheme will be, what evidence does she have?
Secondly, the Minister referred to parliamentary scrutiny but I was not clear as to which aspect of the Bill she was referring. Was she referring to the qualification rules or was there some other indifferent

303
matter in respect of which she says parliamentary scrutiny will be allowed, although through the inadequate means of statutory instruments?
The Minister referred to my third anxiety, although I may have misunderstood her. She may have suggested that an amendment made in Committee would be appropriate. Will she give examples of the changes in the common law scheme which she anticipates being made in the next year before the scheme covered by the Bill is implemented? In another place the Home Secretary referred to the changes as minor and administrative, but if the Minister could give one or two examples the House would be enabled to make up its own mind.
Fourthly, I wish to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the time limit. I strongly favour a three-year time limit. The Ministers have chosen a two-year limit and there must be some purpose behind that. They must have taken a view about how many claims will be disallowed because they are out of time, albeit subject to an appeal.
I accept on balance the idea of a tariff. However, as we all know, a tariff is inflexible, it leads to anomalies and it results in unfairness. Every victim is different and every injury is distinctive. In my view, it would have been far better if in addition to the tariff we had had clear bands within which discretionary decisions could be made. I hope that as a result of discussion in this place there will be more flexibility in the scheme and more frequent updating than is at present anticipated. If the independent panel to which the Minister referred is only advisory I would much prefer an independent panel which could itself determine the tariff.
Despite the history of the matter and the shortcomings of the Bill we welcome it as far as it goes. However, I hope that the Minister will be far more receptive to amendments tabled in this House to this Bill than she was in the sorry case of the Criminal Appeal Bill, which we finished last night.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us that during the past 15 months this is the third occasion on which the House has had the opportunity of debating the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Speaking today, I must begin by declaring my interest, as I did previously, as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, I am bound to comment that the purpose of this Bill is to legislate me out of that position.
The first debate was in March last year. During the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to take account of the Government's White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right to say that I expressed the unanimous view of the membership of the board; that that which was then being proposed by the Home Office was not only flawed but was manifestly unfair and would be shown to be unfair in practice. On that occasion, I expressed the hope that
304
the Home Office would look again at its proposals in order to see whether it could achieve its aims while avoiding the unfairness of its proposals.
The second debate was in June last year when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proposed the implementation of the provisions in the 1988 Act. I said that I was not in favour of making the current system statutory but that I was supporting the noble and learned Lord's proposal on the basis that it would give yet another opportunity for the Home Office to reconsider the proposals that it was putting forward. Sadly, as was said by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord McIntosh, on both occasions the Home Office chose to ignore the opportunity to look again at what was being proposed. As we all know, that department went ahead and firmly hit the buffers when it came up against a Judicial Committee of this House on 5th April this year.
This time the Home Office has had to think again, and it has thought again. I say at once to my noble friend the Minister that the Bill before us is far better than the original tariff scheme proposals. I wholeheartedly welcome each of the major changes that are being made. The board accepts—and I have always accepted—that a scheme introduced in 1964, with the volume of work that the Minister mentioned, is not necessarily the appropriate framework for today's conditions. Last year the board received 73,000 applications, resolved more than 65,000 cases and spent more than £165 million. I agree also that, as regards the vast pressure on the board, much has changed since 1988 and the proposals then put before the other place.
That vast increase in expenditure was not, and has not been, caused by an escalating increase in individual awards. If one takes account of inflation the figures have remained constant over the years. As has been said, it has been caused by the enormous increase in the volume of violent crime. It has been caused also as a result of the commendable publicity given by the Government and other forces to the existence of the scheme. Undoubtedly that has had a major effect on the number of applications which come before the board.
Of course, I understand the Government's concern about the mounting cost to the scheme that those circumstances have occasioned. I believe that change is justified in order to contain expenditure and to ensure that cases can be dealt with as efficiently and quickly as possible. That is particularly so when one notes that of the claims that were dealt with last year more than 85 per cent. were awards of less than £5,000.
I do not resile in anyway from what I said in March about the fundamental flaws within a tariff scheme. I shall not repeat those now. A tariff scheme is not as good as the common law damages scheme. Because of the nature of a tariff scheme it cannot take account of the differing effects of similar injuries on different people. However, I believe that what was so unfair about the proposals that the Government were then putting forward was that by discounting entirely for loss of earnings, and for loss-of-earnings capacity and future care, they were making the vast majority of the savings at the cost of those who had been worst injured. While I believe that the flaws in a tariff scheme still exist and that such a scheme is not as effective as a common law

305
scheme, I accept that a tariff scheme can reasonably be used to meet the vast majority of cases which come before the board.
The Government have made major changes. It is right that we should acknowledge and welcome those changes. They relate to provisions to deal with fatal cases, proposals in relation to loss of earnings and future care, and they increase the maximum ceiling from £0.25 million to £0.5 million. In making each of those changes the Home Secretary has gone a long way towards meeting the major objections to the scheme that he proposed. I believe also that he has gone a long way towards meeting the terms of the European convention, to which he is a party. Knowing the problem that he must have had in wringing concessions of that nature from the Treasury, I feel it necessary to congratulate him on the changes that he has achieved. In Committee I shall argue for a certain flexibility within the tariff, but I do not propose to oppose the principle of the tariff.
The situation will be better in relation to fatal cases because it is intended to pay dependants and the basic flat amount is rather higher than the present bereavement award for England. As regards future loss of wages and earning capacity, while I understand the arguments of those who say that the calculations should start from day one, I am bound to say that I accept that it really is impracticable to continue to assess in each case, however short the absence from work, the amount of lost wages and then deduct from that the amount of benefits which the individual has received. The reality is that a tremendous amount of time is taken up with that work, quite often with very little end result. Therefore, whether or not six months is the right starting point, I have absolutely no doubt that the Government are justified in saying that there must be a period for which loss of earnings should be taken into account.
I welcome the increase from £0.25 million to £0.5 million. I welcome the introduction of structured settlements. I have always believed that there is a justification for a case for ceilings of some kind. In fact, your Lordships may be interested to know that last year, out of the 63,000 cases, there were eight in which the award was over £0.5 million. I am sure that in those eight tragic cases, the state would have provided even if the compensation had been limited under the scheme.
I believe that the tariff is as good as can be devised and that, on the whole, the figures are generous. Indeed, I am bound to say to the Minister that I question whether savings will be made by this great change in the system. On the last debate I questioned the figure of £500 million as the cost of the current scheme in the year 2000–2001. I suggested that that was based on spurious assumptions. I was told, in those wonderful Civil Service words, that that figure had been arrived at only after careful scrutiny. It is. rather ironic to find that, six months later, that figure has been changed from £500 million to £460 million. I suggest that that is still an over-generous estimate of what the costs would have been. If one sets against that the additional costs incurred by the changes which the Home Secretary is now making, there will be little difference in practice.
306
I turn now to the question of the two great virtues which have been claimed for the scheme. The first is speed. I recognise the desirability that victims of crime should be paid as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for the very kind and generous words that she said about myself and the board. I tell the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rodger, that last year 70 per cent. of the cases which came in were resolved within 12 months compared with only 25.5 per cent. in the year 1990–91. Now that about 50 per cent. of all decisions are delegated to members of the staff, that figure will be higher still.
Therefore, while I accept that there will be some saving of time and a speeding-up of the process, I do not believe that it will be all that great because the majority of the time is still taken up in obtaining the police and medical reports on which the assessment is made. It will still be necessary to obtain those reports and, in certain cases, it is necessary to await the results of trials.
As regards simplicity, I make only one comment. The original tariff which was produced a year ago decided that there were 187 different identifiable injuries. Nine months later the new tariff has decided that there are 310 different identifiable injuries. That increase has occurred in nine months, and it will steadily continue. If one looks at individual cases and sees the size of the files compared with what they were before, I shudder to think of the number of trees being cut down in Africa to meet the additional demand for paper which the scheme appears to create.
I welcome the changes that have been made. I accept that this is the most generous scheme in the world. I still believe that the tariff could be workable but it will be shown to need flexibility. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rodger, said about looking again at whether some of the figures should he in bands rather than individual figures. I believe that to he true in particular for sexual cases and cases of shock.
The Government must look again at some aspects of the tariff scheme because I believe that they will find that experience has shown not that the figures are too low but that they are considerably higher than those which the courts are awarding. If the scheme is to be subject to the affirmative resolution, I hope that that matter and also the matter of multiple injuries will be looked at again.
As I understand it, the scheme has not yet been published and is to be subject to the affirmative resolution. I hope, understand and believe that in the new concordat that exists the board will be invited to comment on the details of the scheme. If this scheme is to work, it is essential that there must be power within the scheme to refer complicated cases to a hearing for assessment. Awards for future loss of earnings capacity cannot be decided on the basis of papers before you while sitting in an office. It depends on the evidence that you hear and the people that you see. The scheme will fail in that regard if the Government do not allow a degree of flexibility which will provide for those who are running the scheme to refer matters of that kind immediately to a hearing of the new hearings panel.

307
I have spoken for longer than I should have done. Again, I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the present board. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to put forward proposals that will make the scheme even better than the considerable improvement that it is on the original scheme proposed.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that my contribution to this debate will be mercifully short. I have only a few comments to make.
In a debate in the other place, when supporting this Bill, the Minister made but one reference to his having been found to have acted unlawfully in regard to the first tariff proposal. He said, as the Minister said today, that the House of Lords did not say anything about the merits of his scheme. Of course they said nothing about its merits because that was not the question before the House. What was before the House of Lords and the other courts was whether the Minister had acted unlawfully and had exceeded his powers.
Judicial review is not a process of appeal in which one considers the merits of the decision; judicial review is devoted to seeing whether the defendant to those proceedings has acted unlawfully, exceeding or abusing its powers. That is all that was before the court and that is all that the court decided. The implied suggestion of, "Oh, well, there was nothing which I was criticised for by the courts", is a misleading approach. The criticism on the merits occurred in this House. That was the place for the criticism and it occurred again and again. Indeed, it occurred just before the scheme was brought into effect, which I believe was on Good Friday of the previous year.
The House then unanimously condemned the Minister for the gross unfairness of the scheme, the abuse of Parliament in bringing it in in the way that he proposed and, of course, as regards the failure of any form of consultation. I only make those opening observations so that your Lordships will not think that the reference to the Judicial Committee having not commented on the merits showed that, sub silentio, it was approving of the situation.
I turn now to the Bill itself. I have a few reservations to make with regard to one or two of the clauses. I suppose that it is on the basis of being once bitten and, therefore, twice shy that I refer to Clause 11. Subsection (2) of the clause provides that,
"arrangements for compensation for criminal injuries in operation immediately before the passing of this Act ('the current arrangements')"—
that is, the common law arrangements—
"shall continue in force until the date on which the Scheme comes into force ('the commencement date')".
Then, subsection (3) says:.
"At any time before the commencement date, the Secretary of State may make such alterations to the current arrangements as he considers appropriate".
I find that a disturbing provision because it seems to provide no time-scale for laying before Parliament the draft tariff or for the introduction of the new scheme.
308
Therefore, the effect of the clause could be to undermine the decision of the Judicial Committee requiring parliamentary approval for changes in the scheme by permitting delays by the Home Secretary, during which period he would remain free to introduce whatever change he wished. On past experience, I think that this cautionary note is wholly justified.
Parliamentary control is dealt with under Clause 10. Subsection (1) provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall lay before Parliament a draft of—

(a) the Tariff… and any alteration which he proposes to make to the Tariff".

But, in regard to the scheme, subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall lay before Parliament a draft of any provision which he proposes to include in the Scheme as to"—
and then some six matters are set out. It is no doubt my ignorance and my naivety, but I do not understand why the scheme should not be in the legislation. Then parliamentary control can be properly exercised. I find it an unusual and unsatisfactory arrangement—to use an unattractive term—that the essential guts of the whole new procedure should be outside the Act itself. Thus, parliamentary control, which, again, on past experience, seems to be so necessary, is weakened.
I believe that there was some talk about the parliamentary ombudsman having an opportunity to exercise some control over the scheme. I do not know whether the Minister can help in that regard. But, as I understand it, there has been little willingness so far to discuss the details of the scheme. It seems that it will not be prepared until the date when it may be too late to take any steps in regard to it.
As regards the tariff itself, its inflexibility has already been emphasised. I do not see why it is necessary to have one specified figure for each species of injury which it is thought appropriate to classify, because it has no reference to the impact on the individual of the injury. The suggestion has been made—and I support it—that bands or brackets should be provided in regard to those injuries. The Government have no doubt seen the admirable work of the Judicial Studies Board which has provided bands for injuries and, within those bans, some flexibility obviously exists. I do not know whether the answer is that if you do that then you must have a somewhat higher grade of civil servant administering the scheme because the thought process will be in greater demand rather than with a specific figure which you apply, the only argument being whether it relates appropriately to the injury.
I should like to know a great deal more about the appeal process. It appears that the legal element—and by that I mean the experienced practitioner in this field of activity who has hitherto been responsible for justly fixing the right figures—is only to appear in the appellate process and not below. Therefore, I should like to know in what circumstances an appeal is permissible. I have heard it said that it will involve some form of deterrent mechanism to dissuade what is referred to as frivolous or vexatious appeals, but I do not know how it will operate.

309
All that arises out of the fact that the scheme is unparticularised in sufficient detail. That is why I urge, and will urge, that a great deal more appears in the legislation and that far less is left to be worked out subsequently with the affirmative procedure which, although obviously it has some force, has its deficiencies, as we all know from past experience.
I have an engagement this evening which I must keep because it is a long-standing one and difficult to avoid. However, I shall certainly stay in the House until 6 o'clock. But, if we have not completed by then, I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies for my absence. I only say in further mitigation that I have done my best to limit the time that I have taken of your Lordships.
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord will have to leave by 6 o'clock, but he will at any rate hear my speech and, no doubt, one or two others. I should like to express my support for many of the criticisms put so effectively, for example, by my noble leader Lord McIntosh. However, I shall leave the details for the next stage of the Bill. I shall speak in very general terms and even more briefly than other speakers.
I do not believe that any of us under-estimate the seriousness and the difficulty of the subject that we are discussing this afternoon. In 1964 I chaired a committee set up by Justice to examine the problem of criminal injuries compensation. I introduced the first debate into this House on the subject. The Government produced their scheme post hoc or propter hoc soon afterwards in 1964. Although it is difficult to obtain the relevant statistics, since then crime in general has more than trebled. In 1979 I introduced the first Private Member's Bill into this House.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh has reminded the House that today one is more than three times as likely to suffer from violent crime than was the case in 1979. That is the background to the matter that we are discussing. One has to ask how much has been done in the meanwhile. I would not say that nothing has been done apart from the development of the 1964 scheme. In 1964 and 1979 a number of voluntary schemes were in existence. The National Injuries Victim Support Scheme, which has done such wonderful work, came into being in 1980. A great deal of voluntary help has been forthcoming since then, and the Government have also given considerable help, although not enough.
Where do we find ourselves today? I suppose that if I had been a victim and attended the Conservative Party Conference in 1993 I would have come away elated. I would have thought that at last something would be done for victims. Both the Prime Minister and Home Secretary said that they would give criminals a far worse time and victims a much better one. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that that was the general impression, and certainly that was the impression given to the cheering crowds at the conference.
What has happened since? The Home Secretary, always supported by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister—therefore, we do not want to blame him or
310
pick him out as a wicked individual—has made an attempt to produce a scheme. However, far from helping victims, the scheme has damaged them so severely that it has been treated with contempt and dismissed as being totally unlawful by the Law Lords, who are not always regarded as the most progressive members of society. That was the first effort of the Home Secretary.
He now comes forward with the present scheme in the form of the Bill that we are discussing. What will be the effect of it? I understand that, according to the Government's figures, in the year 2000 £460 million will be spent on victims, but that under this beneficent Government that amount can be cut down, by some miracle of administrative legerdemain, to £260 million. That cannot be done just by clever technology. It means that someone will suffer. From long experience, I cannot think of any assault on any particular social service on that scale. I would regard it as about the most shameful attack ever made on a social service. Whatever be the messing about with this or that detail, the apparent intention is to cut by nearly half the amount that goes to victims. That is a hard-pressed section of society that the Government have pledged to assist and have picked out as their favourites. I do not argue about it but just recite the facts.
I do not wish to be too depressing or to end upon a gloomy note. If I remember rightly, the French Prime Minister in the crisis of 1940 said that only a miracle could save France and that a miracle would save France. It took four years and a great deal of bloodshed before that miracle was eventually performed. I hope that a miracle in this field can be performed rather more easily before the present Home Secretary has to take flight. I hope that that will come about rather sooner than it did in France. There is a ray of hope on the horizon in the form of the new Home Office Minister responsible for prisons, and perhaps victims, whom I warmly welcome. This lady is no stranger to dramatic conversion. I hope that, always assisted by the much admired noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, she will guide the wandering soul of the Home Secretary in the direction of Damascus.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recollect that when we discussed the proposals of the Home Secretary last year in March and June I was one of those who spoke very strongly against what he intended to do. In contrast, today I support what is now proposed. There are two main reasons for this. First, I am delighted that at long last this scheme to compensate the victims of criminals will be put on a statutory basis. It has been going for 30 years, and in all that time it has proceeded on the basis of the Royal Prerogative. I do not believe that a scheme which disposes of so much public money should be operated under the Royal Prerogative for such a long time. It may be all right to do that to start with, on an experimental basis, but if the scheme is operated under the Royal Prerogative Parliament has virtually no control and the Minister in charge, in this case the Home Secretary, can—or, at any rate, could until seven years ago—alter it whenever he

311
likes without consulting anybody. I do not believe that that is a proper way for a scheme such as this to be operated.
About nine years ago the then Home Secretary said in the other place that the Government intended to put the scheme on a statutory basis as soon as possible, and in 1988 Parliament did so. However, I believe that that Act contained a fatal flaw, in that it was left to the Home Secretary to decide when that should happen. We all know the outcome of the Home Secretary's efforts to alter the scheme last year and the appearance before the court and the judgment upon it. But, if I read this Bill correctly, the Home Secretary has no choice but to get on with it. The scheme has to be brought into operation immediately, which I believe to be a very good thing.
My second reason for supporting this measure is that the Government have listened to all of the representations made to them about the proposals presented last year. Not only have they listened but they have responded. Quite frankly, that is something which does not always happen. I suspect that noble Lords opposite will realise that more than anybody else. This time the Government have responded positively and are to be congratulated on so doing.
There is no doubt that the scheme introduced by this Bill is a great deal better than the one we discussed last year, in particular for the reason that what is now proposed will take account of actual and potential loss of earnings, the cost of special care and the like. One can pick holes in the tariff. Some holes have already begun to be picked, and no doubt more will be picked as time goes on. But I do not believe that to be a vital point because last year, when discussing the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, my noble friend Earl Ferrers, the then Minister, said this about the tariff:
"The terms of the tariff scheme are not set in stone. We shall listen to the views of responsible people and practitioners and, if the scheme can be refined or improved in the light of experience, we shall not hesitate to make the necessary changes".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1847.]
That gave me some encouragement, because it seemed to me that the Government were admitting that they had not necessarily got the scheme absolutely right and were prepared to alter it. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will repeat that assurance so that we know that the Government will not hesitate to alter the tariff scheme, if necessary.
I was slightly put out by something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. I understood him to say that he believed that no changes were to be made to the tariff scheme before 1999. I may have misheard him. If I did, I apologise. If he did say that, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will also refer to that point because I do not know quite where I am. Is she going to hesitate, or is 'she going to wait until 1999?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I did say that in those terms I was wrong. I meant to refer to the fact that there was no provision for up-rating for inflation until 1999, which is a more limited point.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps my anxiety is not justified; but I shall await with interest what my noble friend the Minister says when she replies to the debate.
I should also like her to refer to the question of the speed with which awards can be made. I know from the experience of people I know well that in days gone by, long before my noble friend Lord Carlisle became chairman, payments sometimes took forever to be made. I know of one particular case involving a widow whose husband had been killed in which not one single penny was received for over three years. That is appalling. I know that my noble friend Lord Carlisle has done wonders in ensuring that payments are made much more quickly. However, even a moment ago I heard him say that a substantial percentage of claims were settled within 12 months. Ten years ago the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, which had been examining these matters, mentioned the question of speed. It used a phrase which is familiar to us all:
"He gives twice who gives quickly".
One can go on and say that he gives half as much who gives slowly.
I hope very much that under the new tariff scheme payments will be made immediately, or as early as possible. I should have thought that in some cases that does not present any great difficulty. I give the example of a man who is injured and loses a finger in trying to prevent a robbery. The finger is gone, and that can easily be seen. All that is needed is for the police to confirm that there was a crime. To my way of thinking, the appropriate figure—which I fancy may be of the order of £5,000—should be paid the next day, should it not? If not, why not?
I accept that sometimes cases will not be as easy as that. To take another example, under the proposed tariff—which we have been allowed to see—one can receive compensation for what is known as a whiplash injury to one's neck. There are four scales on the tariff for that injury. For a simple injury one receives £1,000; and the scale increases, depending on the severity of the injury and the length of time one suffers, up to £10,000. I accept that in such cases, and in others, it will not be possible immediately to say that a particular injury has caused permanent damage. It will be some time before one knows whether the damage is permanent. However, it again seems to me that for someone in that situation, once it is known that the injury has happened and it is shown by the police that a crime has been committed, one should at least give the man something—the smallest award which he would receive anyway.
There is no doubt that, particularly for dependants but also for the person who has been injured, if something is done to help straightaway it makes an enormous psychological difference as well as an enormous financial difference. I very much hope that it will be possible for awards which are laid down—not for the long-term injuries involving loss of earnings which will take some time to work out—to be paid as soon as humanly possible; within days if possible, but certainly within weeks.

313
I find myself in disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the Bill. He believes that the scheme and the tariff should be set out in the Act. I do not, because if it is in the Act it is an awful business to change it: there has to be a new Act. We all know how long it takes to pass an Act of Parliament. Despite all the disadvantages of an Order in Council, which cannot be amended, it is a better way, because the legislation can be changed more quickly if circumstances show that it ought to be changed. After all, there is nothing to prevent either House of Parliament saying that they will not accept an order unless the Government change it. Happily, in my judgment, it is provided in the Bill that the scheme requires the assent of both Houses of Parliament before it comes into effect. That is the right way to proceed.
Finally, I come to the question of money. Let us face it, we all know that it is the question of money that has forced the Government to introduce the scheme. They are hoping to save money. I understand that. The Government have produced figures to show what the existing scheme is likely to cost in the year 2000. It would be very rude of me to say that I do not believe the figures, and I shall not. However, I shall take the figures with an enormous pinch of salt. What has been done is to extrapolate what has happened over the past 10 years. To be frank, it is a guess. It may be an intelligent guess or it may not. My noble friend Lord Carlisle does not think that it is an intelligent guess. Furthermore, he does not think that much money will he saved.
However, I accept that there must be some control over expenditure on the scheme and the possibility, from the point of view of the unfortunate taxpayer, of being able to say that we can afford so much for this purpose but that we cannot have an open-ended scheme. I do not know whether the figure of £260 million by the year 2000 given by my noble friend the Minister is right. She does not know, either. If it is about right I submit that that is probably about right for this country. That is why I am happy to support the Bill.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, does not object, in my comments I should like to take up the point that the noble Lord made in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about whether the scheme should be part of the Act. I regard that as an important element of our debate today on the Second Reading of the Bill.
First, I declare an interest in that for 35 years I have dealt with casework involving injuries to people in my former industry, the post and telecommunications industry. Even before I went to the other place, for 10 years I was involved in casework involving Post Office workers who had been criminally injured. They were the largest group of workers in this country who were at risk from criminal activities. I maintained that interest during my 22 years' membership of the other place and in the three years since I became a Member of this House. Therefore, I declare that interest in that I maintain my role in that work.
314
We come to the debate today with one disadvantage and one major advantage. Here I come to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the response of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. The disadvantage is that we do not have the scheme in front of us. I take the same view as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the scheme should be part of the Act. The reason is simple. The problem with the affirmative procedure is that one cannot amend an order that is produced for debate. When that order is debated and voted upon one can only vote for it or vote against it. One cannot amend an order under the affirmative procedure. If the scheme were part of the Act, the issue would be open to debate. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, about the need for primary legislation when amending the scheme, and the problems that might create. On balance, it would be much better for the scheme to be part of the Act.
I turn to the advantage of debating the Second Reading today. We are only two days away from the long summer Recess. I hope that the Minister will take this point on board. During the Recess the Government will have an opportunity to discuss the scheme in detail and, if possible, to bring it to the House on the first Committee day. I understand that to be 17th October—almost three calendar months away. They have the opportunity to add that scheme to the Bill as an additional schedule. I believe that would be the tidiest way to deal with the point. It would also deal with the situation created by the acceptance of an amendment in another place which gives the Home Secretary almost carte blanche to amend the existing common law scheme, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, of undermining the decision of the judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed disappointment (I put it no higher) that the Home Secretary had not apologised for his folly in going ahead, thus facing consequent humiliation. I do not join with my three noble colleagues. I am a simple soul. I never expected an apology in the first place. Anyone who expected an apology from the present Home Secretary simply does not know him. Therefore I do not join in that complaint.
However, I wish to place on record my thanks—I am sure that I speak for Members in all parts of your Lordships' House—and the gratitude of a great many people that the Trades Union Congress and the 10 trade unions pursued the matter through the judicial procedure. Without that pursuance, we would not be debating the Second Reading of the Bill today. We should place on record our gratitude to the TUC and the 10 trade unions.
We shall reach Committee stage in October. Between now and Committee stage, I hope that the substantive point relating to the scheme being added to the Bill as a new schedule will be taken on board by the Government.

315
I understood the Minister in her opening speech to say that the principle of the loss of earnings would apply to all claimants. However, I understood from the legislation—it may well be that I read it incorrectly—that the loss of earnings principle is based on the statutory sick pay scheme. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, figures have been produced in the House of Commons Library demonstrating that 12 million people in this country do not qualify. They have no mandatory contractual sick pay scheme. They are low paid workers. They work so few hours that they are not entitled to cover under the statutory sick pay scheme. I refer to the self-employed—taxi drivers, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. But if sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses and shopkeepers in general are injured in a criminal act, they have to appoint a locum manager to keep the business ticking over. They do not suffer simply a loss of earnings; they also incur expenditure on the appointment of a locum manager.
I should like to hear a more detailed explanation. The noble Baroness may not wish to give that today; I shall not complain. We shall deal with the matter in Committee. But further more detailed consideration has to be given to the issue. Does "loss of earnings" mean loss of full pay or part pay? What does "loss of earnings" mean? There is no definition in the Bill.
I turn to the question of exceptional risk. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the position of fire fighters. It is important to point out that their position has been changed by the proposals contained in the legislation. Where a fire is started deliberately—we do not refer to house fires, but arson—that is a criminal act. In order for the fire fighter to qualify for compensation under the proposed tariff scheme, the fire fighter has to prove that he was taking an exceptional risk. For example, he has to prove that there may have been a body in the building and he was rushing into the building in order to attempt to rescue that person. Under the present common law scheme, the fire fighter does not have to prove that. That is another point that I hope the noble Baroness will consider.
I regard the issue of time limits as very important indeed. I appreciate that the Minister has moved position considerably since last year. In the original tariff scheme, the time limit was one year. That has now been doubled to two years. But the present criminal injuries compensation scheme has a three year time limit with provision for applications to be considered out of time. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, out of 4,000 applications made out of time last year, 3,000 were granted. Without my telling her, the Minister knows that most cases which have to be considered out of time relate to sexual offences. It takes a very long time indeed for the victim of such crimes to come to terms with what has happened. I honestly and sincerely do not believe that the Government will lose anything by going back to the current common law scheme, making the time limit three years rather than two, because of those exceptional cases.
316
I accept that we are about to have a tariff scheme. In contributing to the debate I seek to improve the proposals before your Lordships' House. I hope to contribute at Committee stage in an effort to improve the proposals rather than to frustrate them.
Finally, we ought not to build up false hopes in the minds of claimants. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, mentioned the time that it takes to pay out criminal injuries damages. Of the applicants under the suspended tariff scheme, only 17 per cent. reached a settlement. Under the present common law scheme over 80 per cent. were settled within 12 months. As legislators, we have to be careful that we do not build up false hopes in the minds of those who will make applications under the new tariff scheme. The evidence that we have, limited though it may be, indicates that only 17 per cent. of the cases were settled. At present, the position is that all those cases which were settled under the tariff scheme which had to be suspended now have to be reviewed by the board of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. They are subject to review now.
There are a number of problems. I finish almost where I began by saying that my purpose in this debate, in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading will be to seek to improve the Bill and make it as workable as we possibly can.
5 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House for not being here at the start of the debate and for not hearing what the Minister said. I was delayed by an unavoidable public engagement, but I can assure the Minister that I have read the Home Secretary's speeches on Second Reading and Report in another place. So I am familiar with the Government's explanation.
The Bill is an important one and, unusually, on two distinct grounds. It raises in a vivid way the accountability of Ministers to Parliament and the law as found by the courts of justice and the appellate courts. It also deals with the means by which the state should substitute financial compensation for injuries suffered as a result of violent crime where—as is only too often the case—the offenders are not detected or do not themselves have the resources to pay compensation. As we heard earlier in the debate, the policy of compensating victims has been accepted by all parties since 1964. The first point—the accountability of Ministers—is one of the cardinal principles of our unwritten constitution.
The House is familiar with the chequered legislative history of criminal injuries compensation over the past 30 years, and in particular over the past seven years since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The 1988 Act arguably conferred a statutory right to compensation, and it certainly provided proper legislative authority for expenditure of public funds on a substantial scale. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. But, as we know, the commencement order bringing the sections into effect was never implemented. It is not unprecedented for legislation to be on the statute book and not brought into effect for practical reasons, but it is highly undesirable, to put it mildly. There are arguments

317
which perhaps should not be developed now, but which might be followed up in a separate debate, on the whole question of non-implementation. There are a good number of former Ministers of differing parties in the Chamber this afternoon. For example, in Australia if Ministers have practical reasons for not implementing what has been enacted by Parliament, they must report annually to Parliament what those reasons are. That is not to say there may not be good reasons, but at least they have to be put on public record, whereas here they can easily be overlooked.
In this House, those of us who are concerned with criminal justice policy generally are aware of a great debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the way in which he raised the issue in your Lordships' House. It was later taken up by Victim Support, by the representatives of the TUC and the 10 trade unions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and it then proceeded through the courts.
I join my colleagues on these Benches in paying credit to the Home Secretary for the prompt and uncomplaining way in which he immediately accepted the decision of the House of Lords, acting in its judicial capacity. It found that his action in introducing a tariff scheme, while the original scheme based on common law damages still lay unimplemented and unrepealed on the statute book, was an abuse of his discretionary powers, and hence was unlawful.
What we are considering today, therefore, is a Bill presented to Parliament to rectify an error of judgment and to make lawful an administrative action which the highest courts have found to be unlawful. As such, the legislation is to be welcomed.
The challenge in the courts has also provided an opportunity for a breathing space and for second thoughts. No one knows better than my noble friend Lord Carlisle that it is common ground that the original tariff scheme was introduced far too cursorily and with inadequate consultation with the interested parties. More and earlier consultation with the main user organisations as well as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board itself—paradoxically, I may remark in passing, a theme of the Citizen's Charter—might have avoided some of the practical difficulties which have arisen since then.
At this stage I should declare an interest as the national president of Victim Support, the full name of which is the National Association of Victim Support Schemes. Victim Support, has a direct and extensive interest in the subject of the legislation. It is the main user organisation involved with compensation for victims of crime. I thought it would be of interest to your Lordships if I obtained some statistics. I understand that although all of the current returns are not yet in, in the year April 1994 to March 1995, Victim Support assisted with 11,235 new applications for criminal injuries compensation. That is a large part of the work of Victim Support. The noble Baroness will be aware that Victim Support has been in close contact with the Home Office. A meeting took place recently with her colleague in another place, the Minister of State, David Maclean. Victim support acknowledges, as I acknowledge personally, that significant concessions have been made compared with the original tariff scheme.
318
The concessions now include provision for loss of earnings after 28 weeks; dependency in fatal cases; care costs; and provisions for structured settlements. All of those are improvements. Yet those in the field who see the victims, often immediately after the criminal act to which they have been subjected, and when they are in no state to pursue applications themselves, remain concerned about some aspects of the enhanced scheme.
I make the point that the criticisms are not ideological. They are not derived from root and branch opposition to the switch from the common law damages approach to the tariff-based scheme. That stance is taken by some critics, but it is not the position taken by Victim Support. Its reservations are based on sheer pragmatic experience of handling the many thousands of claims every year.
I might remind noble Lords that the independent committee on compensation established by Victim Support and which reported in 1993, came down in favour of a tariff based approach. When I referred to this in an earlier debate it was not music to the ears of my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but that was the conclusion reached by the independent committee. The reasons for proposing a shift were: speed of payment, and certainty in what the applicant could expect. As the number of claims rose steadily upwards in the 25 years following the introduction of the common law scheme in 1968, with QCs assessing the amount of compensation to be paid in individual cases, the process simply became too cumbersome and too slow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, the chairman, and his predecessor, Sir Michael Ogden, made strenuous efforts to obtain the additional resources to reduce the backlog. But the fact is—I looked it up only this morning and have the figures with me lest I should be challenged from the Benches behind—that in 1992–93, when the decision was taken to change the policy, 53 per cent. of cases took over 12 months to resolve. It is true that in the following year the total came down to 39 per cent., but in 1992–93 over half of the cases took more than 12 months. (I hear a grumbling noise from behind me). That struck me as a highly relevant statistic and I place it before your Lordships.
A change in policy to a tariff scheme was accepted in principle by large numbers of people working in the field with the victims of crime. It held out the prospect of a new approach based on published and clearly stated criteria, and with the potential to achieve the objectives of openness, certainty and consistency more effectively than had been possible before. As regards the basis of assessment and, equally important, the scope of criminal injury, there was a broad measure of agreement on a change of direction. But as so often happens, it has been in the detail and the execution that the differences have emerged.
The priorities now include some relaxation of the lower limit of £1,000. This remains a matter of real concern to Victim Support workers. Secondly, there is the question of loss of earnings. We welcome the fact that that is now to be subject to compensation, which it was not in the earlier version. But the likely impact of the 28-week restriction, and the effect it will have in

319
excluding several categories of claimant is, I think, a criticism familiar to the noble Baroness. She may be aware that this is an aspect on which Victim Support wishes to hold further consultation. Thirdly, there is the all-important matter of setting the levels of award and the mechanism for uprating. As they stand both are open to criticism and further improvement. I shall not pursue these arguments now. They are for the Committee stage. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in urging the Minister and her colleagues at the Home Office to use the long Recess constructively. It happens that there is now a period of several weeks available to try to reconcile these differences, and to hold further consultations with the main user organisations.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, the Bill before us should be measured against two overriding principles. First, is the compensation proposed at a fair and reasonable level in absolute terms? Secondly, does it bring fairness of treatment to different claimants suffering the same criminal injury? The Bill as presently constructed falls flat on its face on both measures. Being thus critical, I must try to justify my condemnation and possibly, though not with too much hope, influence the Minister who is to reply.
First, is the compensation proposed at a fair and reasonable level in absolute terms? Benchmarks that can be helpful here are, I suggest, a measure of the situation of the claimant before and after the injury; and secondly, how the proposed compensation compares with that for comparable civil injuries and the present scheme for criminal injuries under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The situation of the claimant before and after injury should take into account a multiplicity of factors that make up what we call "quality of life". The most obvious of these are the actual and potential earnings; ability to lead a normal, undisabled life; and psychological factors such as shock, stress, depression and appearance—the latter being particularly the case with young women and girls. All this the present common law based claims procedure does. It assesses the person as a whole individual and makes a settlement as analytically and scientifically as possible, bearing in mind the possible slight subjective variations between one adjudicator and another.
A major difficulty in analysing the Bill's proposals is caused, as we heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, by the Government's failure to publish the scheme itself. The intentions of the Home Office have been difficult to establish. We in this House have to rely heavily on statements made by the Home Office Minister in Committee and other government statements and speeches in another place.
While the Bill makes provision in Clause 10 for the tariff itself to be laid before Parliament, it does not appear that much of the administrative or qualification arrangements are to be the subject of parliamentary approval; and attempts to throw greater light here were rejected in another place. However, it can be factually stated that the illegal tariff scheme, while it lasted,
320
resulted in significantly lower awards for victims of crime than similar injuries dealt with both by the common law scheme it temporarily replaced and awards in civil cases.
That raises the whole case of the Government's humanity. The Home Secretary's arguments in favour of a tariff are that it is quicker and simpler, which it was not in its year of illegal operation, and most importantly that it is less expensive. It has been my impression that the intention of the present Prime Minister, when he took up office, was to introduce the Age of the Common Man, the dismantling of the "automatic" honours system and the cherishing of all our people as somewhat more equal than they had been. And now, with this pernicious little Bill, it is sought to save money on payments to, of all people, victims of criminal injury, people who have suffered injuries ranging from the grossly inconvenient to the outright horrific. Why should a person who is pushed down a staircase by a criminal be significantly less compensated than an employee who falls down one because a negligent employer has failed to light it properly and who brings a civil claim to court? This is presumably why the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards are roughly in line with civil cases involving similar disablement.
Britain is no longer the hub of an empire on which the sun never sets, but we are still a considerable world economy. Any responsible government must indulge in good economic housekeeping and not spend more than it can afford. But to make savings at the expense of those injured by crime is the budgeting of an uncivilised and uncaring government, whose Members in another place were elected to look after their electors' interests. As we heard earlier, we shall be spending one-tenth on criminal injuries compared to what is spent on keeping those who caused them in prison. Quite a lot of people are affected, too. There were 66,387 adjudications in 1994–95. On the subject of the absolute levels of compensation proposed in the new tariff, we do not, I believe, know them yet. But the illegal one was low. The Home Office wants to save money, and doctors widely believe that past performance is a good guide to future behaviour.
Finally on this subject, will the Minister explain to me why the Law Commission has for the past two or three years been engaged on a review of civil damages—that is, broadly, accidents and negligence—and expects to continue for the next couple of years before reporting, so important is the subject; yet the Government can introduce a Bill such as this with a speed similar to making instant coffee?
My other principle for measurement of the stature of this Bill, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is to ask whether it brings fairness of treatment to different claimants suffering the same criminal injury. Surely it cannot do so, by virtue of its very nature—its present tariff-based nature. The airline pilot who loses his sight and cannot fly, losing at 25 years of age maybe an average prospect of £40,000 per annum for 20 years or £800,000 and most of his future, if any, non-flying earnings, is treated broadly in the same way as an 80 year-old who is living with his family, subject to some ameliorating concessions wrung out of the Government

321
during passage of the measure in another place and relating to loss of earnings subject to an overall cap—why is there an overall cap?—and subject to no payment for the first 28 weeks, which is often the period of greatest need. That is a subject which has been raised by other noble Lords.
It is not entirely clear whether loss of earnings for such victims will be compensated on the basis of full loss of earnings and with a cap that must disadvantageously affect some claimants, and be subject to the same maximum of one-and-a-half times average earnings as before. But even with that concession, I ask myself in this context how students who have never earned will he treated. My main problem, which is that of many noble Lords who have spoken, is the inflexibility of the tariff as presently proposed. Injuries are listed against specific and inflexible figures. The same basic criticism therefore applies to the new tariff as applied to the old. No distinction is made between individuals, each victim of crime with the same injury being treated in the same way as another.
That leads to anomalies and unfairness. It cannot be right, for example, that a young child who loses an eye should receive the same compensation as an elderly person. The disability suffered by the child will last for much longer; in fact for decades. The effect of a facial scar on a young woman is likely to be far greater than on an elderly man. No distinction is made between injuries to the dominant or non-dominant hand or arm. It is self-evident that an injury to the right hand for a right-handed person is more disabling than an injury to the left hand. That is a point which has already been made. Anyone who has seen the tortured writing of the one-armed Admiral Nelson in letters and despatches in the Nelson Room at Lloyd's must realise that.
The courts assess injuries by reference to the victim rather than by reference to a fixed scale. But the Judicial Studies Board has recently published the second edition of its guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. Those guidelines are more flexible than the fixed tariff proposed by the Home Secretary, in that they provide bands for the assessment of particular injuries which enable an assessment to be made within parameters but reflecting the circumstances of the victim.
A flexible tariff or banding system would be far fairer than the fixed tariff proposed. I feel that that is the general mood of the House. Victims deserve to be treated on an individual basis as is done, for example, by the Industrial Benefit Disablement Scheme which provides for the assessment of disability by reference to the extent of continuing disability suffered by an individual, comparing "before" and "after" the accident. Why should there not be such a scheme for criminal injuries? Or why not allow the tariff to be seen as a starting point with discretion for the assessor to vary by plus or minus a percentage figure to reflect the victim's circumstances? So far the Government have resisted all attempts to introduce any degree of flexibility into the tariff.
The 1994 tariff scheme made provision for additional and multiple injuries by very low percentage uplifts. The Home Office has indicated that multiple injuries will be
322
assessed under the new tariff scheme in a similar way to that of 1994. But surely improvements are necessary to avoid the problems identified then. For example, the victim with two serious but independent injuries to different parts of the body from the same incident obtained an uplift of only 10 per cent. to the second tariff, 5 per cent. for the third injury and nothing for any additional injuries beyond that. That rough and ready approach is a disaster. As there were only 641 applications in respect of multiple injuries in the year of operation of the 1994 tariff, it seems reasonable that that small number should be separately assessed outside the tariff. After all, 641 was 1 per cent. of total applicants.
That leads me to my final point; namely, that the relativity between people and the feeling that one has been fairly dealt with are quite as important as the fact that there is some compensation at all. While grief from the loss of a parent, relative or loved one mercifully usually passes away after a period, a sense of unjust treatment has quite the opposite profile. It festers and grows with time. We should think of Carruthers, the brilliant chemist who invented nylon in the 1930s. He was so cast down by a feeling of unjust reward from Du Pont, his employers, that he committed suicide. There was also Beck, an underground engineer, who, in his own time devised what we call the tube map. It revolutionised all previous maps which looked like unsuccessful arguments with a plateful of spaghetti. His scheme is used internationally by virtually every city which has an underground railway. At first submission, he was scoffed at, and, in the end, grudgingly paid £50 for his scheme and forbidden to submit developments and improvements. His map is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. But to the nub of my point, the treatment that he received remained with him and ruined the rest of his life.
I fear that it will be thus for many of the claimants under the Bill which is now before your Lordships if it is not significantly amended toward much greater flexibility of treatment of the actual circumstances of the victim, as opposed to the operation of a menu of inflexible payments. With the Government dedicated to saving money, I fear that the answer may well be a lemon, leaving the same bitter taste. I could never support this Bill in its present, inflexible form. Let us try to improve it.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, has certainly given a formidable list of criticisms of this Bill. Most of those matters will no doubt be raised at Committee stage.
I was somewhat surprised by his comments on the meanness of the Government. After all, the Government have a duty to look after taxpayers' money. It is not the Government's money and they have to guard it carefully. Considering that the United Kingdom has the most generous system of criminal injuries compensation in the whole world—as my noble friend the Minister said in her opening speech—more generous than all the member states of the European Union put together and, I understand, the whole of the United States, I do not believe that one can call the Government relatively

323
mean in that regard. I am sure that everybody would like to give as much as possible. But money has to be allocated to a great many other very needful purposes. I consider that the Bill has been extremely generous and we shall look forward to seeing the tariffs when they are finally discussed.
I should also like to say, from what I have heard from previous speakers, how much this House has benefited from the debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on 2nd March last year. Quite clearly, to many of the matters on which concern was expressed during that debate and later the Government have, indeed, as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, both listened and responded. Of course some issues will be debated during Committee stage but, broadly speaking, I have the feeling that the whole House warmly welcomes the Bill, as indeed I do.
Whatever the past circumstances leading to the introduction of the Bill, it must be said that it remedies a legal defect quickly and without delay, as stated by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. Also, it seeks to set out a balanced and fair system of compensation to the victims of crime. Noble Lords will recognise that that is indeed no easy matter. It is certainly not an easy task for my noble friend the Minister.
Looking at the statistics which relate to crimes of violence, it is depressing to consider estimates showing a continuing increase by the end of the century, contrary to the advice so often given to investors that figures can also fall as well as rise. It is a pity that that particular saying does not apply to statistics on crime. The consequent increase understandably reflects on the number of victims as well as incurring further and enlarged organisation and administrative resources. Already it appears that victims have to wait up to nine months to receive payments which, because of the circumstances, are usually needed as soon as possible after the criminal injury has been incurred. Many noble Lords also made that point.
It is to be welcomed that the Bill now contains provision for loss of earnings and special expenses. Again, the Government are to be commended for that. Great credit is due to the president of Victim Support—my noble friend Lord Windlesham—and the Police Federation, which also welcomed many of the provisions.
I should also like to touch on three issues which may be raised during the Committee stage. The first is the question of the diversity of age, occupation and other relevant features which may be considered over and above the appropriate tariff. I wonder whether the appeals committee, which is to be set up under the Bill, will be enabled to give guidance on individual cases as well as giving general advice on policy for the future.
My second concern is that the police, who deserve our constant admiration and of whom it is estimated around 18,000 will be injured during 1995, may lose some of their legitimate entitlement to benefit and special pensions if they receive compensation under the Bill. I do not know whether I understood that point correctly, but I should like clarification either when my noble friend replies or during Committee stage.
324
The third point relates to the situation where victims are in receipt of benefit from the DSS and receive compensation of over £3,000. It is understood that benefits would decrease and disappear altogether when the amount reaches £8,000. Surely that is not equitable or fair. Anyone not in receipt of benefit would be a net beneficiary under the Act and the person who does not receive benefit is presumably better off than the person who does. That does not strike me as being either fair, in the case of the beneficiary under the DSS scheme, or equitable in general terms. I hope that the Government will be able to look at that point when we come to discuss these issues later on.
I should like to refer to two further points which have not been raised by other noble Lords. The first is that contribution to the cost of paying out and maintaining a generous compensatory scheme should surely be bolstered by every effort being made to encourage the criminal to contribute to the compensatory amounts. I understand that in 1993–94 compensation orders were made in over 2,000 cases as a result of victims' claims and amounted to over £600,000 being paid out. But that is very little either in terms of the numbers of crimes being committed or in the amount of money paid out. I am not aware of any system to encourage victims to make a claim automatically when criminals are convicted. It would certainly be welcome if the issue could be considered. If criminals knew that they had to pay their victims, it may make them slightly more cautious.
In conclusion, I suggest that—recognising that this is not strictly part of the provisions of this Bill—the weekly prizes from the National Lottery should be restricted to a maximum of a fixed sum—say, £5 million or £6 million. That is surely an adequate win for any person who buys a ticket for £1. The balance could be allocated to improving the situation of victims. If compensatory payments are based on the public's desire to be generous to those who have suffered as a result of crime, for the cost of a £1 lottery ticket the public may be willing to see some of the massive winnings go to the victims of crime.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, had to say in relation to people who are injured as a result of a criminal act. Many of those injured pay tax. The impression may have been given by the noble Baroness's remarks—I am sure inadvertently—that it is only people who do not pay tax who suffer injury and claim upon the board.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. My point related to those who have been injured and are in receipt of benefits from the DSS. They will not receive the total benefit of the criminal compensation paid as it will be deducted from their DSS benefit. The point did not relate to taxpayers.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making. I will read with interest what she said in more detail.

325
In the courts we have compensation orders but as I understand it the reason for the existence of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is that in 95 per cent. of cases the people who assault other people are not worth pursuing. That is why the scheme is ex gratia; it is a recognition by the Government that a wrong has been done which should not have been done within the context of society. That is what it is all about and we must sort it out within that context.
At one time I was going to make a speech, but then decided not to; I will simply make some observations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, what is the difference?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the difference is that a speech has some continuity in it. I do not intend to have any continuity in my remarks. Since the time when the Home Secretary acted illegally—let us not beat about the bush; he was deemed to have acted illegally—what consultation has taken place with any one involved in the area of criminal injuries compensation? What consultation has there been since that decision and the production of this piece of paper we are now considering? I hope the Minister will be able to say who was consulted. Of course, the Home Secretary's domain does not include Scotland but we can look at this on a UK basis. Who was consulted before this Bill was produced? I should say that it is a fairly useless piece of paper at the end of the day, and observations have been made by various Members of your Lordships' House in regard to its contents.
I said that I did not intend to make a speech, but I should perhaps declare an interest as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I shall not say a great deal about the Bill. But just looking at page 1 we find that there is somebody called a "scheme manager"—that is a lovely expression. Then I find the qualifying words,
"if one has been appointed".
When we go into the detail of the Bill, we do not know whether or not we are going to have a scheme manager. The scheme manager seems to be an alternative to the Secretary of State. Quite frankly, as a lawyer I cannot understand what the Bill is about or how it will be implemented. One either appoints a scheme manager or one does not. The word "if' is a small but important word. When we look into the context of the Bill it becomes even more important.
Then we read about "claims officers". Who will they be? There is no definition at all in that regard. Then we have magic people called "adjudicators". I may have misheard the noble Baroness when she was presenting the Government's position, but I believe she said that existing members of the board may be adjudicators. I should say that I am not remotely interested in that position because I am on the way out, so it does not matter. I am getting on a bit so I do not have an interest in who is going to be an adjudicator. However, did I understand the noble Baroness to say that existing members of the board would be appointed as adjudicators?
326
I am only dealing with the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum; we have not really started yet. Coming to the bottom of the page we find the heading, Effects of the Bill on public sector manpower. As I understand it—I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—the criminal injuries scheme as it stands at the moment, even with all the difficulties caused by the illegal act of the Home Secretary, is still running at a commercial rate administratively of between 11 and 13 per cent., which is within the acceptable range.
Including myself, there are 44 members of the board. According to the financial memorandum, the 44 members—if I understand it: perhaps I do not understand it—will disappear and 50 civil servants will be appointed; at what grade we do not know. Perhaps I may say—this is not self-pleading—that the Government and the country get the services of the members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at a fairly cheap rate. The noble Baroness the Minister smiles. But there are no pension implications. We get the daily deputy recorders' rate in England. In Scotland we do not have deputy recorders, so I do not know whether I should be paid at all. The 44 members who are doing the job without a pension and without any other rights will be replaced by 50 civil servants who will carry with them all the implications of Civil Service terms of contract.
I have studied what is said under Effects of the Bill on public sector manpower. What is the output per member of the board at the moment? I read that the staff will each settle 180 cases a year. That is a ludicrous figure. I am fairly certain that if the noble Baroness asks her advisers she will find that 180 cases a year is minimal. What is happening here is that to get the settlement of 90,000 cases the staff has to be increased by 50. I do not know anything about economics but that seems a perverted form of economics. Perhaps the Minister will let us know what that is all about.
There is also the question of inspecting the victims of violence. That is a central and crucial part of settling the level of awards and a public relations exercise is also carried out in that context. As I see it—I may be quite wrong about this—the whole objective behind this exercise is to exclude lawyers from participation in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. If that is the objective, let the Government be honest about it and say that this will be Civil Service orientated and that lawyers will have nothing to do with it. The end result of that will be that the judicial review procedure, which has become an industry certainly within the English Bar—not so much within the Scottish Bar—will increase tenfold. People will be seeking a review by the courts of decisions taken by civil servants. What will be the extra cost of that?
What will be the qualifications of those who will administer the scheme? Clause 3(4) refers to scheme managers and claims officers. The interesting phrase in the subsection is that a claims officer,
"shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
There is not one word about what training is to be given to the scheme managers, the claims officers or the adjudicators. Who will they be? Will they be nameless

327
people picked up off the streets? Will they be told, "You go in and adjudicate on what you think you would give that chap or that lady for the injury that he or she sustained"? I could go on at some length—I shall probably go on at some length anyway—but I am challenging the very essence of the Bill. One cannot run a criminal injuries compensation scheme without the professionalism required to adjudicate on the effects of assaults.
Perhaps I may make one final point. Many of your Lordships have already spoken on this matter and therefore I shall not expand too much on it. What has been the cost to date of the illegal actions of the Secretary of State? I can tell the House as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that many of us will be sitting in August submerged under bags of review cases from the tariff system. The Secretary of State was put on his guard very early on that he might be wrong. From the very outset of this exercise he paid no attention to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I say that with the greatest of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who had meetings with the Financial Secretary, Mr. Jack, and with the Minister of State, Mr. Maclean. The theme throughout the proceedings was that the tariff scheme was not negotiable. It is still not negotiable because it is in this Bill. In the interim, instead of sitting back to see what the courts were going to do, the Secretary of State in his wisdom—or lack of it—continued this scheme with letters to people saying, "Here is an award of £1,500 for a broken nose and a couple of black eyes. By the way, it might be reviewed. If that is so, you may have to pay back the money".
The Government took a deliberate decision. Some of your Lordships may be aware that there was a leaked letter of advice to the then Secretary of State to say that it was politically incorrect to try to claw back money from victims of violence. Therefore, when I am sitting going through these bags of cases and I see that an award of £1,500 has been made and I think that it should not have been £1,500 but £1,000, it will not matter a damn—if your Lordships will excuse me—because the Government will not claw it back. That is in contrast with what they do in civil litigation with the recovery unit in respect of social benefits. People are penalised beyond bounds. The whole thing is quite ridiculous.
What is the figure to date—not only the balance between what would have been awarded under the old common law system but what the cost of administration has been since the Home Secretary stuck his head in the sand and ignored what is going on around about him and ignored the courts? I cannot remember which noble Lord said that he had a 50:50 chance of success. Would it not have been a more prudent course for the Home Secretary at the time to have suspended the system until the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House had made its decision?
The administrative costs will be horrendous by the time the review of all the cases done under the tariff scheme has been conducted. In the cases where the award is lower, there will be no claw back and the country will have lost. By the time we discuss the Bill
328
in Committee I hope that a little more common sense will have been applied to the whole operation of criminal injuries compensation.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having had the privilege of listening to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I wish to congratulate him on a most enlightening speech which has no doubt enriched the order of our debate while, along with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, challenging the essence of the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord asked some most interesting questions which are not really for me to answer but are answerable and are a matter for my noble friend the Minister, if she cares to deal with the matter today.
At the outset, from these Benches I want to acknowledge the action taken by the TUC as a result of which your Lordships' Appellate Committee aborted the previous Bill on judicial review on the ground of ministerial misconduct. As has been said, the merits and principles of the Bill were wholly irrelevant. At all events, this Bill, which in a sense has arisen like a phoenix from the ashes of your Lordships' sustained objections to the previous one, serves as a tribute not only to your Lordships' House in the exercise of its revisory role, but also to the Government, something which seems to have been forgotten by certain noble Lords. In this Bill they were able to reflect, to a certain measure, such objections.
Why it should be suggested, as it has been, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should don the mantle of sackcloth and ashes and grovel around the place, is simply not understood, for he has responded in full measure to your Lordships' reservations. Of course, it is a fair political point because, I suppose, all political points are fair. I do not object to it being made, but it is a pure political point. At this stage all your Lordships accept the principle of the Bill, as indeed do I. It is that we have to replace the common law system of compensation with an enhanced tariff scheme; what is called a "tariff-plus" or "hybrid" scheme.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the principle of the Bill, is not its essence that it will cut the amount going to victims by almost one half?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, no, that is not the essence of the Bill. With respect to the noble Earl, as I see it, the essence of the Bill—and I can only speak for myself—is the principle: do we carry on with the common law principle of the assessment of compensation, or do we change to a tariff or hybrid system? That is the principle. The noble Earl is referring to the consequences of the change. At this stage I am not dealing with those. This is Second Reading and at this stage I am dealing with the principle of the Bill, which is that we move from one system to another. That is acceptable to all noble Lords. I shall come in a moment to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said—with much of which I agree—that

329
really we simply have to move, as a matter of principle, towards what the noble Lord called a "hybrid" or an enhanced "tariff-plus" system.
Why? Because as a matter of principle that affords the reasonable resolution of a fair compromise between the interests of the victim, the obligations of the state and the burden on the taxpayer, under any government. For that reason the Bill has my full support. It also has the support of my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lord Colnbrook and Lord Windlesham. We all opposed the previous Bill for reasons which are known and on record.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it is not an easy solution but, as he said, we cannot go back to the old common law regime. He asked a number of cogent questions which assuredly warrant serious consideration, no doubt at Committee stage. I shall not seek to enter further into them because of time.
As my noble friend the Minister has said, this Bill will continue to afford the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and will dispense more compensation than all other European countries put together. It would surely be unrealistic and idle to suppose that the existing non-statutory scheme, under which compensation is awarded in line with common law damages, can continue.
There is no Bill which is incapable of improvement. Speaking only for myself, I hope that by some supplementary provision within the tariff scheme, some flexibility can be introduced to meet the individual needs of the victim in certain types of cases. If that were to be done in all cases, it would break the whole tariff concept wide open. Nonetheless, I hope that that may be possible. I have in mind some machinery to enable discretion to be exercised within financial constraints, such as might be acceptable to government. I do not have the skill to formulate that—or do not have it yet—in the form of an amendment.
One has to strike a fair balance. I agree that the figures given by my noble friend the Minister about what happens in the year 2001 inevitably have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Who on earth knows what will happen then? But the Government have to work on predictions and assumptions. There is no doubt that these are respectable predictions and reasonable assumptions, on which the Government are entitled to work. There is a very high degree of saving between £1.8 billion and £1.1 billion. That saving seems to be considered by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as a shameful attack on the social services, and by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, in stigmatising the Bill as a pernicious little Bill. Every noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but when considering the realities of the situation, the burden on the taxpayer and the fair resolution of compensation, as compared with other countries, some of which are far better off than ourselves, I believe that this is a reasonable response.
However, expenditure is not the only problem. There is the backlog, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook and is a very serious problem. As yet 110,000 cases are unresolved. That is not a government prediction; it is, I am told, a clear statistic. The
330
importance of immediate payment has been stressed and is of great importance, but how one gets immediate payments with that order of backlog, I am uncertain.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that the scheme was too cumbersome and too slow. I am not here to criticise the administration of the scheme; only to point to the fact that the number of applications has risen from 554 in 1964, when the scheme was set up, to 73,000 in 1993–94. I am informed that under the tariff scheme, it is expected that the backlog will be reduced substantially and that that reduction will continue. I suggest that that is yet another reason why, if the tariff scheme will reduce the backlog, as I understand that it will, one should support that tariff scheme.
The Bill has many attractions which have been explained in full by my noble friend the Minister and by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in particular. The structured settlements with the annuity payments which are not taxable are, among other aspects, very important attractions. At all events, it is a regime which is very different from that proposed in the previous Bill, and which is broadly acceptable to my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Colnbrook with whom consultation on the Bill has, I understand, ensued.
The Bill is not open to objection as a skeletal Bill. I am coming now to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The degree of the proposed implementing machinery is wholly appropriate. The affirmative resolution procedure affords a satisfactory measure of safeguard. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Colnbrook that it would be wholly impracticable to have that complex implementing machinery, which may and, indeed, should require amendment from time to time, cluttering up the face of primary legislation. I wholly reject the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in that regard.
With reference to Clause 11, I can see no reason to suppose why on earth the Home Secretary would seek to ignore, avoid or evade the decisions and rulings of your Lordships' Appellate Committee. Some suggestion was made to that effect, but I find it unacceptable and clandestine. There are no serious criticisms of the Bill on that score.
In conclusion, I should like to make just one point. The common law system is a tariff system. Between brackets, we advise, in the light of decided cases, as to how much on the basis of full compensation, on full liability, and how much on the basis of contributory negligence and so on and so forth. There is a bracket and there is a tariff, but under the common law system you take the risk of litigation. You have to prove liability. You have all the' costs of substantive trial, and in all litigation you have the inevitable risk of failure and of vast expense. You are on risk. How you compare the common law system in that set-up with a system in which all that you have to do is to prove causation and get your money without substantial risk, I do not understand. To my mind—I am an ordinary lawyer—it is not a comparison as between like and like. Under the tariff system, you are getting something without risk and without expense.

331
Therefore, on that ground alone, quite apart from the issue of expense and quite apart from the point about the reduction in what people get, which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and other noble Lords, we should support the principle of the tariff. There should be a reduction in any event because the scheme should never have started off on the basis of common law compensation, but no yardstick other than that was thought of. On that ground also, it seems wholly right that, leaving aside the burden of expense, the principle of introducing the tariff as proposed by this Bill, albeit enhanced, is wholly justified.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the debate has provided the Government with much well-informed criticism of the proposals and some responsible suggestions for further improvement. There may be a distinction between a speech and some observations, but I hope that the noble Baroness will avail herself of all that wisdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that the Government have responded to all of the criticisms made in the past—
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, not to all of them.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord actually used the word "all", but if he says that he did not, I accept it. Then, even the noble Lord is not claiming too great an open-mindedness on the part of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just emphasised, there is still the question of the change which occasioned all the problems—the change from the common law basis of assessing compensation to a tariff system. I make no secret of this: I agree with the strictures of my noble friends Lord Ewing and Lord Longford on that change. However, I suspect that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is right and that our horse has long escaped.
There are some criticisms to be made of the common law system. I am not referring to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was adverting to, which was the method of deciding liability. Nevertheless, there are criticisms to be made of the common law system of assessing damages. Of course, not all of them are addressed in the new proposals. However, the common law at least attempts to address the principle of fairness—and fairness entails two factors. The first is that similar situations should be treated alike and the second is that relevant differences should be reflected in different treatment. That requires room for flexibility. The Government's initial proposals clearly failed to give effect to that second element. Victim Support, which has the advantage of having as its president the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, together with the Bar Council and other organisations demonstrated some of the more absurd consequences of what the Government were then proposing, as did a number of your Lordships during the subsequent debates in this House. I should like to add my tribute to those paid about the initiatives of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
332
So, belatedly, the Government looked at it again and emerged with a tariff-scheme-with-some-flexible-elements—I hope that that phrase will appear in Hansard with hyphens between the words—still operated not by lawyers who are accustomed to assessing damages but by the same officials who were to operate the original tariff scheme. I accept, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the result is a substantial improvement. However, I suspect that the result will be what it usually is when one sets out unreflectingly to create one thing and then halfway through changes one's mind and decides to create something else.
The Devil begins with a tail and hoofs and halfway through it is decided to give him a human face. The parts do not fit together and it is not a pretty sight. Certainly, the new scheme still admits of the anomalies referred to by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Broadbridge. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, the number of identifiable injuries has doubled but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, commented, there is no suggestion that the single rigid figure against each may be replaced by a band or a bracket.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded us, there remains a distinction between the method of assessing compensation for a tort and compensation for a crime, corresponding to no distinction in either the loss or the need. At the end of it all, I share the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, about whether the new scheme is likely to be more expeditious.
That case has been made out in this debate and it will not profit from further comments from me. Nor do I believe that your Lordships would be assisted if I were to repeat what has been said about some of the questions which your Lordships may wish to address in Committee. I hope that I may be forgiven if I spend what time falls to me not on the content of the Bill but on its form. Perhaps I may express agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend Lord Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, because I believe that it is one example—probably the most blatant but, unhappily, certainly not unique—of a tendency by the present Government to lose sight of a fundamental constitutional principle. It is the difference between the functions of the Executive and the legislature.
If the Executive has proposals for changing the law, it submits those proposals to Parliament. Parliament may agree or disagree, or it may agree subject to some amendments. Of course, Parliament may initiate legislation without waiting for a proposal from the Executive. But normally the division of function is that the Executive is responsible for policies, for which it is accountable to Parliament. Where those policies entail changes in the law, including changes in Ministers' powers, it submits a proposal to Parliament.
The question which sometimes arises is: what is a proposal? There was once a body of opinion, chiefly among traditional Conservatives, that a proposal meant all the details of the changes which it was intended to make. Lord Hewart, a former Conservative law officer, argued in the book on which many of us were reared, The New Despotism which was published in 1929, that

333
all the details should be embodied in the primary legislation and that leaving details to delegated legislation was a dangerous transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive.
That was an extreme version of the doctrine. Since the Donoughmore Report in 1932, it has been generally agreed to be acceptable if the primary legislation sets out clearly what is to happen and Parliament entrusts to the Executive the filling in of the details, subject of course to some of the proper safeguards referred to in the debate. That is for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook; there needs to be a degree of flexibility.
We are familiar with provisions such as those in Clause 10, inviting the Secretary of State to decide on the details after Parliament has legislated and then to lay those details before Parliament. Your Lordships will notice that in this case it is not all his proposals, even as regards the details, but only some of them. In Committee, your Lordships may wish to discuss some of the proposals which the Secretary of State is empowered to make which are not brought within Clause 10 and which he will not have to lay before Parliament.
However, the point that we are considering here is more fundamental. When Parliament is invited to approve subordinate legislation it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As my noble friend said, there is no provision for amending it. The time when the debate takes place is at the mercy of the Government's business managers. It is likely, if I may say so from experience, to be at a very inconvenient hour and conducted to a background of yawns from the Government Whips. No one would consider those procedures satisfactory if they were applied to primary legislation. They are acceptable for matters of detail.
Yes, we have moved from the position of Conservatives such as Lord Hewart. There is a place for subordinate legislation. However, the present Conservative Government have moved not only away from their Lord Hewarts but they have swung out of sight, in the opposite direction. The Executive comes to Parliament not with a proposal at all but with a request for a blank cheque. Of course, a blank cheque is more flexible but most of us prefer to fill in the amount on our cheques because it makes it clear to what we are agreeing.
What we are requested to say in this Bill is, "There shall be a scheme of some kind and the Secretary of State is hereby empowered to decide what it shall be". That is not a proposal; it is inviting Parliament to abdicate its legislative function. We have been told most helpfully by the noble Baroness today—indeed, we have been told on other occasions—what is to be in the scheme, but it is not in the Bill. It is at the discretion of the Secretary of State and it may be changed when he chooses and without any prescribed procedures. That is precisely a Henry VIII provision.
Constitutionally, of course, it is all a very dismal episode and the more alarming because it comes from the Home Office. That is the department which, above all others, is expected to understand and accept responsibility for constitutional theory and practice. The
334
past history is well known to your Lordships and it has been recounted in this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and other noble Lords.
In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Parliament was invited by the Government to approve the structure of a statutory scheme. However, it delegated to the Home Secretary, the discretion to decide when it should come into force. It used to be thought that a provision of that kind was inserted in order to give time to the Secretary of State to make the necessary preparations before the statutory provisions became effective. It was not generally believed among lawyers that, when Parliament provided by statute for certain things to be done but authorised the Secretary of State to decide when they should be done, that constituted authority to decide that they should not be done at all. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, noticed, has occasionally been breached in the past and it has usually occasioned some surprise.
In 1994 the Secretary of State went further. He did not simply decide to himself that the provisions should not be implemented; he announced publicly that he had decided that the provisions made by Parliament were not to be implemented. Even that was not all. With a statutory scheme having been approved by Parliament, not only did the Secretary of State decide that it should not be implemented, but he decided that he would make provision for a wholly different scheme, ignoring the intentions of Parliament in the statute. Of course, as your Lordships have recounted, he was firmly told by the judiciary that that was not constitutional. I am bound to say that I share the curiosity of my noble friend Lord Macaulay as to the cost to the public of that episode.
All right, that is in the past. What is more worrying is what is happening now and what is to happen in the future. Now he says, "I need the authority of Parliament. Very well, I shall not simply write the new scheme on my own notepaper. I shall ask Parliament to place a rubber stamp on it. But I shall not ask Parliament to rubber stamp the scheme when it is set out. I want the rubber stamp in advance of the scheme". Lord Hewart rests in his grave, although I suspect that his spirit may be emitting a few howls.
We are now facing the opposite extremity—not a refusal to admit sensible limitations on the doctrine that the legislature is there to legislate but inroads which threaten to eliminate the doctrine itself. Another recent obvious example was the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. Unless Parliament intends to become a department of the Executive, the time is fast approaching to make a stand.
There is one specific area in which the danger is magnified. The jurisdiction and powers of the judiciary are fundamentally matters for Parliament. It would be doubly dangerous if the Executive sought to reserve to itself the power to decide on the existence and extent of appeals against its own creations. I doubt whether, ever since the Franks Report, there is any serious dispute that tribunals and adjudicators are part of the judiciary.
I must now pause and, declare an interest. This is a matter on which the Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair, feels strongly. Although I have no

335
reason to believe that my party would disagree, I should make it clear that I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for my party.
Clause 5 provides that the scheme shall include provision for appeals to adjudicators. The remainder of the clause confers a wide discretion on the Secretary of State as to their terms of appointment, their mode of proceeding and all the other matters associated with that. I say at once that there has been some consultation between the department and the Council on Tribunals. I recognise and appreciate the inclusion of Clause 5(7), to which the noble Baroness quite properly adverted, which brings adjudications within the supervision of the council.
But the Secretary of State is left to provide for appeals. He will appoint the adjudicators; he will decide what qualifications, if any, are required; he will decide whether the adjudicators will sit alone, as a panel or in some other combination; and whether there shall be an entitlement to an oral hearing. Those are matters not for the Executive but for the legislature.
I should like to quote from the annual report for 1992–93 of the Council on Tribunals. It states:
"We emphasise here, as we have in the past, that when establishing new tribunals, the Government should give due consideration to the appropriate legislative division between primary and secondary legislation. To establish a new tribunal by statutory regulation, however clear the legislative intention, does not accord with current practice. Establishment of a tribunal by Act of Parliament emphasises the tribunal's independent standing which is appropriate for a body exercising adjudicative functions in relation to the statutory rights of individuals".
That is a matter of principle which your Lordships would expect me to raise on Second Reading. There are further matters which your Lordships may wish to ventilate in Committee. But in view of the time that I have taken, I shall leave those matters until Committee stage and keep the noble Baroness on tenterhooks.
What should be said now is that the differences in function between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary are fundamental to our constitution and we shall permit them to be blurred at our peril. I do not believe that the noble Baroness wishes harm to the democratic process. I do not believe that there are officials in the Home Office who are plotting to destroy democracy. I doubt whether even the Home Secretary is opposed to democracy, although there are occasions when he is in danger of misleading us about that. But there can be death from a thousand cuts. And history may judge him less charitably than we do. Meanwhile, we must do that which lies within our power to address the more detailed matters about which anxiety has been expressed in the debate. The noble Baroness may demonstrate her commitment to the democratic process in her responses to those suggestions.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said at the outset, this is an important issue. We have had a full and interesting debate. It is clear from the thoughtful contributions which have been made that your Lordships feel genuine concern for those who have been injured as a result of violent crime. Not unexpectedly, differing
336
views have been expressed about what should be done. We are all agreed that we need a system which gets generous payments to victims as quickly as possible and at a cost that is affordable. We believe that our enhanced tariff scheme is the best way to achieve that.
Many points have been raised in the course of the debate and it will not be possible for me to address them all. I know that the matters that I do not address will be the subject of further debate as the Bill passes through each of its stages in this House. Nevertheless, I shall try to cover the main issues that have been raised.
Much has been said about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the course of the debate, and in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, at the beginning of the afternoon. My right honourable friend acted throughout in good faith. He was subsequently judged, as we all know, to have acted unlawfully. With good grace my right honourable friend accepted fully that judgment and acted speedily to present the current Bill before the House, taking into account many of the anxieties voiced by your Lordships and others outside the House.
Much has been said about the detail of the scheme. The detail of the scheme will be set out in the draft scheme which we hope to publish within the next two or three weeks. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and sent to noble Lords and Members of another place who have taken an interest in the scheme. Of course, copies will also be sent to interested organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to undertakings about the future shape and structure of the scheme. Clause 10 requires prior parliamentary approval of the tariff and other key features before the scheme starts. It also requires parliamentary approval before any changes can be made to those key features. Thus, it will be Parliament which has control over the future of the scheme. I shall return later to that aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred also to the costs of the scheme and compared them with the costs of the prison service. He suggested that the costs of the scheme are only one-tenth of the costs of the prison service. He seemed to imply in some way that the Government are spending more on offenders than on victims. But expenditure on prisons and the criminal justice system as a whole benefits victims by ensuring that offenders are prosecuted and punished accordingly. That is as much in the interests of offenders as it is in the interests of the community as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as pompous. If the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that one of the adjectives which he used was "pompous".
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as well as to the Minister, I made a very specific reference to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That alone I said was pompous. I hope that he will forgive me for that. I thought that the rest of his speech was absolutely splendid and not pompous at all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, reduces many matters to personal comment. He knows and I know that we do friendly battle across this Dispatch Box. But perhaps I may say that, uncharacteristically for the tone of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has developed pomposity to an art form.
The noble Lord suggested that we should spend more—perhaps a related percentage of what is spent on, for example, Bosnia or prisons. I believe that he even evoked the GDP. During the course of the Bill it will be interesting to know what is the precise percentage of public expenditure that the noble Lord would wish us to spend on this scheme. Perhaps he wishes that to be totally unlimited.
We shall review and revise the benefits. Parliament will be involved in that process. However, I must ask what proportion of the claims will be met in the first year under the new scheme as opposed to the old scheme. I shall refer again to that matter.
The noble Lord referred to changes in the existing common law scheme before the tariff scheme starts. The only planned change is to allow structured settlements to be made where claims under the old scheme have not yet been settled. I believe that the whole House would welcome that opportunity being afforded to those set-back claims that have not yet been settled. The noble Lord went on to ask for comparative figures for the new tariff and the common law damages scheme. However, I gave them in my opening speech which I invite the noble Lord to read in Hansard tomorrow morning.
I have mentioned the action of my right honourable friend and I rest my case in that respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to Clause 11 which allows the Secretary of State to make changes in the common law damages scheme. Perhaps I may link that hack to the point that I have just made. There is nothing sinister about Clause 11. It puts beyond doubt that the common law damages scheme may continue until it is replaced by the new scheme and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make any changes necessary. That will ensure, for example, that the necessary changes can be made to allow for those structured settlements to which I referred a moment ago.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to dependency payments and asked if they were subject to the 28-week rule. That is not the case. In fatal cases, there will be a fatal award for all qualifying claimants, plus a payment for loss of dependency where the qualifying claimant was financially dependent on the victim. That will be calculated from the time of the death of the victim.
Much has been made of incidents where someone may lose a left or right hand, and concerning the difference in treatment of those two injuries. The tariff awards are based on an injury to the dominant limb. Therefore, the actual basis is on the dominant limb. If, in Committee, the House wishes to suggest that there is a lesser payment for the less dominant limb, then of course we shall consider that if someone wishes to table an amendment. We would like to think that there is an
338
overpayment concerning the less dominant limb and the right payment for the dominant limb. However, we shall await developments during the further stages of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook referred to loss of earnings. In cases where loss of earnings or special expenses are payable, the expectation is that the basic tariff payment will be made as soon as possible—that is, of course, once eligibility has been determined—rather than waiting for a loss of earnings assessment which, as my noble friend will know, could take more time. However, we take the point about paying people as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to the tariff scheme and said that it was not quicker than the common law damages scheme. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is not possible to make proper comparisons on the basis of one year's experience of the tariff scheme, especially as the scheme was under challenge at the time. Priority was given to dealing with the backlog, which I am sure the noble Lord would agree was the right thing to do, of cases under the old scheme. Therefore, until the tariff scheme stands alone and the old scheme cases have been dealt with, it will not be possible to make proper comparisons. However, we are confident that the scheme will deliver speedier payments to most victims and we believe that there has been some support for that in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked if members of the existing board would become members of the new panel. Well, we expect to invite some members of the existing board to become members of the new panel as, indeed, happened with the tariff scheme which operated last year. We shall, of course, be inviting people from a wider range of backgrounds to become members. Therefore, it is not quite the "horror house" that I believe the noble Lord described during the course of his speech.
As regards my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps I may say, first, how very good it is to see him in his seat today following a very recent operation. Indeed, my noble friend returned to active duties in the House with unseemly haste. We wish him well as he recovers to full fitness.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for what he said about the Bill; and, secondly, for the important point that he made. Any government have to balance competing interests—that is, those of the victim in this case and, of course, those who must fund the scheme, the taxpayers. However, as my noble friend said, the scheme remains the most generous one in the world.
I listened most carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, when he criticised the proposed new scheme. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not too dismissive of additional payments to the fixed tariff of loss of earnings, costs of care and of the facility to opt for structured payments which allows for a tax-free income stream for life. That was, indeed, the impression that he gave to the House. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord is advocating a more

339
generous scheme, then, let him tell his colleagues in another place about it because I believe they will note what he says with interest. Alternatively, would the noble and learned Lord cap the overall amount, but offer a different form of distribution? If so, perhaps we will understand what the capping arrangements could be during the course of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I must have been more than usually incomprehensible. I thought that I said clearly that I wholly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in that the new scheme is a great improvement on the old one.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I actually heard the noble Lord say that; but I also heard him dismiss the sort of "add ons" to the tariff scheme. Perhaps we should both read Hansard tomorrow morning to clarify the matter. I shall offer a fulsome apology if I misunderstood what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, both referred to Henry VIII clauses. I said that I would return to that issue. First, if the scheme were to form part of the Bill, any change, however minor, would have to be a matter for primary legislation which would present very considerable difficulty. Again, that point was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Bill will, of course, go before the scrutiny committee between now and the Bill's next stage. Indeed, that is an important part of the process. It will be for that committee to take a view on whether my right honourable friend is seeking proper powers or whether he is exceeding his office in that respect. In that case, no doubt the scrutiny committee will report the matter to the House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to awards and suggested that they should be selected from a band; and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to a banded system. Assessing an appropriate payment from a wide band for each injury description would, in effect, mean reverting to a common law method of assessment. It would reintroduce an element of subjectivity and consequent uncertainty for the victim. It would undoubtedly lead to more appeals and to a gradual, upward drift towards the top of the band.
I should also remind the House that we are not looking to provide finely judged compensation on the same basis as before; we are looking to provide a speedy and generous payment to the victim for the injury suffered. The tariff approach is open and transparent and victims will have a pretty good idea when they apply of how much money they are likely to receive. However, that would not necessarily be the case under a banding system, but it will, of course, be for the "add ons" to take particular account of the circumstances of each claimant.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the rising cost as being due to the increase in crime. I believe that that fact was also mentioned by other speakers. There is no absolute correlation between the crime figures and the number of applications under the scheme. Since the scheme's introduction in 1964, it is true that violent
340
crime has increased by 500 per cent., while the number of applications has increased by 3,000 per cent. Moreover, the amount of compensation paid has increased by no less than 40,000 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the time limit. We intend to introduce a time limit of two years. The one-year limit under the old tariff scheme was criticised as being too short, but the three-year limit under the common law damages scheme is, we believe, rather too long. Police and other records are often weeded out at three-yearly intervals. That can make it most difficult to secure the documentary evidence needed to substantiate the claims. However, there will continue to be discretion for the authority running the scheme to waive the time limit in exceptional cases.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and said that it should be able to refer difficult cases to an oral hearing. We recognise that in such a scheme there will always be cases which are more difficult, especially those involving complicated loss of earnings and special care calculations. However, we do not believe that a power of referral for an oral hearing, as is possible under the current 1990 scheme, would be appropriate. The enhanced tariff scheme is administered in a different way from the current scheme. Under the tariff scheme there is complete separation of the original decision taking process and the appeals function. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the CICA to refer so-called "difficult cases" to the appeals panel for an oral hearing. To whom would any dissatisfied claimant then apply? The appeals panel would have to become both judge and jury, thereby compromising the independence of the appeals process.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be able to call upon the advice of senior experienced staff and lawyers in more difficult cases. I believe that that point was also made by my noble friend Lady Elles. However, the initial decision must be for the authority alone. If, after review—that is, if one is requested—the authority decides on the balance of probabilities that a certain award should or should not be made, that must be a matter for the authority. It will then be open to the applicant to decide whether to appeal to the independent appeals panel, which can then consider the matter afresh without having been involved in any way in the earlier decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was fairly condemning of the Government and their treatment of victims. It was the Government who introduced the victim support scheme in the first place. The Government have supported it well, and will continue to do so. The victim is central to our concern about fighting crime. We have toughened up the criminal justice system almost precisely because we are concerned about the plight of victims.
I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, why the tariff and the detail of the scheme were not on the face of the Bill. I believe that I have already referred to that. Until it comes before the scrutiny committee, in my view changes to the scheme, which sometimes are very minor, will require a primary place

341
in the programme for primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the way to deal with the details of such a complex scheme.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the up-rating of tariff levels. The tariff levels have been left as they were when the earlier scheme was introduced on 1st April 1994. Those levels were based on board awards and included at the time an unquantified element for loss of earnings and special care plus a generous amount for inflation. Though we are now paying loss of earnings and special care, in addition to the tariff award in more serious cases, we have not stripped those elements from the tariff levels which are therefore higher than they would otherwise have been. There is already a considerable cushion built into the tariff. For the future, the intention will be to review the tariff bands every three years. We shall give further thought to how that review will be undertaken. The priority for now is to get the scheme up and running successfully. But the element of the award for loss of earnings and special care will go up automatically in line with wages and the costs of care.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook referred to early payments. I agree with him: it is our intention that payment should be made as soon as possible once liability has been established. My noble friend also asked whether I would repeat assurances given by my noble friend Earl Ferrers that the Government would not hesitate to make any necessary changes to improve the tariff. First, I should set the context of the way in which my noble friend asked the question. He was referring to the 1994 tariff scheme which had to be withdrawn following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of this House. Under that scheme, the Government would have been able to make changes administratively without having to come to Parliament and so could have acted much more promptly. Under the new scheme the tariff and other key features bearing on quantum will require the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament, both before the new scheme is introduced and before any subsequent changes are made to the tariff or to those key features.
Therefore, I cannot give an unequivocal assurance to my noble friend that we shall make any necessary changes because they will no longer be in the Government's direct gift. What I can say to my noble friend is that the Government will continue to be receptive to ideas and suggestions to improve the tariff, or other aspects of the scheme. If it seems appropriate, we shall not hesitate to invite Parliament to approve the necessary changes just as soon as that is practicable.
Reference was made to the minimum award of £1,000. It was said that it should be abolished. That would not make sense. There must be a minimum threshold to stop the authority from being swamped with minor claims which will hinder the award of compensation to the more seriously injured victims who have more need for it. The minimum threshold of £1,000 has been at that level since February 1992, and we have no plans to raise it.
342
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, referred to the 28-week trigger point for loss of earnings. I believe that his point was that it would be particularly serious for those in part-time or low-paid temporary work, as well as for the self-employed.
There needs to be a trigger for loss of earnings and special care to differentiate those who are most seriously affected by injury, and those for whom we all have particular sympathy from those who are less seriously injured and who recover more quickly. The 28-week trigger was chosen because that was the period for which statutory sick pay was payable by employers. Those of working age who are ineligible for statutory sick pay should qualify for incapacity benefit or other state benefit, as I think the noble Lord knows.
The prudent self-employed may also have made provision for absence from work for whatever reason through business or other insurance payments. Successful claimants will all receive the basic tariff award for their injuries. The minimum payment is £1,000, and more serious injuries will attract much more. All tariff awards still have some unquantified element in them for loss of earnings and special care. Therefore, it is difficult to see quite how the absence of additional payment for loss of earnings will be likely to lead to hardship. Therefore, we believe that between incapacity benefit, the state statutory sick pay benefit and income support probably everybody is covered.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for the work that he does with Victim Support. He will know that the Government take the work of that body very seriously. He referred to the levels of award on the tariff in 1996, and said that they were based largely on median awards paid in 1991–92. The 1994 tariff was indeed based on median awards. The most typical award was that made in 1991–92. But those awards were first reflated by 19 per cent. to bring them up to what was thought to be 1994 levels. The actual increase in average award over the three-year period was under 12 per cent. Therefore, the awards under the 1994 tariff were 7 per cent. higher than they need have been. From the point of view of Victim Support, that is a point worth noting.
Being based on the median award, under the old 1990 scheme, the 1994 tariff included elements of all the heads of damage payable under that scheme. I repeat that it included many of those now separately considered as add-ons. My noble friend also referred to the levels of award being reviewed only every three years, with no guarantee of an increase in line with inflation. We have given a firm undertaking that tariff levels will be reviewed every three years. For the reasons already given, we believe that to be adequate.
Reference was also made to some very low awards which it was said gave rise to concern. It was said that the sexual assault of children resulted in an award which was less than that for a broken finger. The tariff is based on 20,000 awards made by the board under the present arrangements, and therefore reflects what actually happens under common law damages. We believe that it is the most defensible basis on which to construct a tariff. It would be wrong to substitute someone else's subjective assessment for that more objective approach.

343
But we have undertaken to keep the tariff under review. If, with the passage of time, it appears that some of the relativities in the tariff need to be changed, then I go back to my promise to my noble friend: we shall consider inviting the House to reconsider them.
My noble friend Lady Elles referred to social security benefits and how they related to compensation. It is necessary to deduct social security benefits and payments made in respect of loss of earnings to avoid claimants being compensated twice over from state funds in respect of the same period of absence from work. The rules for taking account of capital when assessing eligibility for benefits are a matter for the Department of Social Security. We understand that that department considers that it is unfair and impracticable to attempt to distinguish capital received under the scheme from capital received from other sources, such as insurance payments. That replicates the situation that exists under the present scheme.
My noble friend Lady Elles also posed the question why National Lottery prizes could not be capped and the excess used to fund the compensation scheme. Parliament has agreed that the five areas to benefit from the National Lottery are: the arts, sport, National Heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the start of the new millennium. Therefore, it would not be possible to use Lottery money for the criminal injuries compensation scheme. To do so would require a change in primary legislation. Even if that were possible, international experience has shown that large prizes are an essential part of any successful lottery. Attempts to cap prizes in other countries have generally led to a significant loss of sales and therefore a consequent loss of lottery money for good causes. However, I have no doubt that that particular point will rattle around for some time.
My noble friend Lady Elles also referred to court compensation. I hope that she is comforted by the fact that the Government share her view that defendants should be made to pay compensation where appropriate. The courts are required to consider making compensation orders in all cases, but such orders depend upon an assessment of offenders' means. It is often the case that they do not have adequate means to pay compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked whom we had consulted in the course of the intervening months. We have received many helpful comments and consultation from a number of quarters, including the Law Society and my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Many of those comments are reflected in the new proposals.
I was also asked how the scheme affected the police and who are the major beneficiaries of the scheme. Like other claimants, the police, firemen and nurses should all receive broadly similar payments under the enhanced tariff scheme as they presently receive under the common law damages scheme, including past and future loss of earnings.
344
I shall stop addressing individual points in view of the time. I shall sum up by reiterating that the Government are committed to doing their best both for victims and for taxpayers. We have considered very carefully all the representations that have been made about the scheme, and we believe that we have devised a scheme that achieves the right balance. It is a simple scheme. It is a workable scheme. And it is an affordable scheme. Yet it will remain the most generous in the world. We can all continue to take pride in that. I await, on tenterhooks, the further stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she will deal with the point that I raised as to the cost arising to the public purse from the Home Secretary's illegal actions in introducing the tariff scheme. The Minister did not deal with that issue at all. I accept that she may not have figures available now, but will she give an undertaking to provide the figures to the House, perhaps in a month from now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important point is that claimants have been treated fairly in the intervening period. The question of whether parliamentary time has cost money is not the only point raised during the course of the debate that I have not dealt with. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not answering the question, of which I was not given notice. If I can produce some quantifiable figures I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
6.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 17th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill
6.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am tempted to follow the procedure of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but I have a suspicion that we may take a little longer than on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The Bill is promoted by three colleges of the University of London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, of which I have the honour to be a Fellow; St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college; and the

345
London hospital medical college. The central purpose of the Bill is to enable these three colleges to merge together into a single institution. The colleges intend to create a new medical and dental school to be called St. Bartholomew's and The Royal London Hospital School of Medicine and Dentistry.
As well as being a Fellow of QMW—as Queen Mary and Westfield College is commonly known—I was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services in 1980–81 when, with the benefit of the advice of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, whom I am very pleased to see will speak in the debate, I recommended that the two medical schools and what was at that time Queen Mary College should form a consortium, with the pre-clinical departments transferred to Queen Mary College. That grouping of the three institutions, which became known as BLQ—Barts, London and Queen Mary—was the subject of widespread consultation, and after some hesitation it was agreed to proceed. Accordingly, in 1990 the two medical colleges transferred their pre-clinical departments to Queen Mary and Westfield College where a new faculty of basic medical sciences was established. The three colleges also came together in the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. Under those arrangements the medical and dental students spend the first two years of their course at Queen Mary and Westfield College and then complete their clinical training at Bart's and the London.
It is now the wish of those three colleges to build on that collaboration by merging into a single institution. That proposal has a history. The process of integrating the teaching of medicine in London with multi-faculty colleges in fact goes back much further—to 1968 when the Royal Commission on Medical Education, under the chairmanship of Lord Todd, recommended that pre-clinical students should study in a multi-faculty environment. The London medical schools were unusual in being free-standing independent colleges and not part of multi-faculty institutions. Initially, as with BLQ, it was the pre-clinical departments which were the subject of the first moves but, later, full mergers took place. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the University College hospital medical school was merged with University College London in 1979, King's College hospital medical school was merged with King's College London in 1983, St. Mary's hospital medical school was merged with Imperial College in 1988; and in that same year the Middlesex hospital medical school was merged with University College.
It is now widely accepted that there are great advantages in medical schools being fully integrated into multi-faculty university institutions in that way. It is regarded as being good for the student experience and for the curriculum; it is also now regarded as essential if medical and dental research is to reach the highest levels.
So, when in October 1992 the Tomlinson Report into health services and medical education and research in London recommended the linking of the two medical schools of Bart's and the London with what was by then Queen Mary and Westfield College, that was in full accord with practice and earlier recommendations.
346
That is the purpose of this Bill. It will bring the three colleges together into one institution. The pre-clinical departments from the Bart's medical college and the London medical college have been together now for some five years in a splendid purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of QMW called the faculty of basic medical sciences. The Bill will complete the process of the merger of the three colleges into one institution.
The Bill has wide support. The governing bodies, the councils, of all three colleges are fully behind the Bill. They wish to see the merger and the creation of the new unified school. So, too, are the staffs of the colleges. I believe it has the support of my noble friends on the Front Bench and also of noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite.
There is one point that needs to be made clear, particularly in the light of debates in another place. Although the merger was recommended by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, it stands entirely separate from any question surrounding the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital or, indeed, of any other aspect of the reconfiguration of health services in London. This Bill is about medical and dental education; it is not about the delivery of NHS services. Indeed, the merger of the colleges is fully justified in its own right, irrespective of what may or may not be the future of medical services at St. Bartholomew's hospital in West Smithfield. As I am sure noble Lords fully understand—it is right to spell it out—the medical college is an entirely distinct and separate legal entity from the hospital.
The Bart's college council resolved to promote this Bill and to merge with the other two colleges before the decision to close Bart's hospital was taken. If hospital activity continues on the West Smithfield site, then the new medical school's teaching and research will likewise continue on that site. But if there is to be no clinical activity at Smithfield—and that is not a decision which rests with any of the colleges—then that activity must perforce take place elsewhere. In either case this Bill, and the merger which it seeks to bring about, is the right way forward in the interests of medical and dental education and research.
Of course, nothing affecting medical education or services in London can be without controversy. This Bill was opposed in another place mainly because it was thought that opposition to the merger of the medical schools might strengthen the case for the retention of Bart's hospital. But even the most cursory scrutiny of the debates will show that to have been a thoroughly mistaken view. The Second Reading of the Bill in another place was moved by my right honourable friend Peter Shore, himself an avowed opponent of the closure of Bart's hospital. The Third Reading was moved by my right honourable friend Peter Brooke, who achieved some notoriety when he attacked the proposals for Bart's of the then Secretary of State for Health. They opposed the closure of Bart's. Each in turn moved a debate on the Bill. The argument that the Bill has anything to do with the closure of Bart's has been firmly blown out of the water. Given the strength of support for the Bill and for the principles which have advised the

347
proposals for merger, the Bill received resounding majorities in another place. At Second Reading the majority was 164 to 19; and on Third Reading, 213 to 56.
A new objection has more recently been raised by way of justifying opposition to this Bill. The petitions which have been laid reflect that new ground. It is said that the Bill aims to destroy one of the world's greatest medical schools—St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. Although the decision to merge was taken by the council of the college, and although the dean of the college signed the petition to bring the Bill forward, it is said that they are misguided, have responded only to external pressure and direction, and presumably, therefore, that their views should be disregarded.
Even that argument is founded upon a complete misunderstanding. The Bill will not destroy St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college other than in a purely formal and legal sense. It is a merger Bill. It will link this distinguished college with another distinguished medical school at Whitechapel and bring about a significant strengthening of the academic and research base largely in brand new buildings and facilities. All that is good at Bart's medical college will be preserved and will continue to flourish.
It is not surprising that those who carry responsibility at St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college have been alive to the realities of the situation. They have seen the developments taking place elsewhere in London—I referred to them a few moments ago—creating some of the strongest and most dynamic medical schools in strong multi-faculty institutions in the country. They have been aware—sometimes painfully aware—of the fierce competition for the best students and for research grants and for the most talented academic and research staff. They have realised the need to strengthen interdisciplinary links. They have recognised the need to raise research ratings in order to bring in more funds from the Higher Education Funding Council. Of course, the college's decision to seek this merger is not unrelated to what is going on in the worlds of higher education and medicine generally. But to argue, as has been done, that it is not a decision freely arrived at on the basis of a careful and rational consideration of all the arguments, is absurd, even grotesque, particularly when one knows, as many noble Lords do, the kind of people who are members of that college council.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a word about the Motion for an Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. He is quite right that Clause 7 will have the effect of widening the powers of the trustees of the St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college trust. I should explain that that is a separate charitable trust. If one is familiar with the main teaching hospitals, they have special trusts of that kind. He is right in saying that the powers will be widened because the Bill will substitute the name of Queen Mary and Westfield College for that of St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. Everyone agrees, however, that it would not be appropriate for these trust moneys to be spent on things other than for the support of medicine and dentistry.
348
Accordingly—this addresses the point of the noble Lord's Instruction—a formal agreement to that effect has now been reached between the principal of Queen Mary and Westfield College, Professor Zellick, and the chairman of the trust, Sir Anthony Dawson, which has the support of all Sir Anthony's fellow trustees.
As a result, the council of Queen Mary and Westfield College unanimously resolved to take steps, outside the Bill, to seek to amend the terms of the trust deed following merger. The council affirmed,
"unequivocally that it wishes to see the Trust acting for the benefit of medicine and dentistry in the College following merger and warmly welcomes the role it will play in support of the new School".
In any case, the trustees continue to have full discretion to devote their resources to the support of medicine and dentistry within QMW if that is their wish, as it is expected to be.
I have had the opportunity of discussions with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. I believe that he is now fully apprised. I think that he will accept that Sir Anthony Dawson and his fellow trustees do not believe that the Bill needs to be amended in the sense of the Instruction. Given the urgent need now to move forward swiftly, and to avoid any possible risk of the Bill being returned to the maelstrom of another place (I hope that that is not unparliamentary language), perhaps the noble Lord will be persuaded not to press his Motion.
I conclude on a personal note. Some years ago I was privileged to serve on the council of Westfield College. I formed a great affection and respect for that college and could, therefore, entirely understand and sympathise with the anguish when, towards the end of the 1980s, it became necessary for that college to merge with Queen Mary College to form QMW. To have to abandon the attractive campus in Hampstead for the Mile End Road was an extremely difficult and painful decision. Nevertheless, with the committed support and enthusiasm of all involved, that merger has produced great academic and related benefits. QMW is now the fourth largest college in the University of London with over 6,000 students. Its reputation as a teaching and research college is extremely high. When this Bill becomes law, and it merges with the two medical schools of Bart's and the London, the new institution will be able to seize with great enthusiasm the opportunities that that merger will offer.
The Bill is essential to achieve the objective of a single, fully integrated institution within the University of London, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.9 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I observe with some trepidation that my intention stated on the Order Paper—to move an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill will be committed—seems to have provided three past and notably distinguished vice-chancellors of the university, in which I taught for most of my working life, with the prospect of an

349
afternoon's shooting. Let me assure them and other noble Lords that I am not worth the waste of a single cartridge.
I assure noble Lords at the outset that I support the merger of the colleges, for the reasons given so succinctly and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have no desire to criticise the present policy of the University of London to reform medical education. Indeed, I wish it had happened in my time when I thought that doctors exercised far too much domination over the university. I then had my hopes—like many others—falsified by the failure to act on the recommendations of the Todd Commission.
Most certainly, I shall not discuss or discourse upon the past history or future prospects (or lack of them) of St. Bartholomew's hospital. They have no bearing upon the anxiety which led me to put down my Instruction.
Clause 7(1) of the Bill will, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained, prejudice the objects of the charitable trust of St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college. At present, the trust is authorised to seek the promotion and advancement of all aspects of the medical college and education in the college and to hold the trust's assets for those purposes. Under the terms of the Bill, however, the assets of the trust will be held upon different terms, as Queen Mary and Westfield College will replace the medical college as the remaining body. That would mean that any of the assets held by the trust after the amalgamation could be applied towards the promotion and advancement of any form of education of the unified body and need not necessarily be confined to medicine, surgery or dentistry. While this new body will include the medical college, the situation would still be that funds could be spent outside the present objectives to which the trustees are confined.
My concern is that as the funds administered by the trust were raised by public subscription with the intention of them being devoted to medical and dental education and research, it would be improper to ride roughshod over the wishes of the donors.
I am happy to know, however, that—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained—that view is now shared by the council of Queen Mary and Westfield College. Yesterday, the principal was kind enough to send me a copy of the resolution passed unanimously by the college council and from which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quoted. Professor Zellick gave me permission also to quote from it directly. I do not propose to do so because it would be pointless to repeat what the noble Lord has already said.
I add that I also have the permission of the chairman of the medical college trust, Sir Anthony Dawson, to say that he was consulted about the phrasing of the resolution and that he is happy with it, as are his fellow trustees.
Accordingly, the differences of opinion that have clustered around the merging of the colleges have been greatly eased by recent discussions and agreements. The principle that my Instruction sought to establish—namely, that funds subscribed for charitable purposes should be used for the purposes for which they were subscribed—has been entirely accepted by all the bodies involved, in so far as I understand it is possible for them
350
to accept it. The result is that I do not intend to move my Instruction at the appropriate time. Its purpose was no more than to focus attention on what I regard as the peremptory requirement of maintaining the integrity of charitable bequests.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, set up the case with such clarity and force that I hardly think much more needs to be said. I wish to emphasise that the mergers began often for financial reasons. The schools and institutes of the University of London and all the medical schools and institutes used to be given grants by the court of the University of London, where a sizeable bureaucracy operated and flourished. The Senate House, which was also meant to co-ordinate the academic activities of the constituent parts of the university—and very time-consuming and self-indulgent those boards and committees were—created a further bureaucracy.
However, when the financial axe fell in the 1980s, it became clear that the university had to be reorganised. The Senate House bureaucracy was cut and slashed but, most striking of all, many of the small colleges were compelled to marry. Before the debacle, when I was vice-chancellor, I remember trying to persuade Bedford and Westfield to do so, but in the end they had to be dragged to the altar. Perhaps they might have been wiser had they earlier chosen a partner rather nearer home, but they had a much warmer welcome where they went than they would have got in the centre of London.
I call the amalgamations "shotgun marriages" because the bride was pregnant. The smaller colleges brought with them not only devoted staff but the dowry of their sites and buildings. Last Friday I was giving a paper in Queen Mary College to a learned society. I was absolutely amazed by the transformation. Indeed, I could not find my way among the new buildings. Vast new palaces have arisen, financed by the sale of the site buildings and other assets of Westfield College. This, I believe, will also be echoed when the medical schools are amalgamated.
I do not wish to be disingenuous, of course; there is a medical issue here. I shall leave to the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Quirk, to relate the history of why, ever since Lord Todd's Royal Commission on Medical Education, the University of London has been wrestling with the problem of rationalising the number of medical schools. But I will just say this. Long ago it was recognised that doctors ought to gain a much more profound understanding when they are medical students of basic medical science. All medical courses begin therefore with the study of pre-clinical subjects: physiology, anatomy, pharmacology and the like. Now, the pre-clinical teaching, which was very strong when it was carried out in large multi-faculty schools such as University College, which numbered such famous scientists as Sir Andrew Huxley in physiology, Sir James Black and Heinz Schild in pharmacology, J. Z. Young in anatomy. When those people were there, obviously the medical students benefited enormously from their presence. But most of the London medical schools had very small pre-clinical departments which

351
could not attract the research funds or the staff that they deserved. That is why pre-clinical teaching at Bart's and the Royal London has already been moved to Queen Mary College, and why the pre-clinical departments at Guy's and St. Thomas's hope to find a new site when they can merge with the pre-clinical departments of King's.
I shall say no more about that, except that the 12 London medical schools are falling in line with medical schools in the rest of the country, all of which are anchored to multi-faculty institutions. That is of course what the General Medical Council wants, and what the Higher Education Funding Council wants. I am very glad indeed to understand from the Labour Benches that we shall have some support for this Bill. I believe that the statement in another place that Bart's medical college will be destroyed is totally false. On the contrary, floreat et florebit. If the Government change their mind and preserve Bart's as a hospital with a full range of clinical departments, then of course clinical teaching will be continued there. If they do not, then it will not be continued. But that is a matter that is wholly distinct from this Bill.
There remains the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I must say that I understood the noble Lord's concern only too well. I have seen a number of dubious transactions in universities. I have seen chairs in accounting converted to the study of the more esoteric crevices of economics. I have seen bequests to teach drama used to fund lectureships in English literature. And who can forget the dismay of Lord Nuffield at seeing a college which he hoped would teach practical engineering and train industrialists converted into a temple for the social studies by that wily operator Lord Lindsay of Birker?
But surely in this case, can we credit for one second that the doctors and medical scientists of the college would meekly accept the malversation of their funds to endow the study of palaeontology? I very much appreciated the account by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, of the reasons why he was prompted to move his amendment, but also the reasons why he will in fact withdraw it. With great respect, although it is perfectly true that bogeys do exist, this bogey is a pumpkin, and fit only to frighten tiny tots. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage through Committee.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, the Bill was admirably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already made some of the points that I might otherwise have made, and made some other remarks, too, which perhaps I would not have made. It seems therefore unnecessary for me to say much more than that I warmly support the Bill. As the second of the Three Musketeers—who once carried shotguns, however—there are perhaps two points that I might briefly make by way of emphasis.
First, the sole purpose of the Bill is to unite, with their concurrence, three academic institutions of the University of London. Some years after the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was vice-chancellor, I had the honour to become vice-chancellor of London. I therefore declare
352
my interest. It is an interest arising from my profound respect and affection for those three institutions and from my concern for their future welfare within the university, and not from any formal connection that I have with any of them or with the university itself at the present time. I merely wish them well.
The Bill does not affect any of the hospitals with which those institutions are concerned. At the risk of a little overkill, perhaps I may say that the hospitals do not belong to the University of London; they belong to the National Health Service. Medical schools are separate entities from hospitals, legally distinct and with different paymasters. The merger proposed in this Bill would continue to be proposed by the institutions concerned even if the disposition of hospitals were different. Likewise, the future of the hospitals does not depend on whether or not this merger takes place. There has been great confusion on this matter, which is why I take the liberty of rubbing it in a little, even though it was already stated very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
For 30 years or more, the University of London and the Government have been advised that the great potential strength of London medicine will manifest itself again only if its multiplicity of medical schools are brought together into a few major centres, each containing in addition a multifaculty school to provide all the links with science, technology and the humanities which are indispensable to modern medicine. Each centre will then, in all but name, constitute a fully-fledged university in its own right. Each will have the potential to be first-rate in medicine as in other subjects. Contrary to popular belief, not all London medical schools are first-rate at the present time. There are plenty of statistics to establish that beyond any doubt.
I made a modest contribution myself some 15 years ago to the advice to which I referred, together with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who is to speak later, and a number of others, at the request of the university, which was fully aware of the impending decline of its medical prowess. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was good enough to recall that.
In more recent years there has been wide agreement that there should be just four such centres in London, associated with University College in the north; Imperial College in the west; King's College in the south; and Queen Mary and Westfield College in the east. Only in that way can the needs of teaching and research be catered for in modern circumstances, as well as the needs of patient care. So this Bill is to merge together the London hospital medical college, St. Batholomew's hospital medical college, and the multi-faculty Queen Mary and Westfield College. The names of all three institutions will be preserved in the merger, not only to emphasise their historic roles but also to continue in a larger context their distinct characteristics.
It has often been said that you can always tell a Bart's man, but you cannot tell him much. I expect that in the future that will be said of members of the three newly merged colleges as if they were all from Bail's. Good gracious me!

353
But there is another source of common misunderstanding, and this is my second point. It is often said that one should first of all provide equitably for patient care, and when that has been done find some way for the medical schools to fit in. After all, it is said, the patients should come first. There are other noble Lords who are much more able than I to explain the difficulties of trying to satisfy in that manner the teaching and research needs of medical schools, with their necessarily multifarious priorities and specialities, I shall only say, as someone who in the past has had to grapple with this problem, that every serious study has come to the conclusion that, at least in London—where for the size of its population there is an over-abundance, not of hospitals in general but of teaching hospitals and medical schools in particular—that is not the way to go about it. The major centres of teaching and research have to be settled first and the generality of patient care can then follow.
It is very much to the credit of this Government and especially Mrs. Virginia Bottomley when she was Secretary of State for Health that they have at last tried to tackle the problem of London medicine the right way round. It would have been so easy and politically so much more palatable to have put if off yet again in response to popular but uncomprehending pressure. I know that that remark was not strictly relevant to the passage of the Bill, but I thought that it was time that I stood up to be counted in the matter.
The Bill is not a government measure, but it sets in place one of the cornerstones of London medicine. It is going about it the right way round. I commend it to your Lordships.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, it would seem that any opposition to this Bill must rest upon misconception. Let me therefore begin by re-emphasising the sharp and essential distinction between the organisation of medical care and the organisation of medical training.
The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, reminded us, responds to the imperatives of demography together with the most efficient disposition of high skills and specialised equipment. The second is dictated by purely educational desiderata, and it is only with the second that the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill is concerned. To be specific, the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital has no bearing upon the future of St. Bartholomew's medical college, on which alone the Bill before us impinges.
That impingement is not new. It did not arise as the result of or in connection with the Department of Health's recent consideration of hospital deployment. It is not true, to quote a "Save Bart's" leaflet dated 14th July that crossed my desk this morning that:
"the proposal was in fact designed to facilitate the closure of St. Bartholomew's Hospital".
So far from this being in fact "a fact", the proposal was formulated on solely educational grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out and reminded us in his opening speech, by the Royal Commission on Medical Education under the chairmanship of Lord Todd.
354
The Todd Commission was thoroughly expert and authoritative, as befitted a body with so distinguished a chairman. It included men and women in the very forefront of medicine and medical education. There were Josephine Barnes, Peter Medawar, Robert Platt (who was subsequently ennobled); and there were heads of a couple of London medical schools, like Brian Windeyer and John Ellis.
The Royal Commission's report in 1968 (Cmnd 3569) took the view that changes in the training of doctors required more laboratory science and more interaction with disciplines beyond the purely clinical. The commission argued convincingly that, to achieve the critical scientific and professional mass as well as the desirable intellectual mix, a medical school not only needed to have an annual intake of at least 200 students but also needed to be an integral part of a multi-faculty institution, so that medical students were not isolated from chemists, physicists and engineers, nor yet from philosophers and historians.
Confronted by the situation in London, where there were no fewer than 12 medical schools fulfilling none of those conditions, and with several mustering an annual intake below 100, the Todd Commission recommended a radical programme of mergers. The one that concerns us today is firmly adumbrated in paragraph 438 of the 1968 report, which recommended combining the Bart's and the London medical colleges so as:
"to become in due course the medical faculty of Queen Mary College".
The report went on to note that that college had the rare feature among the University of London's institutions of having space in which "physical expansion is possible" together with just such an environment of "natural and behavioural sciences" as the Royal Commission sought for the enrichment of medical education.
That was 1968, and the academic thrust of the Todd Report was widely accepted as thoroughly sound. But if a week is a long time in politics, a decade is a very short time in academe, and when I became the University of London's vice-chancellor in 1981, in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I was confronted—as had been the Todd Commission 16 years earlier—by 12 medical schools, together with the need for collegiate rationalisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has reminded us, that went far beyond medicine.
Like the Todd commissioners, I was struck by the potential of Queen Mary College, and it was promptly identified as a growth area. The college's science and engineering were first expanded, and ultimately the humanities too, not least through the merger which brought, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reminded us, the additional strengths of Westfield College to the Mile End Road. In other words, at the present time, the enlarged and enriched Queen Mary and Westfield College is an incomparably superior body in which to combine the Bart's and London medical colleges than even the Todd Commission could have envisaged.
Many in your Lordships' House, both past and present, have striven to see the goals achieved that are set out in this Bill, among them Lord Todd, Lord Platt and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and of course those

355
who are here this afternoon, including the trio of London University's former vice-chancellors who are speaking today. The case for what was proposed was powerful enough 30 years ago; today it is overwhelming.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, after listening to the remarkably comprehensive and detailed opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and subsequently to three former vice-chancellors of the University of London, I begin to recognise with even greater strength than in the past the force of the comment made by one academic, who said how surprised he was that the vice-chancellor's room was so sparsely furnished with nothing but a throne and a prayer mat.
This is a Bill which I believe deserves the universal support of this House. The record in teaching and research of the London medical schools over the past half century at least has been one of outstanding achievement. There is no doubt that they can be proud of all that they have done for medical teaching and research. But, as other noble Lords have said this afternoon, the Todd Commission warned that the quality of London's medical education was threatened by having 12 medical schools, each with an independent teaching hospital but with no direct contact with a multi-faculty college and only a tenuous contact with the university.
Those 30 years have seen a revolution in medical education. There has been the development of new curricula with increasing integration between the pre-clinical and clinical subjects, with a massive development in knowledge of basic medical sciences, which in turn has had a tremendous impact upon clinical practice and patient care; there has also been a proper increase in the emphasis on the social and behavioural sciences and on an increasing degree of teaching in the community in collaboration with family doctors and others, and with individuals working in the other caring professions. That has led many medical schools to revise their curricula, not only under pressure from the education committee of the General Medical Council, but based on sound medical principles.
Speaking as someone who was, for 10 years, dean of a provincial medical school and for a time chairman of the education committee of the General Medical Council, it became apparent in the 1970s that some of the London medical schools were being slow to move with the times, not only in revising their curricula, but also in developing to the full the research expertise required by modern medicine and that that was, in some respects, largely a result of their isolation. That did not mean that centres of excellence in London did not exist; indeed they did, and some of them flourished, but that was by no means universal. It became increasingly clear that mergers of the type which the Bill provides were crucial to the future of London medicine.
An article published in The Times Higher Educational Supplement in May said,
"Institutional loyalties undoubtedly remain, but there is a new pragmatism, largely due to financial pressures"—
356
as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said—but partly due, and very properly so, to educational ones and to the needs of research which require a far greater concentration of expensive research facilities and equipment, but perhaps above all, a concentration of teams of individuals working in groups in larger institutions where they can bring their full research expertise to bear. As the article said,
"Free standing medical schools, facing demands for strategic plans from the Higher Education Funding Council, see value in being anchored to larger, more flexible institutions. Merger leads to critical mass: uniting strengths can create something bigger than the sum of the parts, particularly valuable when confronting the continuing pressure of the research assessment exercise".
This proposed merger, as set out in detail in the Bill, is not only timely but, as others have said, it is long overdue. These mergers will bring London into line with the rest of the country since only the capital, by historical accident, has provided in the past medical education through separate, free-standing institutions. Bringing medicine into multi-faculty colleges will help to implement the curriculum reforms even now being demanded by the current education committee of the General Medical Council, and it will also result in bringing together teams which will have the facility, the ability and all of the opportunities to carry forward the frontiers of medicine through research with the inevitable consequences of improvement in patient care.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I must open with a declaration of interest; it is, that somewhere in the interstices of the affairs of the House a Bill is coming forward from Guy's and St. Thomas's for a similar merger, so I am particularly anxious that this merger is not in any way impeded, so creating a bad field for those of us who come later.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that this marriage between St. Thomas's and Guy's was by no means a shotgun marriage; it was based on a subject about which we have been hearing this evening; namely, history. After all, Guy's was across the road from St. Thomas's when St. Thomas's was situated by London Bridge before that great woman, Florence Nightingale, moved it to the other side of the river opposite your Lordships' House.
As has been pointed out, this Bill is part of medical adaptations to changes in demography; changes in the distribution of medical skills outside London and throughout the country; and, in some ways, it is a reflection of the changes in what is expected of doctors and medicine today. We have heard how important it is that if young people are going to work in teams, they need a wide range of contacts with basic science, the social sciences, engineering, ethics, molecular biology and many other subjects. They are engendered by working, living, learning and researching in multi-faculty institutions, a point which was heavily emphasised by previous speakers.
The Bill reflects one of the four centres of medical education which is evolving in London. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Quirk for mentioning the name of Sir John Ellis. Those of us who were embroiled in the

357
affairs around the time of Lord Todd's commission, recognised him as being the mastermind behind the idea of bringing Bart's and the London hospital and Queen Mary's together.
I want to say also how important it is that before we leave this subject we send out strong messages of support to Bart's and the clinical people who work there. You cannot tell a Bart's man much, if anything; this I know. But it should not be forgotten that nothing geographic or demographic can take away the incredible past of that hospital. It is enshrined in William Harvey. So long as there is a college of physicians in London which embraces the spirit of William Harvey as an experimental observer; as a man who changed the attitude towards how the body and the heart worked, William Harvey's memory will be kept alive and Bart's will be revered all over the world, as it has been.
I say to my friends from Bart's, and I have many, that, whatever may come out of the maldistribution of hospital sites and the changes in the demography, "Do not worry. You will not be lost to history, whatever happens to the Smithfield site".
This is a digression and I hope your Lordships will forgive me, but I should also like to say that when I look back on my own medical education I am astonished how often I have been involved with colleges of education, medical schools and so forth which have had shifts of sites. A former dean of Bart's is in the Chamber watching us tonight. He did not enjoy the Radcliffe Infirmary. I went through Oxford before him. The Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford that I knew has been translated to the new Radcliffe. I am now living in Cambridge. The clinical school with which I was associated started there and was set up in a new hospital. St. Thomas's itself changed sites.
A decade is a short time for academic affairs; a century is not too quick for social change; but we may see dramatic changes in Docklands. I cannot believe that we shall not see something develop in Docklands, rather like what has been developing in Thamesmead. The awkward part about this is that people from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge will want to go to Bart's to row in the Olympic stretch that is to be set up within the twinkling of an eye in Docklands.
I cogitated a little while, but I want to end on another figment of my imagination. I have mentioned some places that had two centres but I am suddenly reminded that in that great city of New York the New York hospital has had three centres. I went to the trouble to check the dates in order to encourage people from Bart's to realise that, even when in the next century they get to developing things in Docklands and East London, there is still a chance that they can go further afield out into Essex, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows well, there are many opportunities. The New York hospital started by Trinity Church down by Wall Street. It was opened first in 1791—that is long ago in America but a very short time for us. It moved into mid-Manhattan—16th Street and 5th Avenue—in 1877 and finally to its East River site, where it is the Cornell Medical Centre now, in 1932. The important point is that 1932 was so soon after a terrible depression in
358
America that they saw the importance of putting medical buildings at the head of the priorities for new developments.
I have said those things because I do not want people at Bart's to feel that we are not anxious to maintain and follow their incredible reputation in this field of endeavour. In that spirit I support the Bill.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I am going to take a rather different line from earlier speakers. Perhaps that is because I do not have the enlightened advantage of being a former vice-chancellor of London University, although my research in microbiology at Oxford was supervised by a Nobel Prize winner.
By way of introduction perhaps I may say that it seems to me that this Private Bill has been propelled through Parliament with surprising and perhaps suspicious haste. The more debate we have, the more Members are involved, the longer it will take. Yet, in another place the Bill had to be blocked to secure debate and was whipped by the government party, although the Opposition had a free vote. The final fact that leads me to suspect the promoters' motives is the Short Title of the Bill. It is a travesty of what it should be, perhaps, as I mentioned in starting, to curtail involvement and debate and therefore hasten its passage by the obscurity of its title. Surely the Short Title of the Bill should be "The St. Batholomew's Royal London and Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill". I believe that the Short Title of a Bill should be as informative as possible as to the contents of the Bill. I do not believe that that applies to the Short Title of this Bill.
This place buzzes like a hive of bees at the mention of Bart's; so does another place. So I wonder why Bart's and the Royal London's names were omitted. I fear I can only suspect the ulterior motives I mentioned. The last Question put at Committee stage is "That this be the Title of the Bill". In 20 years in your Lordships' House I have never heard anyone shout "Not-Content", but I am sorely tempted; or perhaps to seek an amendment at some stage.
The nub of this Bill is to formalise into one institution, with its own warden, principal, dean and one common legal, financial and administrative procedure, these three bodies which function very well together at present as the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. As with criminal injury compensation, which your Lordships have just been debating, I believe the best policy is to consider the situation of the victim before the event—in this case the merger—with the situation afterwards, and to try and make an informed judgment about the merits of proceeding to full merger into one institution.
The medical college at St. Bartholomew's has existed almost since Rahere's foundation in 1123. After a short while there were apprentices who worked with the doctors, and they, in effect, were the first medical students. Today Bart's medical school is the greatest centre of excellence in medical training in London. In examination pass rates, starting with 1989, it has come

359
respectively—out of the nine London medical colleges—second, first, third, first, first and third, and in distinctions second, first, first, first, third and first. The latest results, for 1994, rank it in first place in distinctions yet again.
Although technically a Private Bill, this Bill is effectively now a government Bill since they whipped it in another place, a government whose great Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke based his theories of excellence on the virtues of custom, tradition, stability, renewal and excellence. In nearly 900 years of continuous operation the medical students of Bart's hospital have followed that tradition, as well as the great hospital itself, of course. In other words, if things are working very well indeed, leave them alone.
The confederation I mentioned earlier is working excellently, Bart's students being based in first class and integrated teaching surroundings—that is, the hospital. It is being asked in this Bill to become part of an institutional whole which will involve a three-site operation with all the unknowns that that entails and formal unity with Queen Mary and Westfield College, which is hardly medical, and the Royal London, which has, comparatively, little teaching facility. Thus, we move from proof of the excellent to the unknown, not a particularly good recipe. And why with such urgency? The combined institution is supposed to start operating this 1st August, hardly a feasibility in view of the recess of Parliament until mid-October and the need for subsequent stages of the Bill here. But, overall, why take the risks inevitably involved?
I have left two factors unspoken for. First, the future of the great hospital with which Bart's medical school is integrated and, secondly, why Bart's has put its name to this Bill. First then, the future of Bares hospital. Continuation seems more likely than for some time. I mention this only in the sense that the medical college is obviously integrated with the hospital; not that one affects the other, as has been said already. I have heard it from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to the direct question, that he will not allow St. Bartholomew's hospital to close, and will probably restore the accident and emergency department. I sit on the non-political Cross-Benches, but those who specialise in omens and signs tell me that, in racing terms, the return of a Labour Government in the next two years is extremely likely. I suppose this Government cannot be expected to make allowances for what a possible Opposition turned Government would do, but regardless of that we have a new Secretary of State in this Government in the place of the discredited Mrs. Bottomley—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. If that is out of order, I take it back. My apologies to the House. Though a final formal notice of closure of Bart's was given three weeks ago, in the face of 1 million signatures against and 34 letters from
360
professors of Harvard University alone, et cetera, these things can always subsequently be fudged. Better the devil you know than the one you do not, and the medical college's umbilical link while it lasts, and maybe sine die, is surely better than, a merger into the unknown.
Secondly, why has Bart's put its name to the Bill? I believe there must be an element of outside force majeure in this. After all, the medical students of Ban's had, via Marcus Beadle, expressed their true feelings by putting in one of the three Petitions against the Bill in another place—we have two here in this House—but it was then mysteriously withdrawn. It is the overriding view of senior clinicians at Bart's that pressure of some sort was put on, and this pressure perhaps influenced them, too, to put their names to the Bill. It is extremely odd that the Bill should be formally endorsed by those whose current verbal utterings seem to be somewhat to the opposite and also that a petition should be withdrawn. One of the two present Petitions to your Lordships' House is in the name of the Doctors Save Bart's Society which, and I quote from the Petition,
"represents the doctors who trained at Bart's, including some current members of staff at Bart's totally dedicated to keeping separate and maintaining St. Bartholomew's Hospital and Medical College and associated interests and properties as they previously were before the recent changes".
They state in paragraph 8 of their Petition, and again I quote:
"It was very distressing for the Dean to learn that all grants would be withdrawn from the college if the Dean did not comply with the merger in this Bill. As it was already part of London University this does appear to be very irregular".
All I can say is that that is what they have said in the Petition. Paragraph 10 of the Petition states:
"The students are terribly demoralised about the whole closing down of the medical college but they are called to see the bureaucrats at the London Trust if they dare to enter a petition to stop it, as indeed they were at the Second Reading in the Commons, when their petitioner was 'persuaded' to withdraw, having most enthusiastically submitted it.
We believe that they were told that they will be marked men and their future careers affected."
That is all from the Petition.
The mover of this Bill this evening did mention that it had the full support of the governors of the medical college concerned. The other petition is from John Currie, who is a governor of St. Bartholomew's medical college and a consulting surgeon at the associated hospital. From 1977 to 1983 he was sub-dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college. Among his objections are that the funding for the new combined clinical school, which will be needed if this Bill is passed, has not been guaranteed. He states that,
"the merger proposed in this Bill has been brought about not by agreement but by force majeure".
Again, I am only quoting what he says. His final objection is that,
"Statements made and actions carried out by those associated with Queen Mary and Westfield College while this bill was passing through the House of Commons and provisional appointments made in anticipation of the bill becoming law, give rise to serious concern as to the ability of the merged colleges to cope lawfully, properly and effectively and in the best interests of medicine".

361
This to me is a pretty damning indictment of the management already in place before the Bill is passed and their ability to do their jobs in the view of a governor of Bart's medical college.
Finally, professor Lesley Rees, for some years dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college and whom I have met, wrote a couple of years ago, and perhaps before coercion was brought to bear, as follows:
"As far as the medical college is concerned the Tomlinson Report recommends a merger with the London Hospital Medical College and the Queen Mary and Westfield College. I believe that the City and East London Confederation for Medicine and Dentistry (CELC) provides the optimum link between the two medical colleges and Queen Mary and Westfield College. The Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences at QMW has largely met the claims for medicine being placed within a multi-faculty college of the university. Cementing further the CELC arrangement will provide no added advantage that I can see in a medical faculty structure for teaching and research. Indeed, with activities on at least three major sites such a faculty structure would be unlikely to create economies of scale".
What more is there to say? I cannot support the Bill.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for putting my name down after the list of speakers had been published. I did so at the request of an old colleague and friend in another place whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will remember well. I refer to Ronald Brown, the one-time Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, who has been associated with St. Bartholomew's for a very long time.
I shall not oppose the merger in any way, although I have a personal interest in mergers connected with Bart's because a number of years ago, while I was the pro-chancellor of City University, we had an ambitious plan to merge the City University—which is not part of the University of London—with St. Bart's medical school; the Guildhall School and also with what was then the City of London Polytechnic. Let me say that that ambitious plan fell and I have no intention of reviving those imperial thoughts this evening.
I am not opposed to the merger as such. I support the Bill. But I have worries about Clause 7. There are legitimate fears about that clause, which were outlined earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I have no need to repeat them in any great detail. I shall briefly remind your Lordships, before we finish the debate, of some of those fears.
The fear is that, as a result of the revision of Clause 7, any of the assets held after the amalgamation could be applied towards the promotion and advancement of education at the amalgamated body, which will clearly not be confined to medicine and surgery. While that will include the medical college, it would allow funds to be spent by the trustees outside their present objects.
This is a serious matter. I believe that the Bill should be amended in order to ensure that the original purposes of the trust are not frustrated, thereby avoiding the risk that the assets of the trust be applied for general educational purposes rather than those for which they were originally intended.
362
We have had the advantage of hearing from several vice-chancellors or former vice-chancellors of London University. When I was young I looked on such eminent academics with awe and took their word as gospel. Now that I am no longer young, I still look on them with awe.
Noble Lords: Really!
Lord Howie of Troon: But I no longer take their word as gospel, my Lords. That is the one thing I have learnt in a long life of believing what I am told. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, told us that these fears were groundless. If I understood him correctly, he thought that the merged colleges would not behave in the way which is feared. Unfortunately, he also listed a number of occasions on which universities have behaved in exactly that way. There is no reason to believe that universities, having behaved in that way in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, would not behave in that way in future. Perhaps these fears are not quite so groundless as he made out.
I have been reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke about an agreement which had been reached. The point about agreements reached between people is that at a later date those agreements can be "unreached", if that is a word, by other people. I am not quite sure of the power and strength of the agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. I would like to see the terms of that agreement in the Bill where they would be ring-fenced, as it were, and would not be capable of being changed.
In conclusion, my noble friend Lord Peston must have been pleased to hear the kind words said about Queen Mary College. It is not often that he hears these things. He will have enjoyed that. I conclude by saying that the Bill should go ahead with the reservations I have made.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this Bill in a clear and cogent fashion. Perhaps I may also say that although I speak from this Bench, I hope that the Minister will agree that there are no political implications. I hope that she will also agree that this is certainly not a Government Bill.
In speaking briefly on this Bill, I must declare several interests. I was born in the East End of London and lived a fair part of my life there. I and my friends went to east and north-east London grammar schools, and learned about classical music and foreign films by going to the People's Palace, which is now part of Queen Mary and Westfield College. I myself founded the economics department at what was then Queen Mary College. I have been an economics professor there for three decades. I regret to say that in my years of decline I am now an Emeritus Professor of the university.
I took the territorial bit of my title from the Mile End Road, which I used to hang about in as a boy. My family has spent more time at Bart's, Homerton and Hackney hospitals and the London hospitals than any of us would care to think about. I cannot emphasise too much the pleasure that I get to discover—to some extent I am echoing what my noble friend Lord Howie said—suddenly how many other people have developed an

363
interest in health and education in this part of our great city. I thought that no one cared about us, but I now know, especially from debates in the other place, that we are uppermost in people's minds.
Of course, it is true that both Queen Mary and Westfield Colleges, from small, but high quality beginnings, now comprise a major force in higher education in our country. I have no doubt that the medical school will itself achieve the highest standards, certainly no less and a good deal more than what went before.
This debate is about the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill. Such a Bill would normally go through your Lordships' House with the minimum of fuss and almost as a matter of form. I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that I did not know about the Bill on Guy's and St. Thomas's which is to come before your Lordships' House. However, I can assure the noble Lord—I am absolutely certain of this—that so many of us have been patients at those hospitals that any Bill coming from that source will certainly go through on the nod. The noble Lord has no need to worry about that. Indeed, I have discovered that nothing is more bonding in your Lordships' House than to mention an operation that one has had in either of those hospitals.
I said that this ought to be a formal matter, but that is not the case now. For my part, although I have strong views on the effects of aspects of hospital reorganisation in London, I must echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and others, that this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. Whatever the traditions of the other place, on which I should not dream of commenting, it would be a misuse of your Lordships' procedures to debate all that under this rubric, and I have no intention of doing so.
I must, however, comment on the Petitions that I have received and to which the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, referred. I am surprised that any noble Lord would wish to be associated with them. It is hard to discern any locus standii for the petitioners, but that is probably of minor interest. I am more disturbed by the content of the Petitions, which are misleading—in fact, they are wrong—and, to put it as mildly as I can, they are damaging to the point of being defamatory—so much so that I forbear from quoting them since it would be inappropriate for them to appear in Hansard.
I note the support that has been given to the Bill by so many academic heavyweights and I am gratified by that. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that I will not indulge in my usual antic of making life miserable for vice-chancellors. I have taken great pleasure in that in the past, as the noble Lord well knows.
In addition to those heavyweights, I sought the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who has been my mentor on many aspects of higher education, but is unable to be with us today. However, he has written to me and said that I may quote from his letter, which I shall do. The noble Lord writes:
"I must say that I am horrified to learn that there are those who seek to oppose this Bill, for in so doing they are going against the grain of opinion of all those who have given serious thought to the most advantageous way of dealing with education and research in
364
medicine … When I became Chairman of the UGC in 1973 I faced a proposal to expand intake in UK medical schools from 2400 to about 4100 per annum. Nothing concentrates the mind more! It gave the impetus to a reconstruction of medical education and research in London and, of course, we concluded where common sense and theory converge that the earlier Royal Commission was right and that London's free standing hospital medical schools must be integrated with large multi-faculty university-status colleges of the University of London which had the requisite strength in science. As far as East London was concerned the solution was obvious, namely, to bring the Royal London and Barts HMCs together with QMC".
He concluded:
"So, in the light of those experiences I think I can claim sufficient knowledge of both principle and practical detail to express a valid opinion on the merits or otherwise of this Bill. In my view to reject the Bill would be a wholly retrograde step whilst passage of the Bill will pose no threat to either of the two hospitals and I have not the slightest doubt that old and valued traditions which contribute to the well-being of the new school will, if for that reason alone, be preserved".
In addition to what we have already heard, that seems an overwhelming argument. Indeed, it should really be the end of the matter, but I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, having most properly raised the question of the hospital trust, has now been reassured that the dangers that he feared have now been dealt with and will not move his Instruction. I am slightly surprised that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon has not yet been so reassured but I hope that he will be, because it seems to me that the commitment that has been made is absolutely binding and there should be no problem with it.
I am sorry to say that I am advised that there is nothing that we can do about the Petitions. They are laid and a committee will therefore need to consider them for their locus which, as I said, I think is rather doubtful, and for content which, as I also said, is even more doubtful. However, we have to go through that stage. Subject to that, I hope that we can support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and others, that we must proceed correctly and rapidly to bring the matter to an end so that this excellent new development can take place.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government welcome the case that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has made for the merger of the medical college of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the London hospital medical college with the Queen Mary and Westfield College.
The move presents welcome opportunities to develop a continuing partnership between medical education, research and clinical services in East London. As my noble friend said, the Bill has the support of all the institutions concerned. The principles supporting the case for merger of the schools stand on their own merits. Those merits have been ably explained by the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Flowers and Lord Quirk. As has been pointed out, each of those noble Lords has been a distinguished vice-chancellor of London University. Indeed, we should not forget that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has twice been a vice-chancellor

365
of the university. I have been trying to think of the collective noun for vice-chancellors and have come up with a "virtue" of vice-chancellors.
The Bill is one of a number introduced over the past 20 years to unite medical schools within multi-faculty colleges of the University of London. It will strengthen the institutions concerned and develop important links with other departments such as life sciences. As medical practice changes, it is essential that the doctors of tomorrow are able to participate fully in the huge and fast-moving developments not only in biological sciences, but increasingly in biotechnology, engineering and the social and behavioural sciences to name but a few of the sources of knowledge which are so essential to the sophisticated medicine that is necessary for the 21st century.
The Bill will ensure that the tradition of excellence in medical teaching and research in that part of London will continue from a strong academic base. The forging of stronger links with the medical schools and the University of London will provide a fertile environment for new ideas and developments in medical teaching and research. It will ensure that London's healthcare is able to stay at the forefront of clinical practice.
The Government have made clear their strategy for ensuring that London retains its well deserved reputation, both nationally and internationally, for outstanding education, teaching and research. The Bill will help to contribute to maintaining London's leading position in those fields as well as securing a medical and dental school of great distinction in east London to match those which are being established in other parts of the capital.
I congratulate my noble friend on the case for merger which he has placed before the House today. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a Private Bill and that I have been scrupulous in my conduct in respect of the status of the Bill.
Your Lordships rightly have the fullest confidence in the Select Committee which is appointed to consider Private Bills. Several matters, some controversial, have been raised today, but I have no doubt that they will all receive the most detailed consideration by the Select Committee. That would have included the Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, if the House had agreed it and if the noble Lord had chosen to move it.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to refrain from emphasising the importance of the Bill to the rationalisation of medical education in London. The resulting merger will build on the existing strengths and traditions of the three great colleges to create a school of national and international distinction in medical and dental teaching and research, an institution of which we can be justly proud. I therefore trust that your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the overwhelming majority who supported the Question, That the Bill be read a second time. I must
366
say that I have not enjoyed a debate so much for a long time. We heard some splendid contributions from what I would describe as a glittering galaxy of academic distinction. I enjoyed my noble friend's description of a virtue of vice-chancellors and I hope that my description is not considered as over-egging the pudding. As a humble politician and former Secretary of State, it was a matter of enormous pleasure to be supported by such distinguished university figures. My noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, who unfortunately was not able to stay to take part in the debate, assured me that the Bill had her support.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us of that remarkable character the first Lord Lindsay of Birker. During a spectacular 1938 by-election in Oxford, at which he was the Labour candidate, I performed my first political act by going up to the blackboard in the upper sixth at the Dragon school and saying, "Vote for Hogg".
The House much appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in particular the tribute that he paid to the person whom I regard as perhaps the most courageous Secretary of State for Health we have seen for many years. I refer to my right honourable friend Virginia Bottomley. She took an enormous amount of flak, much of it thoroughly ill-intentioned and grossly ill-informed and she stuck to her guns. I believe that the noble Lord's comment, in coming from him, was well received.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, suggested that the great centres of medical excellence and teaching would move further east. I spent a day last week chairing an appointments advisory committee at Whipps Cross Hospital. I am chairman of the trust and that was the latest of many committees that I have chaired. The fact that we must question every candidate on his or her ability as a teacher, and that we must have representatives of the university sitting on the committee to assess the ability of every applicant for a consultant post as teacher, means that as the patients come east so education is bound to follow. I have no doubt that hospitals in Essex and east London will benefit greatly from that. I greatly value the support that we have received.
The House will not welcome a long speech in winding up the debate. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for agreeing not to move his Motion. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, I wish to make only one point to put it firmly on the record. The Government do not whip on Private Bills. It is most important to have that principle restated because it was the case in another place. The Government did not whip on this Bill.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As he said, what is needed is that the Bill should proceed with all dispatch through its remaining stages with a view to achieving Royal Assent in the overspill period in October or early November. The three colleges had hoped that it would become law before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess. However, as a result of protracted proceedings in another place that is impossible. I believe that this House owes it to the many thousands of people in the academic community who will make up this great new college to do their best to

367
end the uncertainties as swiftly as possible. We can begin by giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading tonight. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes to enable the documents for Royal Assent to be prepared.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.39 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Appropriation Act,

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act,

Merchant Shipping Act,

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Act,

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act,

Crown Agents Act,

368

Environment Act,

Pensions Act,

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act,

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act,

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Act,

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act,

National Health Service (Amendment) Act,

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act,

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act,

Child Support Act,

Criminal Appeal Act,

Children (Scotland) Act,

Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Act,

Sheffield Assay Office Act,

Birmingham Assay Office Act,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendment agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Natural Resources Institute: Performance Targets
  Natural Resources Institute: Performance Targets
  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Sheep Dipping: Protective Clothing
  Sheep Dipping: Protective Clothing
  Rent Guarantees for Homeless People
  Rent Guarantees for Homeless People
  Private Bills
  Private Bills
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment: Responsibilities
  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment: Responsibilities
  Defamation Law
  Defamation Law
  Judges' Lodgings: Review
  Judges' Lodgings: Review
  Privatised Utility Regulators: Parliamentary Scrutiny
  Privatised Utility Regulators: Parliamentary Scrutiny
  Potatoes: Units of Weight
  Potatoes: Units of Weight
  Road Pricing
  Road Pricing
  Social Fund 1994–95 Costs
  Social Fund 1994–95 Costs
  Social Fund: 1989–94 Costs
  Social Fund: 1989–94 Costs
  Social Security Fraud
  Social Security Fraud
  Information Technology Services Agency
  Information Technology Services Agency
  Listed Buildings and VAT
  Listed Buildings and VAT
  Greenwich Park
  Greenwich Park
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Prisoners: Statistics
  Prisoners: Statistics
  Prisoners Serving Mandatory Life Sentences
  Prisoners Serving Mandatory Life Sentences
  Defence of Self-Preservation: Proposal
  Defence of Self-Preservation: Proposal
  Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence
  Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence
  Wales: Boundary Commission Reviews of European Constituencies
  Wales: Boundary Commission Reviews of European Constituencies
  Voluntary Bodies: Government Funding
  Voluntary Bodies: Government Funding
  Homicide: Year and a Day Rule
  Homicide: Year and a Day Rule
  Prisoners Transferred to Northern Ireland: Jurisdiction
  Prisoners Transferred to Northern Ireland: Jurisdiction
  Prisoners Self-inflicted Deaths
  Prisoners Self-inflicted Deaths
  Unconvicted and Unsentenced Prisoners: Reception and Outcome
  Unconvicted and Unsentenced Prisoners: Reception and Outcome