Sitting of 6 June 1995

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

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces' deployments in Bosnia. [25091]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The reinforcement of the British contingent in Bosnia is continuing with the deployment of some 1,000 additional personnel, including two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron. In addition, we have offered 24 Airmobile Brigade to the United Nations as part of the rapid reaction force.
    Mr. Arnold: As the force leaves for Bosnia it takes with it from the House not only our concern but our pride in its professionalism. Does not its dispatch speak louder than words in sending the message that the United Nations will not give way to blackmail? And is not it significant that yet again Britain is giving the lead?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entitled to make those remarks. The Bosnian Serb leadership would do well to reflect on the fact that the taking of hostages has not only
    2
    resulted in international contempt but has had the direct consequence of the dispatch of what in due course will be two additional brigades to protect the United Nations force. That justifies my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State have the guts to admit that sending that force is all about ensuring that it brings back the thousands of other troops who are already there? The tactic is withdrawal. The Government want to sound macho, but the truth is that they will pull the soldiers out.
    Mr. Rifkind: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is our belief —and, I think, a view shared on both sides of the House —that the United Nations force continues to do important and valuable work in Bosnia. It is highly desirable that it should continue that, and the purpose of sending the additional forces is to provide those troops with the protection necessary to achieve that objective.
    Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sending even more forces will not necessarily improve the situation or the protection of our troops already in Bosnia, unless we alter the rules of engagement? Does he know whether the United Nations will change the instructions that it gives to the forces in Bosnia under its control, so that our troops can more effectively defend themselves against actions such as those that the Serbs have taken in recent weeks?
    Mr. Rifkind: For obvious operational reasons it has never been our practice to comment on the detail of the rules of engagement. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that of course we are determined to ensure that our forces have available to them whatever will be required to maximise their protection. If ever that were believed to require a change in the rules of engagement we would not hesitate to agree to one on that basis.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the difficulties experienced in the past with the dual key, especially in connection with NATO air strikes, may I ask the Secretary of State about the command and control of the additional

    3
    forces to be sent? Whose authority does General Rupert Smith have if he wishes to deploy the additional forces, and according to what criteria will he do so? In particular, whose authority would he require if he wished to raise the siege of Sarajevo?
    Mr. Rifkind: The additional forces being sent to Bosnia, both British forces and those from other countries, will come under the authority of the United Nations and therefore under both General Smith and General Janvier, as the two UN force commanders in the field. The use of those forces is a matter for the discretion of the UN commanders, but it must be consistent with the terms of the mandate laid down by the Security Council.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be widespread support for his robust statements this afternoon, especially in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? What is the latest position regarding the hostages, and has Mr. Karadzic been told that we remain absolutely resolute in our demand that they be released?
    Mr. Rifkind: The House will be aware that a significant number of hostages were released a couple of days ago. Strong indications have emerged this morning that there may be a further release of hostages during the afternoon, but we must wait and see. The United Kingdom Government will not relax their pressure by one iota until every single UN hostage has been released safe and in good health.
    Dr. David Clark: The whole House was relieved to hear that some hostages had been released, and we are hopeful that we will get some good news later today. We share the Government's view, and we will not satisfied until every single hostage has been released without any conditions whatsoever. While I am not asking the Secretary of State for precise details, will he explain his strategic view to ensure that British troops are not put in a position in the future in which they can be taken hostage?
    Mr. Rifkind: We indicated in an announcement a week or so ago that we believed that there was a powerful case for a concentration of the UN presence in Bosnia. That is particularly important with regard to the exposed position of UN military observers, and it also has implications for the difficult task faced by those soldiers —not British —who are involved in the weapons control centres. It is also relevant to the future of the enclaves and to the possibility of supplying the UN forces in the enclaves with the fuel and food which are crucial to their continuing presence and their ability to carry out the role for which they were sent.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the robust stand made by the Government and by the Prime Minister on Bosnia deserves the admiration and support of the whole country? Is he aware that they are certainly enjoying that support in my constituency in Lincolnshire? Will he again state unequivocally that, whatever happens in this or any other context, the Government will never give in to threats or blackmail?
    Mr. Rifkind: The public expect, and are entitled to expect, that no British Government would respond to a hostage situation by making concessions to those responsible for the taking of hostages. We have shown in the past that that is a fundamental British view which remains in the present circumstances.

    Local Authority Discussions
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities in the last year about changes to the size of the defence industry. [25094]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): We seek to involve local authorities in early notification of any change to defence requirements for land and buildings and seek their help in finding alternative use when no longer required.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that local authorities are the key to planning economic activities at some disused military bases? Will he address his mind to the possibility of linking local authorities with plans to utilise currently vacant Ministry of Defence houses and other accommodation to help provide that accommodation for communal civic use? Do not some of the examples from the United States provide models for the MOD to follow?
    Mr. Freeman: I am not sure about the experiences in the United States, which have been mixed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence should seek to co-operate with local authorities, trade unions and other Government Departments through the regional offices to make sure that there is prompt action to find alternative uses for land and buildings which are no longer needed. We need to reduce the stock of empty married quarters, and we will work with local authorities to achieve that.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is eager anticipation within the Plymouth travel-to-work area that an early decision will be made about the release of land currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Manadon, and that the beneficiary will be the University of Plymouth?
    Mr. Freeman: I cannot confirm who the beneficiary will be, but I agree with my hon. Friend that further or higher education use for the site would make a great deal of sense and would be welcomed in Plymouth.

    Procurement Fraud
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the amount of procurement fraud committed against his Department in the last five years; and what steps he has taken to limit this. [25095]
    Mr. Freeman: In the last five years identified procurement fraud was approximately £1.8 million, most of which relates to the Foxley case. The recent report by the National Audit Office recorded that my Department had made good progress in its efforts to reduce the risk of fraud in defence procurement by measures such as more and better training of staff.
    Mr. McAvoy: Bearing in mind the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office, can the Minister confirm that all the corrupt funds in the Gordon Foxley case have been identified? Despite his assurances about the response of the Department, is he entirely sure that the MOD is assiduously learning the lessons of the Gordon Foxley case to prevent a repeat of the financial waste, the damage to employment and the long-term damage to Britain's defence industry which have been the results of that case?
    Mr. Freeman: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that we have traced all the funds, partly because of the nature

    5
    of banking laws and regulations in Switzerland. Our present estimate is £1.5 million but the sums may be much more —possibly as much as twice that amount. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures, as it is far too early.
    On the lessons learnt, the Department is continually improving its methods of training staff. Although £1.8 million is a significant sum over five years, it is a small fraction of the £40 billion which the Department would have spent on procurement in the past five years. Compared with industrial and commercial companies in the private sector, the Defence Ministry's record is good. It must continue to improve, but we have set in train steps to improve the quality of the training of staff to identify fraud.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it sticks in the gullet of most taxpayers that, having short-changed us as an employee, Mr. Gordon Foxley then proceeded to get £160,000 in legal aid? Is not something wrong somewhere?
    Mr. Freeman: That is not a matter for me, but the sentiments of many in the House would probably be the same as those of my hon. Friend.
    Dr. David Clark: How does the Minister justify rewarding companies that have perpetrated fraud? How does he justify awarding the M107 shell contract to Simmel, a company that was involved in the Foxley-Taylor fraud scandal and which is co-owned with Borletti, which was a major player in that fraud? Does the Minister understand the anger among British workers who have lost their jobs because foreign firms have fraudulently bribed MOD officials and, as a result, are now out of work while those same companies are being given contracts?
    Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence and the Procurement Executive in particular are extremely annoyed at the actions of the three European companies and we have taken action against them: first, to recover the moneys paid in bribes; and, secondly, to suspend procurement decisions with those three companies for a time. But because the management involved in the Foxley case has now left the companies, it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to ban dealings with those companies for ever.

    Ex-service Women
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service women are affected by the recent industrial tribunal decision on voluntary redundancy. [25096]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): In all, 54 women who were made redundant under the third tranche of the Army redundancy scheme received special capital payments which were lower than those of their male counterparts.
    Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for that answer. I was pleased to see, in recent answers to parliamentary questions tabled by me, the Ministry's commitment to equal opportunities. Will the Minister explain why his Department seems to be so terrible at carrying them out? Why must we see the Ministry being dragged before the courts time and again over the dismissal of women who
    6
    have become pregnant, for example, and in cases such as this? When will the Ministry undertake a proper review and ensure that discrimination against women is wiped out from its administration so that we can be proud of an equal opportunities policy rather than regard it as just a sop?
    Mr. Soames: As usual from the Opposition, the hon. Lady presents a travesty of the position in the armed forces, which is a shining example of equal opportunity. There is not a branch of the services in which women do not undertake the most significant, responsible and valuable role. Where discrimination exists, it will be dealt with. In this case, we believed that what we were doing was fair and not discriminatory. The court has ruled against us and we are moving to put the matter right. But the picture portrayed by the hon. Lady is a travesty which will cause great offence to all those women who serve so honourably and well, and with such distinction, in our armed forces.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on ensuring that women have full opportunity for fruitful careers in the armed forces, has not subordination of British law to European by Her Majesty's Government's application to the armed forces of the European Union equal opportunities directive cost the British taxpayer £50 million in compensation for ex-service women, who have been dismissed on the ground of pregnancy? Will he ensure that that precedent is not followed in the case of homosexuals in the armed forces?
    Mr. Soames: For a start, I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend's prejudices. Plainly, we are a proper equal opportunities employer —not in the politically correct sense —because we value the services that those people have to offer in the same way as we value all the members of the armed forces. We will respect, continue to respect and always have respected the judgments of the laws of the land.
    Mr. Martlew: Perhaps the Minister can help me about discrimination against women in the armed forces. Will he examine the policy that dictates that women serving overseas are always posted back to the United Kingdom on their return to service from maternity leave? Often that policy has the effect of splitting the family, because the husband is normally on an overseas posting. The Minister professes to be in favour of equal opportunities, so when will he stop presiding over policies that blatantly disregard and discriminate against women?
    Mr. Soames: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman has a confusion about priorities in defence. He should understand that the services take their responsibility extremely seriously. If there is a problem, I shall have it investigated, but let us not try to pretend that the hon. Gentleman raises such cases for any other reason than to curry favour. It is absolutely idiotic stuff. To try to portray the services as not being in favour of equal opportunities across the board is fatuous nonsense.
    Mr. Robathan: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country demand that the

    7
    armed forces are capable of defending the country and that they are not interested in all the politically correct claptrap we hear from the Opposition?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, who has considerable and high quality experience as a soldier, speaks the truth and all those sensible ordinary people in the country know it to be the truth. They value our armed services for what they are —not as a political puppet, as the Labour party tries to use them.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I understand that an equal opportunities programme operates within the armed services, does the Minister accept that some form of discrimination exists when soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment are involuntarily discharged? Some of them should be discharged because they are suffering from medical conditions. The failure to do that means that the future livelihoods of those soldiers are being endangered because they have no medical discharge from the Army.
    Mr. Soames: I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but if he cares to let me have the details, I shall have them investigated at once.

    Defence Costs Study
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the efficiency gains arising from the defence costs study process in his Department. (25097]
    Mr. Rifkind: The defence costs study was a great success. We now estimate that the measures arising from or related to the DCS will result in annual savings in excess of £1 billion by the end of the decade.
    Mr. Milburn: How can the Minister claim success in reducing inefficiency when his Department continues to waste public money hand over fist; for example, £2 billion overspent on the Eurofighter project; £800 million overspent on the Trident works programme and £7 billion wasted in total in the past two years? Is it not a national scandal that financial incompetence and mismanagement continue to be the order of the day in his Department when defence jobs and defence budgets are being cut?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the Labour party wants to conduct a campaign on the basis of waste in the Ministry of Defence, it really should do its homework a little better than it has.
    In the recent document published by the hon. Gentleman's friends, they claimed as a supreme example of Ministry of Defence waste the fact that the costs of the Challenger tank programme had increased by £920 million. They appeared to be unaware that the £920 million was the cost of the extra 259 Challenger 2 tanks that we announced some months ago, which were warmly welcomed by the Army.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the savings that have been achieved are substantial, and that any large organisation —which is what the Ministry of Defence is —can always make savings and improve efficiency? However, would it be right to say that much of the saving has been achieved because of the reductions, and that if we are considering, as we may well in future, enlarging, for example, the
    8
    volunteer reserves and the cadet force, it may be wise not to reduce their structures and command situations until the decisions on expansion, if any, are taken?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have borne those considerations very much in mind in the decisions that we have announced with regard to the Territorial Army, the other reserve forces and the cadet forces, which are being maintained at their present levels. I can also tell my hon. Friend that what was unique about the "Front Line First" study was that we excluded, from the beginning of that consideration, any proposals the effect of which might be to reduce the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.

    Devonport Dockyard
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms and conditions of the employees of Devonport dockyard will remain the same after the privatisation of Her Majesty's royal dockyards. [25100]
    Mr. Freeman: That is a matter for Devonport Royal Dockyard plc, its employees and their representatives.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister recall his Department's repeated assurances to the employees of Devonport dockyard, in answers to Members of Parliament and in a written answer to me on 23 May 1995, that terms and conditions would not be changed without the prior consent of the work force? Does he not understand the anxiety and sense of betrayal of the work force —people who have served the country loyally and long —now that they have heard that, contrary to the documents of the invitation for tender, the terms and conditions can now be changed?
    Will the Minister give the House and the workers of the dockyards a categorical guarantee that their rights to pensions and redundancy payments will be guaranteed after privatisation?
    Mr. Freeman: The position on accrued benefits, either for redundancy payments or pensions, is of course safeguarded. Future accruals of such rights for future service are a matter for proper negotiation between the employer and the trustees, for example, of the pension scheme, and the employees and their representatives as far as the redundancy scheme is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in preserving the interests of those who work at Plymouth, Devonport, he should be distancing himself from the 58 Labour Members who want to scrap Trident.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is not the fate of Devonport and Rosyth typical of the Government's privatisation programme —millions of pounds wasted on consultants' fees in preparing for privatisation, job insecurity for those working in the dockyards who have served the country well for so long and now doubts about the defence capability of the Government's proposals?
    Is it not time to admit that Minister's policy on that aspect, as in so many other respects, is a total shambles? Would it not make sense to withdraw from that privatisation? It is not wanted, it is not necessary and it will damage the country.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government side of the House proceeds on a principle very different from that on which the hon. Gentleman proceeds; the defence industry is there

    9
    to provide the right equipment and the right service for the armed forces of the country, not to provide employment, either in Devonport or in Rosyth.
    The best way forward for the dockyards, in the Government's judgment, is in the private sector, because that way they will provide the most efficient service and the best chance of attracting further work.

    Pacific (China)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of Chinese military ambitions in the Pacific region; and if he will make a statement. [25101]
    Mr. Rifkind: China has long-standing territorial claims in the Asia Pacific region and significant military forces, which are being modernised. We hope that all territorial disputes in the region can be settled amicably, and without resort to force.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware that China is rearming itself at a speed not witnessed since the German and Italian rearmaments of the 1930s? Is he further aware that, in the past two or three weeks, China has tested nuclear weapons in defiance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and tested intercontinental ballistic missiles which can be launched from lorries? Is he further aware that the Chinese navy is transforming itself from a coastal defence fleet into a blue water fleet and is actually involved in military engagements, many hundreds of miles from the China coast? That action has been taken by a non-democratic, totalitarian power which is seriously destabilising Asia. What are Britain's short, medium and long-term policies with regard to that new threat to the world?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the time available, I am unable to give a comprehensive answer to what is a very reasonable question. He is certainly correct to emphasise that China is expanding its military potential very substantially. We have noted particularly the testing of the intercontinental ballistic missile which we understand could have a range in excess of 6,500 km and thus would be able to target western Europe in due course. The matter clearly justifies serious attention in the months ahead.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last six months in respect of his Department's empty housing stock. [25102]
    Mr. Soames: My Department has received numerous representations from hon. Members and from other interested parties about empty housing.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister agree that it is simply outrageous that so many houses should remain vacant while so many people are homeless? Why cannot the Government get their act together and provide proper housing for our armed forces and use any excess housing for the homeless of this country?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly fair point that we have too many empty married quarters.
    10
    We have currently more than 13,000 vacant married quarters, of which about 4,000 are being sold or leased and approximately 9,000 are service stock.
    However, the House should remember that service housing stock must meet the special and unique needs of the armed forces, and that the lowest practical level of vacant properties will always be greater than that of local authorities or housing associations. That said, we acknowledge that we need to do better, and we will do better.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is currently considering a major disposal of 240 married quarters at the former flying school at RAF Rissington situated at the top of the Cotswolds which will have a major impact on my constituency. Will my hon. Friend please take full account of the views of local people, and particularly the views of the Cotswold district council and not merely sell the site to the highest bidder?
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very forceful presentation of his case. If he will be good enough to get in touch with me and let me know what the views of the Cotswold district council are, I shall be happy to examine them.

    Service Personnel
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are stationed in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England. [25103]
    Mr. Soames: The latest available figures for United Kingdom Regular forces show just over 4,800 service personnel stationed in Wales, some 18,400 in Scotland and 156,500 in England.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that Wales is very hard done by in the deployment of defence resources? When examining the future configuration of defence forces in the United Kingdom, will the Minister move out of the Napoleonic age and bring about a fairer adjustment of resources and ensure, in particular, that Wales does not suffer any more from this Government's depredation of our defence forces?
    Mr. Soames: That is a typically optimistic Welsh view. It is important that we deploy our forces in such a way as to meet our requirements in the most operationally effective manner. The Welsh have very proud traditions and links with our armed forces, for example, through the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales, the Welsh Guards and the Queen's Dragoon Guards. Three ships are affiliated with Welsh towns and major defence industries and airforce bases are located in Wales. Wales is not badly done by. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we are always mindful of helping where we can and we always have regard to operational requirements and the effectiveness of what we do.
    Mr. Devlin: Is it true, as I have been told by the defence trade unions, that the Trident refit programme contract has not been let to Devonport because of technical difficulties, and that therefore the contract may yet go to Rosyth? If that is so, will my hon. Friend reconsider the future of the Navy base at Eaglescliffe in my constituency?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has always been

    11
    extremely skilful in linking Eaglescliffe to Wales, as he has today. No decisions have yet been taken; I understand that they will be shortly.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On the matter of RAF Valley, the Minister was good enough to see a deputation from my constituency on 23 May. Is he aware that today we met the Secretary of State for Wales, who made clear his support for our bid to ensure the maximum number of local job opportunities under the market testing exercise currently taking place at the camp? Does the Minister accept that we have an extremely strong case to maximise those job opportunities and that the Ministry should be flexible about the introduction of the scheme?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing such a formidable delegation to see me. We listened carefully to what was said and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was fully aware of that conversation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have extended the consultation period, at his request and that of the Welsh Office, to examine carefully the points that he raised. I give him a public assurance that all the assurances he sought and all the points he made will be carefully considered as we reach a conclusion on an extremely important matter.

    European Policy
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the progress that has been made on a common European security and defence policy. [25104]
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has sent to its allies our proposals for improving western European defence co-operation within the NATO framework.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Labour party that British troops involved in military operations overseas should be answerable to the British Government and to Parliament? Does he further agree with the Labour party that we should not opt for a European army?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but I have yet to hear it expressed so eloquently by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the future defence of Britain and the continent of Europe should depend on NATO, not the Commission in Brussels, and that in future we should enhance the European pillar of NATO, using its well-tried and tested command and control set up? Does he further agree that, when we need bilateral arrangements with our neighbours in Europe, they should be secured through the NATO command and control set-up, whenever that is possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend. There is a good case for closer western European co-operation to strengthen NATO's overall capability. I believe that NATO and WEU can work closely together, as they have over the past 40 years.
    Dr. Reid: Since the Secretary of State seeks an eloquent response from us on a European army, I shall give him it as eloquently as possible: no. We obviously wish to reinforce European defence co-operation, but does
    12
    he agree with our view that the immediate issue is not how to pass more power to European defence institutions but how to render their existing power more effective and open? Does he agree, therefore, that there is no question of Britain giving up our national veto on national security matters, and that the way ahead lies in further intergovernmental co-operation and not in giving further power to European defence institutions?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would sound a more convincing supporter of our national veto on defence and security matters if his party were not so anxious to get rid of the veto on so many other issues.

    America (Discussions)
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his American counterpart to discuss armed forces issues. [25105]
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet the United States Secretary of Defence, Dr. Perry, during the meeting of the defence planning committee on 8 June.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take advantage of his next meeting to draw on the Defense Secretary's advice and experience of President Clinton's ill-starred proposals for homosexuals in the American armed services? Would not such a proposal in the United Kingdom threaten the renowned effectiveness of Her Majesty's armed forces as a fighting service and put any future Labour Government on a direct collision course with the chiefs of staff?
    Mr. Rifkind: The American experience should convince those who need persuading that it is crucial to consult the chiefs of staff and the armed forces before conclusions are reached on such matters and not afterwards.
    Mr. William Ross: Whenever the Secretary of State meets his American counterpart, will he put to him the necessity of his armed forces being equipped with the best weaponry that is available? Will he point out to him that, should the Americans buy the Shorts missile for that helicopter, it would render an attack helicopter that is already formidable much more lethal?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the high quality of all the equipment that Shorts produces. The United Kingdom's armed forces benefit from that equipment, and I am sure that other countries would as well.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my right hon. and learned Friend next has conversations with the United States about its views on Bosnia, will he ensure that it is prepared to back its words with deeds by its own forces and not leave its wishes to others to implement?
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is worth emphasising that the United States offers substantial air power. Its position on ground forces is well known. We rightly acknowledge the major contribution that it has made to both naval and air forces within the former Yugoslavia.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number

    13
    of anti-personnel land mines currently deployed throughout the world. [25106]
    Mr. Freeman: We understand that the United Nations estimates there to be more than 110 million land mines emplaced.
    Mr. Touhig: With so many anti-personnel land mines scattered indiscriminately around the globe, does the Minister agree that now is the time to seek an international agreement to ban all such mines? Are not anti-personnel mines causing serious problems for our troops in their humanitarian mission in Bosnia?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a humanitarian problem —mines having been scattered indiscriminately in many countries throughout the world —and a major military problem. To seek an international ban on manufacture, ownership and deployment would not work; it would be ineffective. The Government's view is that the Army needs, justifiably, some anti-personnel land mines. We must, therefore, protect the Army's ability to procure such land mines and to deploy them within the strict terms of the weaponry convention. I agree that we need to improve the convention and to seek increased observance of its present provisions. That will be more effective than seeking an outright ban.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government set an excellent example in spending a great deal of money lifting other people's mines laid in civil wars and in moving forward the humanitarian effort?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have spent about £14.5 million on mine-clearance work. I congratulate the Mines Advisory Group on its hard work. The indiscriminate sowing of mines, especially in the Falkland Islands, will remain a problem for many years to come.

    Atomic Weapons Study
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will commission a military study of the use of atomic weapons over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; and if he will make a statement. [25107]
    Mr. Soames: We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Barnes: Anniversaries are important because they give us the opportunity to do things that we should have done previously. Should we not have an investigation into what happened 50 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? President Eisenhower said that it was not necessary to hit the Japanese with that awful thing. The lesson for today might be that we should not be dependent on nuclear weapons and that we should be reducing our stockpile in an era of non-proliferation treaties, and even removing that stockpile altogether rather than increasing it.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that the war ended —[Interruption.] I fancy that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will never again be so popular. The war ended with the Allies victorious. The hon. Gentleman should remember that. We retain our nuclear weapons to deter —to preserve the peace, not to fight wars —in which role they have been a stupendous and triumphant success.
    Mr. Gill: On the question of awesome weapons of mass destruction, has my hon. Friend read press reports
    14
    that, next year, Russia will deploy the SS24 Topol missile? Does that not cause him to revise his Department's view that Russia no longer represents a direct threat to the peace of western Europe?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House's attention to the fact that the Russians retain a formidable military capacity, on which we keep an extremely beady and careful eye. He is also quite correct to say that we should at all times remember the lessons of the past and that we need to keep our forces in readiness for whatever threat they may face. I can assure my hon. Friend that the advice from the chiefs of staff is that we are configured to do that right now.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25121]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from his engagements to reflect on his fatuous remark that householders suffering from negative equity were responsible for their own plight? Does he not recall that, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he was the main architect of the inflationary Budget of 1988, which led to the dramatic rise in house prices? Instead of blaming those unfortunate householders, will he not for once accept that he is responsible for their calamity?
    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to suspect that he knows that he has quoted me out of context. The remarks that he described as fatuous were actually made by the shadow Chancellor about what I said and were not in fact what I said. I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should think that I was the main architect of the 1988 Budget, but I rather fancy that the then Chancellor might dispute it.
    Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the decision of Essex county council to end bussing pupils to grammar schools? Is he aware of the great anger in my constituency about that decision? Is he further aware that the savings have now proved to be negligible? Does he agree that, unless the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats reverse their decision, education will go backwards in Essex and only the rich and privileged will be able to afford grammar schools?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the press reports. I have not called for a detailed report of what has happened, but superficially, on the basis of the reports that I have seen, what has happened seems to be in fairly sharp conflict with the rhetoric of the Leader of the Labour party and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, both of whom have given me notice that they will be elsewhere this afternoon. I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has called on the

    15
    Government to do something. He wants us to do something to protect the electors from the malice of Labour and Liberal councils.
    Mr. Prescott: Bearing in mind the fact that it was the Prime Minister who set up the Scott inquiry and appointed Sir Richard as chairman, can he now assure the House that Sir Richard Scott continues to enjoy his full confidence?
    The Prime Minister: I asked Sir Richard to carry out that report and I have confidence that he will do so thoroughly. When he has finished his report, I will consider it. When I have considered it, I will comment on it.
    Mr. Prescott: We welcome the Prime Minister's support for Sir Richard Scott. May I remind the Prime Minister that it was his Chancellor, on the BBC's "Question Time" last year, who said that he would resign if the inquiry found that he had acted improperly? Can the Prime Minister assure us that, if the inquiry finds that any Minister had knowingly misled the House, he or she must resign?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to draw conclusions from a partial report not yet —[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] I will reply to the question in my own way.
    The right hon. Gentleman may wish to draw his conclusions on the basis of a partial report; I will draw my conclusions when the report has been responded to by those mentioned in it, when a final report has been produced and when I have had time to study and consider that final report.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself a moment.
    At that point I will make my judgment on the basis of the facts, not now, as the right hon. Gentleman does, on the basis of his prejudices.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that if the inquiry, in its final conclusions, finds that any Ministers have misled the House, they must be asked to resign?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that I am making no judgments on what may be in the report until the report is complete. What we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report—[Interruption.] I repeat, what we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom the right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring, has made it perfectly clear that he rejects the observations contained in the draft extract and has said that he is confident that he will persuade the inquiry that those views are wrong and inaccurate. We will await the final report.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful leak of the Scott inquiry proceedings and their subsequent exploitation by the BBC and the Opposition is a denial of natural justice?
    Mr. Skinner: The Government leaked it.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has clearly finally flipped if he believes
    16
    what he is shouting out at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who leaked it?"] I wish I knew who had maliciously leaked this selective aspect of the report. But I do know who is seeking to take advantage of that leaked report in studio after studio. I wonder what people might make of someone who takes a partial extract of an incomplete report before it is responded to and appears in every studio in the land to smear someone. I know what I make of him. I make of him the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Beith: If the Prime Minister has formed no conclusion about the judgments that will be contained in the final version of the Scott report, how was it possible for reports to emanate from Downing street yesterday of full support for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his denial of the conclusions that have been leaked? Will the Prime Minister ever tell us the truth about all this or will the Government behave true to form and never take responsibility for anything that goes wrong?
    The Prime Minister: There was a time, a long time ago, when the Liberal party actually believed in waiting for the facts before it smeared, but that is not so these days. Like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, at the first available opportunity it takes the worst possible construction, without facts, without right of reply, without consideration and makes its judgments. I will not do that. I will make my judgment on the basis of the facts when the people criticised have had the opportunity to reply and when they have replied. One day, the right hon. Gentleman might learn that that is the right way for anyone in the House to behave.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no public interest defence in what the BBC has done? To behave in the way that it has in respect of a report that will be published in full in any event can only be a subversion of the public interest.
    The Prime Minister: I said a few moments ago how much I deplore the malicious leak and that it appears to have been broadcast without any opportunity being given for the people named in it to respond. I believe that the people of this country will make up their own minds about that behaviour.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25122]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Further to the Prime Minister's wholly inadequate reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), may I remind him of what he said last week? He spoke of the crazy situation of spiralling house prices and silly borrowing. Will he never take responsibility for anything —or is he content to allow mortgage misery to continue for millions of people, shuffling responsibility on to anyone but himself?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said —which the hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand —was that I had

    17
    personally blamed the people who had taken mortgages for their difficulties. That is not what I said, as anyone who reads what I said—
    Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Here again, the hon. Gentleman does not want to know what was said; he just wants to take the political opportunity to smear again and again and again. That is the single constant factor in the attitude of Opposition Front and Back Benchers: never mind the facts —let us live with the myths.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Government's robust approach to the Messina conference last weekend, but will my right hon. Friend remind Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, that, far from wanting to give up the opt-out or our national veto, the vast majority of the British people want the European Commission's interference in the nooks and crannies of British life to be reduced? Is it not typical that the only people who do not appreciate that are members of the European Commission itself and members of the Opposition parties?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we certainly intend to retain the veto in regard to a range of important matters. The Labour party is wrong to seek to undermine the veto position: that will not be understood by people in this country, and it is wholly wrong.
    If Labour Members had taken the opportunity to read the OECD report or any of the other reports, they would also know that their policies on the social chapter can do nothing but harm to this country, while giving great comfort to our competitors.
    I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall sustain the veto, continue our policy of seeking genuine subsidiarity and certainly try to ensure that the essential parts of British life are protected from external interference.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25123]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: Looking back on four and a half years in No. 10, what does the Prime Minister most regret? Does he most regret the loss of 800,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, the repossession of the houses of a third of a million people or his total failure to appoint a team of Cabinet colleagues who are honest, trustworthy or competent?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I am most pleased about that has been
    18
    achieved in the past few years. I am most pleased that we now have the best opportunity for sustained recovery with low inflation and job creation that the country has seen for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman can name no western European country whose position has improved so much over the past four years; he can name no western European country whose unemployment has fallen so rapidly; and he can name no western European country with prospects such as ours. That is what I look back on having achieved in the past four and a half years.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I was in no way misled by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he wrote to me about arms to Iraq on 4 May 1989? I was astonished, therefore, that the matter was raised at all in the Scott report. When I asked my right hon. Friend what the score was, however, he replied again that the guidelines were applied on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the circumstances of the day.
    Does my right hon. Friend accept that these are guidelines, not tablets of stone, and that it would be the height of insanity if they were not operated in the light of the circumstances of the day? Does he further accept that I know of no more honourable man in politics than our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has had to say in the last couple of moments. My right hon. Friend has made those points to the Scott inquiry and I have no doubt that in the response to the preliminary report he will re-emphasise those points.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25124]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martlew: The Prime Minister will recall that in the Budget statement in November 1993 the Chancellor gave the go-ahead for the upgrading of the west coast main line. He said that it was the most important rail link in the country.
    Does the Prime Minister realise that to date there have been no contracts let and no work done on that line, the line is crumbling, the service is deteriorating and thousands of passengers are being inconvenienced by the delay? Will he give his Transport Secretary instructions to stop asset-stripping our national railways, and get on with upgrading the west coast main line?
    The Prime Minister: If the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman, I think he has made the most classic case for privatisation I have ever heard.

Film Industry
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the British film industry.
As the House knows, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has a longer history of expertise and knowledge about films than I have. It is therefore right that I should begin by acknowledging my debt to the National Heritage Select Committee, which he chairs. I very much welcome its thorough and perceptive report on the industry. I have, as I told the Committee I would, taken the opportunity of my response to its report to set out a full analysis of the state of the industry and of the issues confronting it.
The right hon. Member for Gorton has apologised for not being in the House this afternoon. He is attending Lord Wilson's funeral.
My response to the Select Committee represents the first statement of Government policy for the film industry since 1984. I hope that this response will be the beginning of a new and constructive dialogue between the Government and the film industry. I have set up a new team within my Department specifically to sponsor the wider audio-visual industry and to ensure that its needs are better understood by Government. I have done that because I believe that this sector, including the film industry as part of it, represents a major opportunity for Britain.
That opportunity takes two forms. Partly, it is an opportunity to create employment in Britain by attracting foreign film makers to come here to make films, and partly it is an opportunity to encourage British film makers to exploit a growing market and to take advantage of our considerable natural strengths in this field.
Britain is already attractive to foreign film makers. Last year saw American companies spend over £176 million in Britain, compared with under £70 million two years earlier, but more does need to be done.
The Select Committee rightly focused on the work of the British Film Commission, which is funded by my Department and which helps attract film makers to Britain. The Select Committee emphasised the need for a local film commission for London. I agree with the Committee and can today announce that we shall be offering direct pump-priming support for the establishment of a London Film Commission.
The Committee also highlighted the need to deal efficiently with work permit requirements for film production personnel working in the UK. I agree with the importance that the Committee attaches to this issue and my Department will work with the Department of Employment and with the British Film Commission to ensure that the needs of the industry are recognised.
The Committee's report includes a number of recommendations relating to taxation. The Government recognise the importance attached to tax issues by many in the industry. As the House knows, however, tax policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announces his proposals for change each year in the Budget. I cannot therefore respond directly today to those aspects of the Committee's report which deal with tax policy. I can say,
20
however, that as he prepares his Budget statement this year, my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider the Committee's recommendations together with the logic that underpins them. But the Government are not simply concerned to attract foreign film-makers to Britain —we are also concerned to reinforce the strength of our own film industry.
Despite reports to the contrary, the sector is doing well. Out of 24 feature films selected for the Cannes film competition this year, four were British, and three of them —"The Madness of King George", "Carrington", and "Land and Freedom" won awards. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many have you seen?"] Two of them. It is a success story. The question is how to build on that success.
The Government believe that the development of the independent production sector, as a result of the foundation of Channel 4 in 1980, and the introduction of the statutory independent production quota in 1990, are the key to the answer. This sector has produced a large number of small production companies. We now need to encourage them to grow into larger enterprises that are able to be more independent of television commissions and to absorb the greater risks involved in film-making for the cinema.
The television sector itself has a part to play in that process. Both Channel 4 and, more recently, the BBC and Granada have seen the benefits of financing films which have a cinema and video life before they are broadcast.
Producers cannot look only to television for finance, however. If independent production for the cinema is to grow, it must be able to attract support from capital markets. I am therefore establishing a new advisory committee to examine the financing of independent film production and to recommend the steps necessary to allow the sector to raise the capital it needs to finance its growth.
In the meantime, I can announce that Government action has made support available to the sector from a new source —the national lottery.
Since 1986 the Government have provided support to British Screen Finance, which has invested £37 million in 102 feature films. British Screen invests only in films which it believes have commercial potential and it shares in any profits which the films generate. It invests alongside the private sector. The Government's support to British Screen will continue.
In addition to this support, the Arts Council of England has announced that it intends to use lottery money to invest in British films in the way pioneered by British Screen. Depending on the quality of applications the Arts Council estimates that it could invest more than £70 million in British film making over the next five years.
Furthermore the Arts Council is making available further substantial sums, again depending on the quality of applications, to improve the accessibility of new British films to British audiences. This money will be available to increase the number of prints available and to enhance the promotion of new British films.
Over five years, therefore, the national lottery is offering the prospect of more than £80 million of new support to British film. This is but one more example of the opportunities opened by the national lottery which will —I believe —be widely welcomed.
A further issue stressed by the Select Committee was the need to maintain support for training in film-making skills. I agree with the Committee on this subject and

21
will—as it suggests—discuss its specific proposals with industry interests. I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that the national film and television school, which receives support from my Department, has today announced that it has reached agreement with the BBC on a formula that will provide for the reopening of the Ealing studios. Ealing has a particular place in the history of British film making and I am sure the House will join me in welcoming the news.
This year is the centenary of the cinema. My final announcements therefore concern the Government's plans to mark this anniversary. First, they are providing £180,000 to support Cinema 100, an organisation created by the industry to mark the centenary. Secondly, the Government plan to examine ideas for a west end showcase dedicated to the exhibition of new British films. We believe that the proposal could enhance critical and audience interest in new British work; we look to involve other interested parties, and I am delighted to welcome the participation of the BBC.
If today's trends continue, that showcase will have plenty to exhibit. I have made no secret of the fact that my own attitude to the film industry has changed since I learned more about it. In 10 years, the British cinema audience has more than doubled—up from 58 million admissions in 1984 to 124 million last year. More films were made in Britain in 1994 than in any year since the early 1970s. The growth and increasing sophistication of the cinema audience; the earlier growth of video; and the imminent explosion in the television market as a result of the arrival of digital broadcasting all combine to create an important opportunity for British film. The Government are determined to ensure that that opportunity is not lost.
Mr. Chris Smith: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of the Select Committee on the future of the film industry. I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, as the Secretary of State said, is attending the funeral of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx.
I welcome this first statement from the Government on the film industry in 11 years. However, its content is deeply disappointing. Of course some of the points in the Government's report and in the statement are welcome. The money from the lottery will be useful. The west end showcase will, I am sure, be a good idea. The statement of at least support for a London Film Commission is welcome, and the announcement of the purchase of Ealing studios by the National film and television school is undoubtedly welcome. I am sure that a new advisory committee in the Department will do no harm, but none of this amounts to much. As Rick Blane would have said, it does not amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
Specifically, why is there not a fuller analysis of the Select Committee's proposals on self-financing fiscal incentives to promote production? What notice has the Minister taken of the Irish experience with section 35, which is now reaping rich rewards for the Irish Exchequer as well as for the Irish film industry? What notice has he taken of the detailed economic modelling work that was recently carried out by the British Screen Advisory Council? Of course the Secretary of State must take those decisions together with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but where on earth is the evidence that the Government are thinking seriously about these possibilities?
22
The report makes much of the growth in American investment here in recent years, but why is there no acknowledgement of the massive trade deficit in film that persists between us and the United States? Why is there no recognition whatever in the statement or in the accompanying report of the one crucial and overriding factor that has driven increased American investment in the past couple of years—the favourable pound-dollar exchange rate? Why does the Minister reject out of hand any reform of the Channel 4 funding formula, which is not mentioned in his statement and is addressed fleetingly and rejected in the report? At the very least there could be some reform of the scheduled review date. In due course that could lead to £15 million of extra investment a year in British film production.
The Secretary of State spoke about pump-priming funds for a London Film Commission. What amount does he have in mind? That is nowhere specified. It has asked for £400,000. How much does he propose to devote to it? He had many warm words on the excellent work of the British Film Commission, but he has cut its budget in recent years. Is it true that he has no intention at all of making good those cuts? While we all welcome the news of the purchase of Ealing studios by the national film and television school, are not the funds for that coming from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and not directly from the Government? Why is there no mention in the statement or in the report of the importance of developing the excellent film industries in Scotland and Wales?
Is it not true that the report adds up to £16 million a year extra from the lottery; £2 million for Ealing from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts; nothing for Channel 4; a token amount for a London Film Commission; £180,000 for Cinema 100; and a new committee? That is about it.
In "The Third Man"—in case the Secretary of State is not aware of the film, I point out to him that the Select Committee helpfully placed a photograph of it on the front of its report—Harry Lime famously said that 500 years of democracy in Switzerland had produced nothing but the cuckoo clock. Sixteen years of Tory Government, a series of Downing street seminars and a visit by the Secretary of State to Cannes to find out what a film actually is have produced nothing but a disappointing set of assertions and virtually no real action to support the British film industry.
Mr. Dorrell: To describe that reaction as churlish is an understatement. One of the questions that we shall repeatedly ask the Opposition in the coming months is how much they would spend on different aspects of their ambitions. We begin to learn a little about how they approach the expenditure of moneys under their control when we hear the hon. Gentleman dismiss more than £80 million of new support to the film industry as not a hill of beans. Most in the film industry will recognise that support for production from lottery resources as well as support for extra prints and support for extra promotion, so that we do not simply produce films but get them in front of audiences, will be seen as an important step forward in film policy in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not deal with tax. As I have made clear in my statement, the answer is that I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman also asked me why I did not cover the impact of film in foreign trade. He must have missed pages 16 and 17 of the document, which are devoted to virtually nothing else.

23
The hon. Gentleman asked me what notice I had taken of the experience of British Screen. I should have thought that I made it pretty clear that I found the experience of British Screen as a mechanism for developing the film industry rather attractive, as I said in the statement that that was the process and the idea that would be followed up by the Arts Council in the distribution of its resources.
The hon. Gentleman asks me how much money we shall make available to the London Film Commission. The answer is that we shall provide pump-priming money; we are negotiating with the commission over precisely how much money will be needed. The hon. Gentleman accused me of having cut the British Film Commission's budget; that is not true. The British Film Commission's budget this year is the same as it was last year.
The hon. Gentleman regards it as a source of criticism—I do not accept this—that the purchase, refinancing and development of Ealing will be financed in part by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I should have thought that that would be something to celebrate and welcome.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not elaborate on Channel 4. The reason was that I had no announcement to make on that subject, as the decision was made six months ago.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a substantial Malaysian group, Third Millennium Studios, has planning applications before Watford borough council and Three Rivers district council to construct in the borough of Watford what would be the largest film studio in western Europe? Can my right hon. Friend, if those planning applications go through—as I hope and expect they will—assure me of his full support for this plan which will not only turn Watford into the Hollywood of western Europe, but will give satisfaction to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is himself a Watford boy?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He draws attention to an important point, which is that the interest being shown by Third Millennium Studios in the development of the Leavesden site is yet further evidence of the attractions of Britain as a film-making destination to people coming from overseas. We should seek to develop that attraction, and my statement sets out some steps that we shall take to do precisely that.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the disarming admission of ignorance by the Secretary of State and I hope that it presages wisdom on the subject of films, although I think that he will have to go a good deal further to satisfy the industry. What attention, if any, is his Department giving to the saga of Brent Walker at Elstree? Does he hope that that saga will come to a happy conclusion?
I understand why the Secretary of State is not willing to say anything about taxation. However, does he recognise that taxation changes could generate considerable additional activity in this country which, in the medium term, could be beneficial to the Revenue?
Finally, there is a slightly metropolitan flavour to the statement, which concentrates rather heavily on London. Has the Secretary of State nothing to say about the promotion of a national network of British screen activity,
24
for there is much in Scotland, the provinces, Wales and Northern Ireland that could be exploited for the making of British films?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asked me several questions, the first of which was whether I was interested in what will happen at Elstree, and whether I hoped for a good and helpful outcome. Of course, the answer is yes, although the negotiations are taking place between private sector parties and the Department of National Heritage is not a direct participant.
I certainly do not seek the metropolitan bias that the hon. Gentleman detected in my statement. It is necessary for us to continue to develop London as an important part of the film-making jigsaw. That is why we must develop a London Film Commission, and why I am attracted to the idea of a west end showcase. But I am also interested in ensuring that the growth of the British film industry will mean British films being shown in the rest of the country as well. That is why I welcome the interest shown by the Arts Council in using lottery money to increase the number of prints and to increase the promotion budgets for British films, precisely so that they can be shown in cinemas outside the metropolitan area.
As for tax, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he will consider the proposals of the Select Committee and the representations made by the industry when he prepares his Budget for November. I am sure that the representatives of the industry, and probably the members of the Select Committee, too, will follow up that interest.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was so churlish in his response, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement will be seen for what it really is—not as tokenism towards the luvvies or as advocating subsidies for leisure, but as a recognition of the need to back an industry that could be worth millions of pounds, dollars, yen and ecu. The fundamental requirement is still for a fiscal level playing field with our competitors in Ireland and France. Will my right hon. Friend use all his endeavours to ensure that that is achieved?
Mr. Dorrell: I have already made it clear that that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt there will be plenty of opportunities for all those interested to make their views known to my right hon. and learned Friend ahead of the Budget. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is right to emphasise the opportunity that exists in the film sector to develop commercial enterprises that will employ people in Britain and draw attention to British achievements both here and overseas.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged the close relationship between the film and the television industries, is it not sensible to reflect upon the profound damage done to the television industry by the Government's deregulation policies which have meant, among other things, the loss of 8,000 jobs in independent television companies and thousands more at the BBC, with the consequent loss of the training opportunities that are vital to investment in the future of the film and television industries?

25
Is not the clear lesson, which even the Government may be able to learn in these revisionist days, that successful industries happen not by accident but only when the Government are willing to take a lead? They must acknowledge the importance to our economy of the film and television industries, both of which have suffered damage because of their policies.
Mr. Dorrell: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, especially the proposition that successful industries arise only as a result of Government leadership. Of course I acknowledge that the Government have a role in ensuring that the environment is as favourable as we can make it to the growth of successful enterprises. That is why I think that our approach to broadcasting policy over the past 10 years has been right. In particular I believe that the development of the independent producer sector is the key to the opportunities that now exist for those small businesses to develop into medium-sized and larger businesses able to produce not merely programmes for television but films for cinematic release too.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Ealing, the nation and the world will be truly delighted by the injection of life which he has announced today for Ealing film studios, from which many brilliant comedies have emanated for many years? Will he say to those kind hearts who inspired the decision that they will be rewarded with coronets from successful films in the future?
Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure if I can respond in kind to my hon. Friend's references, but I share his enthusiasm for the opportunity which has been unlocked today by the agreement between the BBC and the national film and television school. I look forward to renewed success and prosperity for Ealing as part of a network of studios which—subject to planning—may include a studio in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) as well.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does it notsum up the Secretary of State's level of knowledge that when he was asked a reasonable question about the metropolitan bias of the statement, he started to waffle on about films being shown outside London? Does he not appreciate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was talking about films being made outside London? Can the Secretary of State point to a single proposal in the document which will assist in that process? The film "Braveheart" was largely filmed in Ireland as a result of a proactive Irish Government policy which is not matched in this country. Is there a single proposal in the document which would prevent such a situation from occurring again?
Mr. Dorrell: It is instructive that the hon. Gentleman is interested only in making films outside London. That is not to say that that is unimportant, but it is equally important that films, once made, should be shown to audiences. There is not much point in producing films which do not find their way into cinemas. It was proper to answer the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland's question about a metropolitan bias as I did by placing emphasis on getting British films into a broader range of cinemas so that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as well as constituents of hon Members who represent London constituencies, can see British films.
26
The development of film making outside London is part of the central purpose of the network of film commissions to be headed by the British Film Commission. When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study the document, he will find that another of the Select Committee's recommendations which I have accepted is that we should work with local authorities to complete a network of film commissions around the country.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As a member of the Select Committee, may I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's positive response to our report? As Britain has a tremendous array of talent, skill and flair among our actors, actresses, producers, directors, photographers, artists and technicians of all sorts, and as there is a growing world market for English-language films, is not it entirely right for us to continue in this way by building on our strengths?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. The key point is the one with which he concluded: that there is a growing demand for films. Cinema audiences have more than doubled in Britain in the past 10 years. Digital broadcasting and the development of a broader range of broadcasting outlets provides further opportunities for British film makers to make more films for those outlets, as well as conventional theatrical ones.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I was greatly depressed by the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon because again he perceives film as peripheral to economic development in this country. I was impressed that the Secretary of State said that he has learned more about the film industry, but perhaps we should compare this country with Ireland where there is a Cabinet Minister with a passion for the arts and for the film industry.
What guarantee will the Secretary of State give that the economic modelling work which has been done will be taken into account when the new committee is set up, as often committees are set up as a recipe for inaction? The impact of that work can be seen in some areas; for example, the economic development which came to areas in Scotland as a result of the production of "Rob Roy". Is not the Secretary of State's view of the matter too concerned with over-centralisation?
Mr. Dorrell: I guarantee that the committee will be useful because I shall not give it a general brief to make any recommendations that may occur to it about how to develop the film industry. Instead, I shall ask it a specific question: what steps can be taken to assist the flow of private sector capital into the development of film-making businesses in Britain? If one asks a committee tightly focused questions, one is more likely to get something of value out of it, and that is what we shall do.
Mr. Terry Dicks: May I ask my right hon. Friend to believe that Forrest Gump would understand how nonsensical his statement has been, and that it is another justification for closing down his Department and saving taxpayers £1 billion? What angers me most about his statement is that money from the lottery fund will go to the luvvies in the film industry when medical charities, such as organisations trying to

27
find out about leukaemia in children and the Spinal Injuries Association, could do with that money. The damned statement is a disgrace.
Mr. Dorrell: I will not say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I disagree with him, because, as he will know, the lottery legislation provides that 20 per cent. of the money raised by the lottery is available for the charitable sector. My hon. Friend will also know that the National Lottery Charities Board has made it clear that, while its first round of awards will be focused on those with problems of poverty, it intends to broaden the range of beneficiary charities in later rounds. That section of the lottery is most likely to benefit medical charities.
The money that we are discussing today has been awarded by Parliament to development of the arts. I join the majority of hon. Members who have asked me questions following my statement in welcoming the fact that the Arts Council is using some of the money available to it from the lottery to promote the development of a viable commercial film industry in Britain.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the past 20 years, more than 30 per cent. of Oscars have been awarded to UK talent? Is not that an example of what can be achieved without massive indiscriminate subsidies to the film industry? Does he agree that intelligent targeting of funds on specific aspects of the film industry would be the most productive way to proceed? Is not the deafening silence from Opposition spokesmen about how much money, if any, the Opposition would devote to the film industry remarkable?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously, it is important to focus resources on a defined objective, and the Arts Council's plans will pass that test. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we face today an Opposition who dismiss £80 million as simply no more than a hill of beans. I look forward to hearing how much money we must spend before they conclude that we have got over a hill of beans and started talking about real money. Do they consider £100 million, £200 million or £500 million real money? What is "real money" to the Opposition?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, not because it gives everything that the film industry requires—it certainly does not—but because it is a
28
positive step in the right direction? Does he agree that setting up a film Commission in London was one of the major priorities of Sydney Samuelson and the British Film Commission and that therefore some of the Opposition's remarks are irrelevant to the needs of the industry? Does he accept that the representations which the House and his Department can make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer between now and the November Budget are critical because, if we are to compete with other countries like the Republic of Ireland, we must provide our industry with fiscal incentives, not subsidies, which the industry desperately needs to compete internationally?
Mr. Dorrell: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, which I have heard him make on previous occasions in both public and private. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hear it between now and November.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) talked about the need for a level fiscal playing field. When my right hon. Friend pursues that point, will he bear in mind the fact that the real money is made not in film production but in distribution? We have a limited number of distributors. It does not matter how good a film is; it is the distributors who decide the total take and where it is to go in London or outside. If my right hon. Friend is looking for a way to help the industry, he should tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the most effective way is to find incentives for distributors to put money into film production in this country. That will be far more impressive than any subsidies that may be on offer.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point because he has underlined the important role played by distributors and exhibitors in getting films on screen. It is precisely because I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's point that I welcome the plans of the Arts Council to focus on giving support for extra prints and extra promotion. I shall certainly look at other ways in which we might encourage the distribution network to be even more actively involved in film distribution. It is, of course, already involved, but the greater its active involvement, the more the distribution and exhibition system is committed to the exhibition of films.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Roseanna Cunningham, for Perth and Kinross.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that two years ago tomorrow, in response to a written question, the Prime Minister altered the Government's position on answering questions about arms to Iraq. He said then that he would not answer any questions or make any comments on the Scott inquiry until its conclusions were published. Yesterday, in support of his Minister, he commented on the conclusions of the Scott inquiry. Would you inquire, Madam Speaker, whether the decision to block questions on that inquiry has now been lifted so that hon. Members like myself can pose questions on that important issue?
Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that the Table Office will be studying carefully the exchanges that took place to see what effect, if any, they should have on the tabling of future questions. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter.
Mr. Don Touhig: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the report published this morning, which reveals that smaller class sizes have been shown to improve children's education and the fact that a report from the National Commission on Education is due to be published next week calling for smaller class sizes, can you tell us whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Education to come to the House to make a statement on that matter?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should inform the hon. Gentleman that when a statement is to be made in the House that information appears on the annunciator by 1 o'clock, so the hon. Gentleman and the rest of us are already informed about that when the House sits.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. From time to time, when there is a leak from a document, the Government initiate some form of inquiry. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said today, as no doubt you did, Madam Speaker, and I wonder what steps can be taken if those of us who assume that the Government leaked their own document want to pursue the matter to a conclusion in the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to use the Order Paper to table parliamentary questions and questions to the Prime Minister, as well as early-day motions should he wish to pursue any such matter.

Corporal Punishment (Re-introduction)
4.8 pm
Mr. Warren Hawksley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to re-introduce corporal punishment for crimes of violence by youngsters.
I am grateful for the opportunity to ask leave of the House to introduce the Bill. I think we all agree that law and order is an important issue. We also agree that our constituents are very interested in and concerned about it. Twice previously, in 1982 and 1987, when I was the hon. Member for The Wrekin, I moved amendments to Criminal Justice Bills to try to bring back corporal punishment, which I believe would be a deterrent. I hope that today it will be third time lucky.
Last year, I tabled an amendment, on Report, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, but you, Madam Speaker, chose the debate on capital punishment rather than corporal punishment. The House has not been given an opportunity to debate corporal punishment in the present Parliament.
Unlike in my two previous attempts to bring back corporal punishment, I do not intend to discuss the detail of the method—whether one uses a cane or a birch—or the age of people on which the punishment might be used. In the Isle of Man, the legislation used to relate to people aged 10 to 18, and I accept that as adequate for the purpose of the Bill, although I know that some of my hon. Friends ask, "Why 18? Why not have it for older people?" I have no objection to their opinions on that subject.
I wish to argue the case for the reintroduction of corporal punishment as a principle. I am disappointed that the payroll vote will not be able to support the motion. It is sad that we do not necessarily discover all the opinions of the House on a ten-minute Bill.
My arguments are fairly simple. I and my electorate believe that there is too much crime, and especially too many crimes of violence by youngsters. I emphasise that I propose that an extra power be given to the judiciary to sentence young offenders; it would not be a substitute for the powers that they already have.
The most recent public opinion poll that I read suggested that the public genuinely supported the motion; about 70 per cent. of the public wanted corporal punishment to be brought back. We should listen to what our electorate are saying.
I believe that the public are right, and that we should listen to their anxiety about the increase in crime and their feeling and belief that corporal punishment would be a deterrent.
In the year that corporal punishment was abolished, there were 5,183 cases of violence against the person in this country. When I first, in the Criminal Justice Bill 1982, moved an amendment to bring back corporal punishment, there were 100,200 cases. Yesterday I checked the latest figures, which had just been announced—for last year—and discovered that that 100,000 had increased to 219,000. That increase shows the need for action.
I shall mention two cases regarding which Conservative Members would probably mainly agree that corporal punishment would be a deterrent. There was a case in Leicester last week. A lad swore at a 76-year-old lady in

31
the street. She reprimanded him and said that that was not the sort of language that she wanted to hear. What did he do? He fired a gun at her face between the eyes. She is still suffering from the pellets that injured her.
What was the result of the court appearance? Twelve hours at an attendance centre. How much better it would be if someone like that were given six or 12 strokes of the cane. I believe that that would he indeed be a deterrent. If there are Members who are worried that that will be degrading to the poor 13-year-old, I suggest that they think about the lady who suffered the attack.
The second example was also reported last week, in the Birmingham Evening Mail, a paper that covers the Birmingham area. Two yobbos aged, according to the press, about 12—I regret that, as yet, they have not been caught—were prepared to set about a lady of 41, who was less than 5 ft tall, and to break her nose and two of her teeth to steal a hamburger worth £1.50. That is the type of case in which a deterrent dose of corporal punishment would be used.
I know that some people will oppose the Bill on the grounds that the European Court of Human Rights is not happy about corporal punishment. However, in the Isle of Man case, the British judge ruled in our favour and the whole court ruled in our favour on two out of the three complaints. It agreed that corporal punishment was not inhumane treatment or a method of torture and that it was only degrading. I believe that the court has made some odd decisions in the past and I would certainly not be concerned if we were no longer a signatory to the European convention on human rights. I would be prepared to take that step in order to see corporal punishment reintroduced in this country.
I shall give two examples which I believe show the benefits of corporal punishment as a deterrent. Hon. Members may remember that last year an American youngster received corporal punishment in Asia. Do hon. Members remember the pictures of him taken at the airport when he was returning home? He appeared rather contrite; he was not at all happy. That is very different from the young thugs who leave our courts laughing at our judicial system and at their victims. I suggest that that young American learned his lesson.
I heard about the second example when I visited the Isle of Man shortly after corporal punishment had been suspended on that island. I talked to the chief constable on the Isle of Man who told me that many fans travelled from Manchester and Liverpool to watch football matches on the island. When the fans disembarked from the ships in Douglas they would invariably approach a policeman and ask, "Is it true that you still have corporal punishment on the statute book?" When the policeman confirmed that that was the case, the fans would say, "Don't worry, guv, we won't cause any trouble".
Corporal punishment had a deterrent effect and there were hardly any problems on the Isle of Man, even when large crowds gathered to watch football matches.
I believe that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would act as a deterrent. I believe that the frightening increase in the number of crimes of violence warrants such serious action and I hope that today I will be given leave to introduce a Bill to reintroduce corporal punishment.
4.16 pm
Mr. David Hanson: I had not intended to speak against the Bill, but none of my colleagues proposes to do so and I believe that the right-wing nonsense that we have heard from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) deserves a reply.
The hon. Gentleman has taken a totally simplistic approach to the problem of crime, based on the barbaric theory that would-be offenders would be deterred by the threat of caning or some other form of corporal punishment. It ill behoves any Conservative Member to come to the Chamber, after 16 years in government, to complain about the increase in crime and introduce a simplistic solution such as the one that we are discussing today.
The European Court of Human Rights opposes corporal punishment and it has taken a strong stand against the Isle of Man in that regard. This country would be a laughing stock if we gave the hon. Gentleman leave to introduce a Bill to reintroduce corporal punishment. The hon. Gentleman should examine the causes of crime and the issues of poverty and lawlessness in this country. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We will have a little discipline now—hopefully without the aid of corporal punishment.
Mr. Hanson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that you did not need to resort to corporal punishment to bring the House to order. After 16 years of Conservative government, I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would bring forward some positive solutions to the problem of crime. We must look at ways of supporting young people in our community and we should not inflict upon them the indignity of corporal punishment, which would degrade both those to whom it is administered and those who must administer it. I oppose the Bill and I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in doing so.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 153.

Division No. 157]

[4.18 pm

AYES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gale, Roger

Bendall, Vivian

Gardiner, Sir George

Booth, Hartley

Gill, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brazier, Julian

Hannam, Sir John

Butterfill, John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Colvin, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Congdon, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Jessel, Toby

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Devlin, Tim

Leigh, Edward

Dicks, Terry

Marlow, Tony

Dover, Den

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Duncan, Alan

Mills, Iain

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Dunn, Bob

Neubert, Sir Michael

Elletson, Harold

Nicholls, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pawsey, James

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Riddick, Graham

Fry, Sir Peter

Robathan, Andrew

33

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Sykes, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spink, Dr Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spring, Richard

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and

Sweeney, Walter

Mr. John Carlisle.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Alton, David

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

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Denham, John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dewar, Donald

Ashton, Joe

Dixon, Don

Barnes, Harry

Donohoe, Brian H

Barron, Kevin

Dowd, Jim

Battle, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bayley, Hugh

Eastham, Ken

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Enright, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Etherington, Bill

Bennett, Andrew F

Fatchett, Derek

Benton, Joe

Foster, Don (Bath)

Berry, Roger

Foulkes, George

Betts, Clive

Galbraith, Sam

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

Garrett, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

George, Bruce

Burden, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Byers, Stephen

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chidgey, David

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gunnell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hanson, David

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hardy, Peter

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Harvey, Nick

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hayes, Jerry

Cohen, Harry

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

Corston, Jean

Home Robertson, John

Cummings, John

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Dafis, Cynog

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

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Hoyle, Doug

34

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Hara, Edward

Hutton, John

Olner, Bill

Illsley, Eric

O'Neill, Martin

Ingram, Adam

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Patchett, Terry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Janner, Greville

Pope, Greg

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Reid, Dr John

Jowell, Tessa

Rendel, David

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rowlands, Ted

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Ruddock, Joan

Livingstone, Ken

Sedgemore, Brian

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McFall, John

Simpson, Alan

McKelvey, William

Skinner, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McMaster, Gordon

Soley, Clive

MacShane, Denis

Spearing, Nigel

Madden, Max

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maddock, Diana

Tipping, Paddy

Mahon, Alice

Touhig, Don

Marek, Dr John

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Wicks, Malcolm

Martlew, Eric

Wigley, Dafydd

Meale, Alan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Michael, Alun

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wilson, Brian

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Winnick, David

Miller, Andrew

Mullin, Chris

Tellers for the Noes:

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Mr. Mike Hall and

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Mr. Terry Lewis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Crown Agents Bill (Lords)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In August 1993, my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, Baroness Chalker, announced the Government's decision to introduce proposals that would allow the Crown Agents to be transferred to a newly created, independent foundation. The Bill before us gives effect to that decision. It might be helpful to remind the House a little about the Crown Agents. Who is it? What is its history?
  The Crown Agents began its work in 1833, when, as Crown servants acting under prerogative, it was appointed to procure goods and services for colonial administrations. Its status was redefined at the turn of the century, when the position of Crown Agents' staff was formalised as analogous to that of civil servants. A new headquarters was opened, and the volume and complexity of work undertaken increased rapidly.
  The next milestone came in 1954, when its full name was changed from "Crown Agents for the Colonies", to "Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations", by which it is still known today, although I suspect that everyone in truth knows it as Crown Agents. That change reflected and assisted its transition from British colonial servants to the present international business, uniquely responsive to the needs of a wide range of overseas clients. It performed that task well for more than a century.
  For almost all its 162 years, the Crown Agents has effectively operated in the private sector.
  In 1954, Sir George Seel, the Crown Agent, gave a broadcast explaining the change of name for the Crown Agents. I think that what he said was of some interest. He said:
  "We trace our ancestry as Crown Agents to the private merchants who, in the eighteenth century, handled the London or Bristol business of the several West Indian Colonies."
  These private agencies were consolidated by the Treasury in 1833 into one establishment, under two "Joint Agents General for Crown Colonies", who then acted for 13 Colonies; henceforth under Treasury supervision, but still as a private business.
  During the 19th century, various adjustments were made, as colonies multiplied and the business expanded, and in 1863 the name Crown Agents for the Colonies was introduced. In 1909, after a parliamentary investigation, the organisation took its present form under the general supervision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  "We are still,"
  said Sir George Seel, in 1954,
  "a private business in the sense that we are not paid out of taxes. We live on a modest commission on orders, adjusted from time to time to avoid piling up profits, or of course running into a loss. Our salaries conform to those of the Civil Service, but we depend for continued existence on satisfying our principals, the oversea authorities (now numbering 120) from whom we take our
  36
  instructions. We are in short a Crown Office carrying on financial and commercial business on a large scale. Last year, we bought and shipped some £60,000,000 of goods, nearly all British. We hold over £800,000,000 of other people's cash and securities.
  We are well known to British firms who export anything from railway engines to pedigree chickens, or from a dredger to a queen bee. We are known to investors in Colonial Stocks, and to thousands who have served overseas, and when on leave or retirement drew their pensions or salaries from our offices overlooking the Thames at 4 Millbank, London.
  We act as consulting engineers. We float loans, or acquire house property. We can where authorised act as Universal Aunts for any public authority abroad which has business in this country.
  Why change our name? The answer is simple. Twenty years ago `Crown Agents for the Colonies' fitted well enough, but now our clients are by no means all Colonies, or even all British, or even all Governments. Foreign territories like Iraq, Jordan and Libya, once under British administration and guidance but now independent, still find it pays to use our services. So does Ceylon, an independent Commonwealth country. We act for international bodies, and for British Government departments under the Colombo Plan. We are constantly acquiring new clients among local authorities and other public bodies abroad.
  For all these clients our name, nearly a century old, signifies quality and service; but many now find it misleading. We have therefore felt bound, although with some reluctance, to change it. In practice, we have always been called just 'Crown Agents', and we had hoped to make that our official title. But there is already a Crown Agent in Scotland, and it would be even more confusing, as well as discourteous, if we tried to poach on his preserves. So, after trying many alternatives, we become 'The Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations'.
  Our friends will no doubt go on calling us Crown Agents for short, and we hope this will continue to stand for efficient service. We've been asked 'What's in a Name?' The answer, for us, is the maximum of business goodwill between Britain and many oversea countries."
  That was Sir George Seel in 1954. As was clear, Crown Agents was a UK success story, effectively while in the public sector, running as a private business.
  Alas, in the 1970s, things got difficult. Crown Agents unwisely expanded its own account business into areas in which it had no specialist expertise.
  When the property market failed in the mid-seventies, Crown Agents was left with substantial losses, which Government were obliged to underwrite. That resulted in a Bill in 1979 which provided a tight framework of regulation and Government control—a necessary piece of legislation at the time, supported as a whole by Parliament.
  On Second Reading in February 1979, it was clear that the Bill had been introduced against the background of a series of financial disasters, inquiries and investigations, and that the legislation was deliberately tight in order to try to ensure that such mishaps could not occur again.
  For the first time in its history, Crown Agents was given statutory authority as a public corporation, responsible to the Minister for Overseas Development and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Secretary of State appoints the chairman and board, and has certain powers of direction over their work. The Act rightly took care to safeguard the traditional confidential nature of Crown Agents' relationship with its overseas principals.
  But it is worth noting in the context of today's Bill that if Crown Agents, as a consequence of this legislation, moves into the private sector in the next year or so, it will have spent only about 15 years of its 162 years as a public body.

  37
  It is also worth noting that Crown Agents operates at no cost to the taxpayer. Since incorporation in 1979, Crown Agents has not received any subsidies from the Government—quite the contrary. Since 1979, Crown Agents has made payments of more than £20 million in capital and interest to the Government. It has been so successful that today it is one of the world's largest international public sector purchasing organisations.
  It provides procurement, management and technical services to around 150 clients, serving 130 countries. It employs about 600 permanent staff, plus 250 overseas and contract staff. Its clients include other countries which give substantial bilateral aid, such as Japan and the Netherlands; and multilateral development agencies, particularly the World bank, the European Union and the United Nations. It is a matter of some pride to all of us that a country such as Japan has such confidence in the Crown Agents that it contracts out its overseas development work to the Crown Agents.
  In the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, where Crown Agents has worked for the ODA and for the United Nations agencies, its procurement and logistic services have proved invaluable, delivering emergency supplies to those who desperately need them. There is no doubt that, with its help, we have saved many lives.
  The heart of Crown Agents' business is, and will remain, the provision of procurement services for all its clients—whether public or private sector—here and around the world. It also provides training and advisory services in procurement. As one of a number of such projects in the former Soviet Union, Crown Agents provided the Russian Government with technical advice, funded by our know-how fund, for the management of a $350 million World bank import rehabilitation loan.
  At its own training centre in Sussex and overseas, Crown Agents provides courses in a wide variety of disciplines that are highly relevant to economic reform and human development. The Crown Agents group also includes an asset management arm regulated by IMR0— the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation—and a financial services company which has applied for supervision, following passage of the Bill, by the Bank of England.
  Its stamp bureau provides philatelic services for nearly a quarter of the world's postal administrations, and its wholly owned subsidiary Resource is helping the standards organisations of more than 30 newly industrialised countries to establish standards for product testing and inspection.
  The Crown Agents ethos is rooted in a long and proud tradition, but it is completely relevant to today's competitive business environment and the needs of a growing army of customers. One of the most important of those is the Japanese Government. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is becoming used to the congratulations of diplomats and officials who have come across the work of Crown Agents. Most recently, the head of the Japanese Economic Co-operation Bureau, Mr. Hirabayashi, made a point of telling Lady Chalker—at a high-level meeting of the OECD development assistance committee in Paris—how much he valued the work done by Crown Agents.
  The Japanese Government's appreciation of Crown Agents' professionalism and reliability is no doubt the reason why an increasing volume of Japan's aid
  38
  programme is routed through Crown Agents. I am sure that the House will be interested to hear about a few of its more recent projects.
  In Ghana, Crown Agents is currently organising a major economics consultancy for Japan's OECF to assess the progress of privatisation. For that project, it formed an Anglo-Japanese team—a good example of the new models of partnership and consultation that Crown Agents, as a business at the cutting edge of its field, is developing.
  Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the total value to date of the purchasing programme in the 14 sub-Saharan African countries that Crown Agents manages for the Japanese is around $1 billion. That substantial sum—along with the trust of the Japanese Government which it signifies—places a fair value on the quality of the work that Crown Agents provides for many clients across the world. That is why—along with, I am sure, the whole House—I have every confidence in the future success of Crown Agents.
  The House may be most familiar with the work of Crown Agents in emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. It has deservedly won a pre-eminent reputation in that regard. Often operating in very difficult environments, frequently in an unfamiliar legal context, Crown Agents has built up substantial reserves of good will and trust as a result of its courage, professionalism and dedication. Its contribution to the Mostar relief convoy in Bosnia was decisive, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has placed on record "enormous appreciation" of its
  "courage, professionalism and spirit … solidarity and dedication under extreme pressure and danger".
  But Crown Agents' work rarely ends when the immediate crisis is over. It is also used to planning and building for the future. It has already begun purchasing and supplying equipment, plant and vehicles for the reconstruction of damaged facilities in the war-torn city of Mostar, under the management of the European Union Administration.
  Hon. Members will recall that Crown Agents is a truly international organisation, with clients across the globe. It has developed speedy, innovative and flexible responses to emergencies, which take full advantage of their world-wide network of personnel and offices.
  That network played an important part in the United Nations' emergency response to the Rwandan refugee crisis. Crown Agents airlifted logisticians and equipment to Zaire; a complex operation to supply water to a refugee camp near Goma was solved only when Crown Agents airlifted from Croatia a water tanker convoy, complete with equipment and spares. The tankers were soon transporting 350,000 litres of water daily into the camp, providing the last vital link in the chain of relief and saving many lives in that beleaguered country.
  Crown Agents' many friends in the House and across the world will be pleased to know that it intends to make the best possible use of the expertise that it has developed in so many tragic parts of the world. Indeed, the ODA is currently discussing with Crown Agents plans to provide a full-time emergency response unit on permanent standby to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world.
  The range of Crown Agents' activities is impressive. Its business is constantly evolving. Sixteen years ago, when the 1979 Act was passed, Crown Agents provided

  39
  the bulk of its services with funding provided through the British aid programme—although it served many other public sector clients around the world. Today Crown Agents obtains more than 70 per cent. of its work from overseas, because that work has increased substantially. New markets continue to be identified, and the benefit of Crown Agents' professional expertise is felt in the more recent areas of development activity—for example, Vietnam, Palestine and the central Asian republics.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade opened Crown Agents' latest buying office last year in South Africa, where Crown Agents is making an increasingly important contribution to the development of the economy. Quality assurance and inspection services have been expanded, and a joint venture company established to service the growing volume of interregional trade in that part of the world.
  Perhaps the most exciting project is the Soweto skills initiative, which combines commercial shrewdness with a real contribution to development in the poorest part of South Africa. It aims to identify potential entrepeneurs from the township for attachment to UK companies and training in enterprise skills. The project is run jointly with other businesses, both British and South African; host companies have included top-flight names such as Rolls-Royce, GEC and Hill Samuel.
  I consider that a fine example of the collaborative, skills-based approach that Crown Agents is now developing. By marketing the expertise that it has built up over its long and distinguished history, it enables poorer economies to develop the qualities and personnel they need to produce and maintain an acceptable and sustainable standard of living for their peoples.
  More and more operations are carried out in strategic partnership with other aid institutions or providers of complementary services. Crown Agents is developing multi-disciplinary services, based on its own pioneering work, and supplies management information systems for use by clients. This year will see the installation of a new computerised purchasing system.
  Crown Agents is modernising to meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive international market. It is up to Government to ensure that outmoded legal and political structures do not hold back the development of a great British success story that extends throughout the globe. Everyone appears to agree that the 1979 Act no longer meets Crown Agents' needs.
  Throughout its history, Crown Agents has adapted—sometimes with the assistance of Parliament—to the continually changing environment in which it must operate. Those changes have not damaged the professionalism and integrity on which its reputation depends; they have strengthened it, and we must not stand in its way. We believe that it is no longer necessary or appropriate for Crown Agents to remain in the public sector, with all the constraints on its work that that involves.
  It is our intention to provide the Crown Agents with a legal and financial framework which will enable it to continue to make its distinctive contribution to development by meeting the changing needs of its clients while preserving the essential qualities of probity and impartiality for which it is renowned.
  40
  The Bill provides for the transfer of the Crown Agents' business from the present statutory corporation to a successor company, under the Companies Act 1985, wholly owned by the Crown and therefore still in the public sector. However, the Bill then gives the Secretary of State the power to dispose of the successor company to a new owner. It is at that point that Crown Agents will leave the public sector.
  The Bill also contains provisions for the future of Crown Agents Holdings and Realisation Board. That was a separate legal entity set up in 1979 to manage and wind up the assets and liabilities of the unincorporated Crown Agents' own account business, to draw a line under its losses. CAHRB will stay in the public sector to discharge its remaining responsibilities. When the last few loose ends are tied up, the board will be wound up by the Secretary of State using his existing powers.
  This is an enabling Bill. It cannot prescribe the final form that the business will have in the private sector; nor should it attempt to do so. We have, however, made our intentions clear, and I would like to put them firmly on the record.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I declare a constituency interest in the future of Crown Agents, because a number of my constituents work at its headquarters in Sutton.
  On the financial aspects of the matter, is my hon. Friend fully aware that the organisation will necessarily have some restructuring costs? Is he further aware that it is healthy for Crown Agents that the pension fund should be in surplus? Can he give some indication whether that situation could continue, because it would help finance some of the restructuring costs?
  Mr. Baldry: The pension fund and the staff of Crown Agents are very important. I hope that what I am going to say will reassure the House and my hon. Friend that we are seeking to achieve a structure which is strictly in the private sector—that is, one that does not have the Treasury straitjacket that comes from being in the public sector; a structure which recognises the contribution of the staff, protects the interests of existing staff and ensures that the Crown Agents moves into the private sector in a way that guarantees its continuing viability and that it will continue to be a great British success story.
  I should like to deal with each of those issues separately. Our intention is that, in due course, the owner of Crown Agents will be a new, independent foundation with a clear developmental mission. I hope that that is clearly understood by the House.
  There will be a two-stage process under the Bill. In the first stage, the Bill provides for the transfer of the Crown Agents from its present statutory corporation to a successor company, under the Companies Act 1985, wholly owned by the Crown and still in the public sector.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: If I may finish stage two, I will give way.
  In stage two, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to dispose of the successor company. It will be our intention that that company will go to a new independent

  41
  foundation with a clear developmental mission. It is at that point that the Crown Agents will leave the public sector.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister was right to ask me to wait, because I wanted to ask about the foundation.
  The foundation was announced by the Government in August 1993, nearly two years ago. Since then, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the other place and here have been pressing very strongly for the memorandum and articles of association to be published, so that we can see what sort of foundation it will be and what will be its purpose, structure and membership. The Government have constantly refused to do that. Can we have some guarantee that they will be published and made available to hon. Members during the consideration of the Bill in Committee, which will otherwise be a total farce?
  Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman knows from comments in the other place, our intention is that the memorandum and articles of association should be published as soon as possible.
  There are a number of issues which are still under consideration. Perhaps I can share one with the House. Certainly I want the Committee to be as well informed as possible, but I could not give an undertaking or guarantee that the articles will be ready for the Committee stage.
  Let me take one issue that we will want to discuss in Committee. One of the ways forward would be for the foundation to be a charity. In that case, one of the issues that would have to be considered is whether the foundation would have charitable status.
  Since the Barings debacle, there has been a different approach towards charitable status. Prior to the Barings debacle, it was perfectly proper and sensible for the trustees of a charity to repose all its funds in a particular institution because they may have considered that to be safe. Post-Barings, we can see that that might not be the most sensible way for trustees to fulfil their fiduciary duties. They may find it more sensible to spread their portfolio of investment.
  If the foundation were to be a charity—and that matter is still under consideration—and was not able to invest all its portfolio in the operating company of the Crown Agents, there might be some continuing instability, which we would wish to avoid.
  We share with the whole House the desire that the maximum amount of information about the foundation should be given and made available just as soon as it can be. Nothing in the Bill should cause a scintilla of concern to any hon. Member who has a genuine interest in development policies and in ensuring that the Crown Agents continues to do the excellent work that it has done in the past.
  We have given repeated assurances about the nature of the proposed foundation. We have made it clear, and I repeat again, that we have no intention of selling Crown Agents by means of a trade sale, because that would not meet Crown Agents' needs, nor would it meet the concerns of its overseas clients.
  The foundation will be a company limited by guarantee. No profits from the foundation will be distributed to its members. They will be reinvested instead in accordance with the developmental objectives set out in the constitution of that foundation. The memorandum and
  42
  articles of association will be very tightly drawn, to preserve and build on the ethos which Crown Agents has developed over its long and distinguished history.
  The permanent members of the foundation will bring together business ability with wide experience of aid and development. They will be drawn from charities, financial and trading companies, professional and trade organisations and other aid organisations and enduring institutions. Present members of the Crown Agents board may bring their unrivalled experience of the business to the initial membership, providing valuable continuity during the period of transition.
  Again, I make it clear that the Government have no intention of having any involvement in determining who are the members. Obviously, we will wish to be satisfied that the founder members possess competence and integrity. The hon. Member for Eccles looks critical. Perhaps I should explain in a little more detail.
  We do not start with a clean sheet of paper. We have the existing membership of Crown Agents, together with a number of organizations—the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, for instance—and charities that have a close interest in Crown Agents. One imagines some of those organisations coming together as founding members of the new foundation.
  Human nature being what it is, I imagine that at some point Crown Agents and those who take a close interest in it will come together and tell the Government, "We wish to be the founding permanent members of the foundation." The Government will not determine who those members should be; we feel that Crown Agents and others can well work that out for themselves. We shall simply be concerned to know that they possess competence and integrity, and that collectively they will meet the developmental needs of Crown Agents.
  We are still considering the best structure for the foundation. As I explained to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), a number of issues remain to be considered. We shall want to ensure that the new structure enables the foundation to fulfil its social and developmental objectives, while enabling Crown Agents' operating company to trade commercially.
  As I have said, charitable status for the foundation is one of the options. It has its attractions, including oversight of the trustees by the Charity Commissioner. It also has difficulties, arising in part from the restrictions imposed by charity law on single investments. Prospective members of the foundation will have their views on this, and no final decision has yet been made.
  We want to be assured that the future structure will be fully satisfactory before transfer of the business takes place. We will make sure that the fundamental objectives of the foundation cannot be changed without our agreement for a sufficient period to ensure that the new structure starts life on a proper footing. As to how long that period might be, I am certain that we can explore that in some detail in Committee. It is certainly our intention that there can be no change to the fundamental objectives of the foundation for a substantial period, so that it can start life on a proper footing and establish itself as a new entity in the private sector.
  The foundation will be the sole shareholder in the operating company, which will be built on fully commercial lines. There are plenty of analogies for such

  43
  a system. The Oxfam charity can operate with Oxfam Trading carrying out its business as a straightforward commercial operation whose profits are reinvested for charitable pursuits. The Wellcome Foundation carries out similar operations, too.
  The operating company will he limited by shares and will service capital in the usual way; it is the operating company that will generate the surpluses which will enable the foundation to fulfil its developmental objectives.
  The capital structure of the new company remains to be settled. The Bill contains provisions allowing us to make the necessary arrangements. We are keen to ensure that the new company does not begin its life overburdened with debt. We want to ensure that Crown Agents has a fair start, to guarantee the continuing viability of the business, not least because our aid programme is, and is expected to remain, a substantial customer of its excellent services. So we shall seek to ensure that the terms of transfer balance the need for a healthy rebirth of Crown Agents in the private sector with the interest of taxpayers in securing value for money for public assets.
  To recap: there will be a two-tier structure, with the foundation being the sole owner of the operating company. The foundation will be a company limited by guarantee. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development confirmed that in another place on 24 April. The foundation's memorandum and articles of association will be tightly drawn up to reflect and to build on the social, ethical and developmental principles on which Crown Agents' business is based.
  The operating company will operate Crown Agents' business along normal commercial lines, and will be limited by shares. The operating company will be able to pass its profits to the foundation. The foundation will not distribute dividends, but will use any profits from Crown Agents' business in pursuit of its overall objectives.
  Members of the foundation, some of whom may serve on the board of the operating company, will not be appointed by Ministers. Existing members of Crown Agents will be among the founder members of the foundation. Other founder members may be drawn from a range of institutions, including finance and trading companies, professional and trade organisations, charities and other developmental aid bodies. Additional new members will be nominated and selected by existing members in accordance with the foundation's articles of association. The Secretary of State will have reserve powers, so that no change can be made to the fundamental purpose of the business, without his consent, certainly for a period of up to five years.
  We are working hard with our advisers and with Crown Agents to resolve a number of complex legal issues, which will be made clear in the memorandum and articles of association. We shall make them available to Members of this House and place them in the Library.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has spelt out the provisions for the foundation and the operating company in great detail. What he has omitted to say—I believe it is the most important element—is whether, after the five-year period, when the foundation becomes free-standing and is no longer subject to the control of the Secretary of State, anything will be written in to the rules to prevent the
  44
  company selling off all its assets to a private company—Lonrho, Tate and Lyle or some other firm. Will there be safeguards in the memorandum and articles of association? They are essential; I hope that the Government will take that into account if they are not already doing so.
  Mr. Baldry: I suspect that the House will ultimately have to come to a judgment on that and certain other issues in this Bill. I am sure that we will hear views expressed in this debate on whether the foundation should be described on the face of the Bill, for instance.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's question: the foundation, it should be remembered, will begin with a membership comprising existing Crown Agents and people with an interest in the present ethos and philosophy of the organisation, and in its continuing success. The people who will become founder members of the foundation will all therefore be committed to Crown Agents. They will not be rapacious speculators. I reiterate—they will all be people who want Crown Agents to succeed.
  As with any other group, if someone drops out, under the articles of association of the foundation the remaining members will be able to appoint someone else to join. Thus, new members will all be organisations committed to the developmental and philosophical aims of Crown Agents. No organisation will be able to get involved unless it enters as a founder member or is later appointed under the memorandum and articles of association by those who are founder members.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I am puzzled. The Minister said that the Government would not appoint people. In that case, what absolute guarantee does he have that they will be the sort of people that he describes?
  Mr. Baldry: I thought that I had explained that. Crown Agents will seek to get around it a number of charitable and business organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, and perhaps the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—bodies which have a genuine interest in the work of the Crown Agents. The Government will have to look at those organisations in the round to see whether we are satisfied about their competence and integrity to take over the foundation when the Secretary of State moves to the second stage of transferring to the foundation the company that the Bill will set up.
  It is inconceivable that organisations that are committed to the developmental and philosophical objectives of the Crown Agents will not form a strong foundation that is committed to the development work of the sort that Crown Agents currently carries out. When the foundation is in place and the Secretary of State has transferred to it the company that is set up by the Bill, those founding organisations will control the foundation.
  The only way in which any other organisation can become a member of the foundation is by appointment by its existing members under the memorandum and articles of association. Therefore, there is no way in which an organisation could become associated with the Crown Agents unless it was committed to the current developmental and philosophical aims of the Crown Agents.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister's speech is reminiscent of "Candide"—

  45
  everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. However well intentioned and qualified, the people in foundations do not always hold the same views, and there are disputes. If there is a dispute in the foundation about how matters should proceed, how will it be resolved unless the Secretary of State retains some residual power?
  Mr. Baldry: The foundation will be in the private sector. Let there be no doubt that, when the Secretary of State is satisfied about the competence and integrity of the membership of the foundation, he will transfer the company that is set up by the Bill into the foundation. At that stage, Crown Agents will move into the private sector. It will be a company limited by guarantee, and any disputes in the foundation will be resolved under company law using the process of the memorandum and articles of association. We could all put forward worst case scenarios.
  Since 1979, Crown Agents has, in effect, operated in the private sector. That was brought about in 1979 for particular reasons. It has operated successfully throughout the world because it has always had a clear purpose, commitment and idea of its work. That will continue.
  Mr. Forman: The debate is not overburdened with speakers. Presumably my hon. Friend wishes to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the head of the procurement division, as the briefing says, of the World bank, Mr. Scrinivasan, is perfectly happy with the idea of Crown Agents moving into the private sector at some appropriate stage. He sees that as being to the advantage of Crown Agents and its clients.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I can reinforce it by telling the House that, as far as I am aware, none of Crown Agents' clients, suppliers or customers is concerned about what is proposed. They all recognise that the legislation will provide Crown Agents with an opportunity to move forward unrestricted by limitations that are placed upon it because it is strictly and formally still within the public sector.
  We are working hard with advisers and the Crown Agents to resolve a number of legal issues. They will be made clear in the foundation's memorandum and articles of association, which will be made available to hon. Members and placed in the Library. Some people wish us to put the foundation in the Bill, but that would be unnecessary and would add nothing to what Ministers have said or will say before the Bill leaves the House.
  The staff of Crown Agents are its greatest asset. They are distinguished by their courage; many staff members who have been operating in places such as the former Republic of Yugoslavia have shown courage, professionalism and competence in the broadest sense. Those qualities have been displayed in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and 11 employees of Crown Agents received honours in the past year for delivering emergency aid to the long-suffering people of Bosnia and Rwanda. The Bill rightly protects their best interests.
  Nothing in the Bill affects the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, commonly known as TUPE. The terms and conditions of staff and the continued recognition of trade unions that are recognised at the moment of transfer will be inherited by the new company. Pension funds are held in trust, and current assets are more than sufficient to meet present and future demands. Crown Agents has no plans to alter the present arrangements.
  46
  The security of trust-based schemes will be further protected by the provisions of the Pensions Bill, which is currently being considered by the House. There will be no change in the assets and liabilities of the funds when the business transfers.
  During the transition, we shall take all necessary steps to ensure that clients appreciate that the quality and range of services that are offered by Crown Agents will remain unaltered. Indeed, they should be enhanced. Client confidentiality will continue to be respected, and the change in status from a public corporation to a foundation will make no difference to existing or new contractual obligations.
  Nothing in the Bill should cause any concern to anyone working with or for Crown Agents or to any of its customers or suppliers. The Bill seeks merely to ensure that Crown Agents can move into the 21st century with a structure that is fit for the next century. The Bill will allow it to secure its future by freeing it from cumbersome and unnecessary constraints in the public sector while strengthening its ability to develop new commercial opportunities here and overseas.
  Crown Agents is a great British success story, and we wish to ensure that its future business has a stable and enduring structure and that the success story continues. I commend the Bill to the House, and trust that hon. Members will give it a Second Reading.
  5.18 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I and, I am sure, the whole House thank the Minister for the detailed analysis and background he gave about the Crown Agents and about the arguments leading up to the Bill. As we discuss the Bill, it will emerge that the Minister and Conservative Members are more trusting than we are. We shall see how it goes.
  It is important to place it on record that debates on the Crown Agents here and in the other place have been typified, from all quarters, by genuine expressions of good will towards the organisation, as the Minister rightly said this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to place on record our admiration for the work and the first-class reputation of the Crown Agents and its loyal and committed staff.
  As we have heard, the Crown Agents is one of the world's largest international, public sector purchasing organisations. It provides the highest quality of service, advising on the cheapest and most efficient ways in which to supply projects. It continues to play an important part in the Overseas Development Administration's rather shrinking bilateral aid budget.
  In recent years, those services have been supplemented by new roles, on behalf of Britain and other donors, such as ensuring the safe delivery of emergency aid, as we have heard, to the stricken areas of Rwanda and Bosnia, and providing assistance in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. All that is to be welcomed.
  In its annual report, the managing director of Crown Agents accurately reports:
  "We have remained constant to our core purpose of providing financial, professional and procurement services for the economic development of our clients … We are entirely self-supporting … exposed to and tested by the rapidly changing market place and must deliver services which are contemporary, economic and effective."

  47
  He describes the procurement business as "our engine room" and he points out that Crown Agents is "also becoming a catalyst" for change.
  Without doubt, the name "Crown Agents" is synonymous with the highest standards of impartiality and probity. Crown Agents is justifiably anxious to maintain that good will and credibility which have been so carefully built up over the years—an anxiety shared by many of its clients. The tradition of service to Britain and to other countries is now under threat, not from within the organisation, but from the Government, and it is all so very unnecessary.
  The Minister paints a picture of an organisation that is unable to respond to the commercial challenges presented by a changing world because it is in some way tied by its historic structure. I believe that it is important to have fixed points in a rapidly changing environment, especially if they provide not only stability but a guaranteed quality of service, as Crown Agents does. There is, however, a strong case for allowing the Crown Agents to take on additional functions and to operate in new markets. I shall address that point in greater detail a little later.
  What I cannot accept—this is the only choice put to us—is that we have either to privatise the organisation or leave it exactly as it is; I cannot accept that there is no third way. Let us make no mistake. However it is put, we are talking about privatisation, even though some Ministers have been remarkably reluctant to use the P-word. In the light of recent bungled attempts in other sectors, the House will understand that reluctance. Both in the other place and here, Ministers have talked of transfer to an independent foundation or of "a suitably formed foundation", whatever that may mean. Neither we nor the Government know exactly what that means.
  We have heard about the Government's intention that Crown Agents will move into the private sector. We have heard that a successor company, wholly owned by the Crown, will be established, and will therefore still be in the public sector. We have heard that
  "the Bill gives the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, the power to dispose of the successor company to a new owner."
  Baroness Chalker had to admit, however, that
  "the terms of this future transfer are not specifically addressed in the Bill".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 1410.]
  The Minister partly confirmed that in his speech.
  As a result of this legislation, this public sector organisation will be redefined as being in the private sector. Its assets will be transferred to a company limited by guarantee. Is that not privatisation? There are many reasons why the Government have chosen this bizarre route to privatisation. I am given to understand that some Treasury Ministers favoured straight privatization—sale to the highest bidder—which would have yielded a positive financial consideration and provided the clean break from Government which is so popular in Whitehall circles. There were, however, substantial snags in that option.
  For some time, strong rumours have been circulating that some of the major clients of Crown Agents, especially the Japanese Government who are its second largest client, were sensitive about a possible future
  48
  takeover. They have questioned whether the high standards of probity and impartiality associated with Crown Agents could be maintained if the organisation became part of an international conglomerate. The possibility of the Japanese and others taking their custom elsewhere—that is a big part of the work of Crown Agents—could have jeopardised the sale. Concern has also been expressed about the grossly high salaries and share options that we have come to associate so clearly with British privatisation programmes.
  It was as a direct result of those concerns that the Government decided to go for the unusual route of establishing a foundation which would have developmental objectives. It was not an easy decision for Ministers to take, although they now would have us believe that it is the only and obvious choice.
  Once again, expensive City consultancies have been wheeled in to chew over the pros and cons. Coopers and Lybrand produced an extensive report in 1992 which has still not been made public. I understand, however, that Coopers and Lybrand recommended a straight trade sale. "They would, wouldn't they?" one might say. Since then, the Government have been dithering over the options—or considering them deeply, depending which phrase one wants to use.
  I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, for example, must have pointed out what a significant ally Crown Agents is in the effort to increase British exports. Crown Agents knows United Kingdom suppliers well and it is, in turn, accessible to them. Some 35 per cent. of aid procurement handled by the United Kingdom is sourced in the United Kingdom. The link with British industry is worth tens of millions of pounds a year, and let us hope that it can continue. Straight privatisation would have put that relationship in jeopardy.
  The choice of a foundation is unusual. Comparisons have been drawn with other organisations: the Wellcome Foundation is a prominent example which bears closer scrutiny. Like Wellcome, the Crown Agents foundation would have twin objectives, trading and development, which would be kept entirely separate. However, Wellcome has been in the news recently because of a takeover battle, and there are interesting parallels with the proposals for Crown Agents, which we should pursue.
  The Wellcome Foundation is a registered charity. A trust owned all the shares in the associated drug company until 1986, when a quarter were sold. A further third were put on the market five years later. Each sale required High Court approval, because the will that set up the trust left the trustees in ownership of the company, but without the power to dispose of that ownership. As a result, the trustees had to obtain a scheme from the charity commissioners to override the will. However, it was the clear intention of Sir Henry Wellcome when drafting his will that control of the company should remain with the trustees.
  The recent Glaxo bid for Wellcome shares shows how important it is to have specific provision in the articles of association to safeguard the welfare of the company and its staff, to which the Minister has referred. We must ensure that a future Crown Agents foundation is not left vulnerable as the Wellcome Foundation, which has been held up as such a good example, has been.
  At the heart of our concern about the Bill is the fact that so many details about the foundation have been left hanging in the air. Despite the Minister's assurances—I

  49
  am sure that they are given in good faith; but he has greater faith than I have—I am not satisfied, and I do not believe that anyone else is who is concerned about the organisation's future.
  The Government still have not made up their mind about the board or the structure of the foundation. The Minister for Overseas Development has said that membership of the foundation will reflect the international character of Crown Agents' activities, and will include representatives from the corporate sector. We can do no more than speculate what that means. I presume that the Japanese national aid agency could reasonably expect an invitation to take up membership.
  It is conceivable that Treasury Ministers have suggested that, whichever body assumes responsibility for overseeing the trading activities—presumably it will be the board of directors—it should be composed mainly of hard-nosed business men and women with no direct interest in, let alone commitment to, the developmental aspects of Crown Agents' work. Other Minister have expressed concern that the foundation's objectives may be changed by its members. Indeed, the Bill does not make it clear what safeguards there will be to ensure that membership of the foundation will not eventually pass into the hands of people with radically different ideas about how it should operate.
  I understand that the Bill will give the Secretary of State limited reserve powers, possibly for five years, to rein in any attempt to change the fundamental purpose of the foundation. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has already asked: what will happen after that? If we need a five-year guaranteed reserve power for the Secretary of State to stop any change in the fundamental purpose of the foundation, there must be the possibility that attempts will be made to change that fundamental purpose. Why else are the reserve powers there?
  As I read the Bill, it says that, although we shall watch the situation carefully for five years, after that, open season will be declared.
  Mr. Forman: Does not the hon. Lady understand that the Crown Agents' strengths lie precisely in the technical, procurement and related activities that support the developmental objective? She must know that. So what possible reason could there be for Crown Agents in the private sector, with greater commercial freedom, not to play to its strengths?
  Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point as I. In other words, it is all a matter of faith. There is no guarantee in the Bill that what he wants and expects is likely to happen. As I have already asked, why suggest the five years' reserve powers if everything is bound to be all right? If it were certain that nobody would go in a different direction because everyone is committed, we would not need the five years reserve powers.
  Baroness Chalker said in another place that members would not be appointed by the Minister, and the Minister repeated that today. However, in Baroness Chalker's words, Crown Agents is
  "in touch with a … range of institutions including finance and trading companies, professional and trade organisations, charities and other development aid bodies."
  50
  How can Ministers give a firm assurance that the proper balance between those different interests will be achieved if there is not control over the composition of the membership?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady's hostility to the whole idea of the private sector's having any role to play in the future of Crown Agents. Does she not accept that the purpose of the transfer is to enable Crown Agents to prosper, flourish and develop? She seems to suggest that it will be incapable of maintaining the integrity that it has shown so far. Will she set the record straight and say where she stands? Does she not trust Crown Agents?
  Miss Lestor: The hon. Lady has slightly misunderstood my argument. Privatisation is not the same thing as encouraging the private sector in certain areas. [Interruption.] With respect, those two things are not the same. One can privatise an organisation so that it is completely private, or one can have an organisation with elements that make it a public organisation, although the private sector is encouraged to participate up to a certain point. The second alternative is not privatisation.
  It is the Government, not the Opposition, who do not trust Crown Agents. I trust Crown Agents and believe that its contribution has been unusual and welcome, and that it still has a long way to develop further. But I do not want the purposes for which Crown Agents was set up to be undermined because the Government are opting out of any control or management of it.
  The Government have not set the terms for the transfer of the powers and assets to the operating company. We are told that that can be left to discussions with future foundation members, whoever they may be, once the structure is established in whatever form. Apparently the members might decide to apply for charitable status at some time in the future.
  Such a lack of information is not acceptable when we are being asked to allow a Bill of such importance through the House. It shows a disregard for Parliament and a clear intention to thwart the accountability that is achieved through the system of parliamentary debate.
  We know that the new company will be limited by guarantee, but we are still waiting for sight of the memorandum and articles of association that their lordships were assured would
  "reflect … and … build on, the social, ethical and developmental principles on which Crown Agents' business is based."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 1410.]
  I hope that that is true, but why could such detail not have been included on the face of the Bill? The Minister said that it would not add anything, but its absence suggests to me that something is being hidden. Including the detail would have gone a long way towards addressing the real concerns of people who value the Crown Agents and want it to continue to provide the highest quality of service.
  The Bill will have little effect on the working of Crown Agents in the short and medium term. It already operates in a highly commercial way, and there is no suggestion that the developmental objectives will be jettisoned at this stage. However, after privatisation there will be two obvious changes.
  First, any future borrowing by Crown Agents will not count against the public sector borrowing requirement. Secondly, Crown Agents will no longer be limited to

  51
  serving aid agencies and other public bodies in the developing world. That is another of my concerns. In effect, Crown Agents' services will become available to a much wider range of organisations, including health authorities and local government bodies in the United Kingdom—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
  Conservative Members should not get too excited; nobody is saying that that should not happen—but I trust that the enthusiasm for new markets will not lead to too drastic a shift in market focus, and that the developmental aspects of Crown Agents' work will continue to be central to future corporate plans.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) asked earlier about the welfare of Crown Agents' existing staff, which I understand is giving rise to some concern in his constituency. We must have assurances that there are no plans to make any staff redundant, because we have seen that sort of thing before.
  Similarly, it is not unreasonable to require cast-iron guarantees that the pension rights of current and past employees will be safeguarded. I was not sure whether the Minister dealt with that question; perhaps it will come up again later. Not too long ago, Crown Agents gave itself a pension fund contributions holiday in order to break even. The rights of its pensioners must be upheld.
  In another place, Lord Judd tried, with the tenacity that those who know him would expect, but sadly without success, to persuade the Government, as we are trying now, to put some flesh on the skeleton Bill. I have great admiration for my noble Friend's political skills; I have known him a long time, and he is an expert at eliciting information from the most reluctant Minister. But even he had to admit that he was up against a brick wall and getting nowhere.
  We cannot but conclude that Ministers themselves are still so much in the dark about the details of this unique privatisation that they are not only unwilling but unable to give the reasonable assurances for which we ask. I found it disturbing when the Minister said that he could not guarantee that the memorandum and articles of association would be available for the Committee stage.
  Surely, in Committee, it is time to probe deeper, to ask more questions and to put more flesh on the bones. Yet the Minister said that he could not guarantee that the details would be available. We are being asked to pass a measure with little knowledge of how it will work.
  In my efforts to understand the thinking behind the Bill, I compared it to another Bill now proceeding through Parliament—the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No.2) Bill.
  Ministers have argued that Crown Agents' business has changed so much over the decades that it has become necessary to transform the legal and financial structures in response to changing needs. That is precisely the same argument as Baroness Chalker made yesterday in the other place during a debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation, an organisation operating in the commercial sector but from within the state sector—like Crown Agents.
  Like Crown Agents, the CDC is seeking greater commercial freedom to pursue new markets and undertake additional services. Like Crown Agents, the CDC plays an important role in developmental programmes. But unlike
  52
  Crown Agents, the CDC is believed by Ministers to be able to develop in the way it has suggested, without resorting to privatisation.
  In the same debate, Lord Trefgarne spelt it out clearly:
  "it is safe to assume that CDC, following the enactment of the Bill with its amendments, will be pursuing the same objectives by substantially the same means but with important new powers to do better more effectively, at an earlier stage and in a more fundamental way."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1226.]
  During the debate, Baroness Chalker completely rejected the suggestion that the CDC could be privatised at some future date. That is the same argument, but a completely different conclusion. If the Government believe that such freedom would work for CDC, why not for Crown Agents? Why have they gone totally for privatisation?
  We oppose this privatisation. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) wish to make a comment? No, he just wants to sit and moan. The Government have so far not succeeded in persuading us that the proposed foundation will successfully maintain at its core a development purpose.
  The Foreign Secretary's view appears to be pessimistic, if a recent report in The Daily Telegraph was accurate. The right hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
  "The Crown Agents are buyers and sellers for the Government overseas. But the aid budget is falling. They do a lot of foreign business and need to be free of public sector constraints. It is privatising in order to preserve."
  If Crown Agents' trading fails to be sufficiently profitable, where will the funds come from to meet the developmental purpose of the foundation? That question has not been answered. The Bill is as flimsy as it is evasive, and it leaves far too much to private discretion and far too little to public scrutiny and accountability to this House. Privatisation is not the only course unless one has a slavish addiction to the dogma of privatisation, however unnecessary.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Lady calls this measure a privatisation because it allows her to pigeonhole it. I find it fascinating that the hon. Lady says that she is opposed to this privatisation. In recent weeks, the Labour party has opposed what it calls the privatisation of the railways and the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Labour party was not against privatisation, but time and time again it opposes each and every privatisation.
  Miss Lestor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been reading some of our literature, even if he has got it wrong. What I am saying—the hon. Gentleman knows this—is that the Government say that they can do all that they want for the CDC in the Bill, and that it is not necessary to go for privatisation. But they are going for privatisation in this Bill with none of the safeguards or limits which are required to allow the Crown Agents to operate in the way it has said.
  We have been asked to take the Bill on trust, and we will not even have the details of the memorandum before we go into Committee. We oppose the Bill, for the reasons which I have given. The Opposition seek to protect the benefits which the Crown Agents has brought to the developing world. It is absolutely right that the Crown Agents should have greater commercial freedom, but

  53
  privatisation will not generate the trading surpluses necessary if those developmental benefits are to continue to flow. Privatisation does not give that guarantee, and the Minister unfortunately has not put any flesh on the Bill to assure us that there will be accountability.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Opposition are unnecessarily concerned about the measure. The first point to make—from both a constituency and a general point of view—is that the management of Crown Agents, led ably by Peter Berry and his colleagues, very much want the measure to go through. The employees also wish it to go through, as they believe it to be the right approach for the future of Crown Agents.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is important to correct that completely misleading impression right at the start. The Crown Agents and its board were opposed to the proposals. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman reads the annual report of 1993, he will find that they were opposed to the proposals. It was only because the Government twisted their arms and threatened them with worse measures that they reluctantly went along with it.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is out of date. I have had letters from Peter Berry, and I know that the organisation wishes the measure to proceed. Mr. Berry has confidence about the future of Crown Agents on its new basis.
  The Bill is welcome because it provides a flexible and imaginative basis on which Crown Agents can go forward, prosper and broaden its markets in future. It strikes the appropriate balance between meeting the concerns of some of the principal clients—one thinks particularly of the Japanese, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor)—that Crown Agents should not lose the honest broker status which it has built up over the years, and the wishes of management to obtain commercial freedom and flexibility that are beyond the scope of what is available in the Crown Agents Act 1979. Therefore, it gives a correct and appropriate balance for the next stage of development.
  That balanced objective should be achieved with the proposed two-tier structure which my hon. Friend the Minister set out in his admirable speech. A controlling foundation with a wholly owned operating company acting along commercial lines beneath it is a sensible way forward, and it could give the flexibility and the advantages that are sought.
  From a constituency point of view, my constituents will be glad to learn that there will be no redundancies among staff working at the headquarters in Sutton. I hope very much that the pension arrangements will he left undisturbed by the proposed change so that they can be of benefit to employees and to the company by helping to meet restructuring costs. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister said that both points would be satisfactorily addressed by the Bill.
  Mr. Baldry: Yes.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful for that response to an important point.
  54
  This is a good Bill, which I support wholeheartedly. I have, however, two or three questions which I should like to raise now and to which my hon. Friend could perhaps reply at the end of debate, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, will the new legal framework give Crown Agents the ability to take on new clients such as health authorities and local authorities—in other words, to widen the scope of its client base? I hope very much that that will be the case, as it would be in the commercial interests of the organisation if it were.
  Mr. Baldry: The answer to that question is yes. One of the reasons why we want Crown Agents to move to the private sector is that—under present Treasury rules—it cannot compete for public work with firms from the private sector while it remains in the public sector. That is one of the reasons why we want Crown Agents to have this freedom.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am doing very well.
  Secondly, how extensive will the powers of the foundation board be in relation to the operating company? I have in mind the principle of trust law, in which a trust document is drawn up which gives fairly general—but none the less prescriptive—guidance to operating companies and subsidiary organisations acting within that trust document. To what extent is it envisaged that the foundation board will have real operating influence over the operating company?
  Thirdly, will the Act, the trust document or the prospectus set out the Secretary of State's reserve powers? We have heard in the debate so far that the reserve powers will exist for five years or thereabouts. It would be interesting for the House to know in exactly what circumstances such powers might have to be used. That would go some way towards answering the fair concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for already answering at least one and a half of those three queries. I bring my speech to a close by underlining the key points: this is a good measure; it is worthy of support; and the Opposition are unnecessarily worried by the prospect of what they regard as privatisation but which I regard as a common-sense measure to widen the commercial opportunities of an excellent and reputable organisation.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: May I join other hon. Members in praising the Crown Agents? When I worked in Africa, I worked with the Crown Agents, and saw the practical work that it did for the United Nations development programme. As I was a delegate for the European Commission there, I saw the work which the Crown Agents did for the European Union. It was extraordinarily effective, because it had a reputation as an honest broker. It proved that it was an honest broker in how it carried out purchases or advised various organisations. That extremely important reputation should not be put to the test.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, from the moment that Price Waterhouse was brought on to the scene, suspicions were naturally aroused. I do not blame Price Waterhouse for that. It is a perfectly reputable firm with reputable jobs to do, but advising on development and how the Crown Agents fits

  55
  into development is not one of its prime concerns, nor its area of greatest experience. I challenge the Minister to tell me of its previous experience in such an area, as it does not seem to have the necessary expertise.
  This measure is privatisation, no matter how the Government now try to mince their words. They announced it as privatisation at the beginning and were rightly open about it. The purpose of privatisation is to put an organisation into the private sector; the purpose of the private sector is not to develop but to make money. No matter how gradually privatisation is carried out, the root of this privatisation is eventually to put profits into the hands of individuals or companies, not over the first five years but later.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that new Labour has now moved on, supposedly. To listen to him speak, I would not believe that the Labour party had moved one at all. He spits out the word "profit" as if something were wrong with it and refuses to accept the fact that, with the new foundation in the Bill, the profit that is made will be reinvested. What is wrong with reinvesting profit for the benefit of the people whom the organisation serves?
  Mr. Enright: There is absolutely nothing wrong with profit, nor did I suggest that there was. But there is a great deal wrong with profit that goes directly into the hands of greedy individuals rather than going into the wealth of the nation. It is extremely important to remember that. The Minister allayed none of our fears. He continually said that there was nothing in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill and that is our complaint. He went on to say that that should not cause a scintilla of concern. That is an altogether splendid phrase, but what does it mean? What proof did he give us that the Bill has substance which we can trust? The Minister clearly trusts the general outline of the Bill, which is to ask for all the best in the best of all possible worlds. It is neatly and nicely expressed, but it does not spell out its intent in detail.
  The only thing that is spelt out in detail is that the Government will play no part in appointing the foundation. If they do not appoint the foundation, who will they leave it to? How will the judgment be made? Will it be a succession from those who presently govern the Crown Agents? They are perfectly worthy people who do their jobs extremely well, but that gives no guarantee of the quality of their successors. The Government say that they will hold reserve powers for five years to vet any successors who are appointed. How strange to say that we shall need those powers for five years because the Crown Agents may go astray. Are the Government saying that they do not trust the present governors, but, in five years' time, when other people whom we know not are in charge, we can trust them?
  The problem is that this whole exercise has been shrouded in secrecy. One has only to read Baroness Chalker's speech in another place to realise that she deliberately said that she could not reveal certain facts because that would infringe commercial confidentiality. She simply asked us to trust her. If there were one member of the Government whom I would trust, it would be Baroness Chalker. She is the most trustworthy of all the members of the Government with the exception of the Leader of the House. I do not trust the Treasury or the
  56
  hard noses in the Cabinet who have not yet given up their fight. I congratulate Baroness Chalker on the fight that she has put up on a number of issues, although she is not in the Cabinet. She has pursued certain issues with great tenacity and I have nothing but admiration for her, but given the prevailing mood of the Cabinet, the Government will go for wholesale privatisation as soon as possible and nothing that has been said about the Bill so far, nor anything in the Bill, will convince me otherwise.
  Mr. Foulkes: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for Baroness Chalker, but we keep hearing talk about Government reshuffles in July or September, and there is no guarantee that Baroness Chalker will be doing the same job next year. Let us suppose that the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for example, were to take over the post of Minister for Overseas Development. We can imagine what he would have in mind for the Crown Agents. So I ask my hon. Friend not to be carried away by his enthusiasm for the delightful Baroness Chalker.
  Mr. Enright: It is entirely possible that the Secretary of State for Wales might even take over with a place in the Cabinet, which would indeed give cause for concern.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said in one of his more fluent interventions—he managed to get up and say a hit instead of mumbling from the Back Benches as is his wont—that we were using the term "privatisation" in the wrong way. By doing so, he said we were accusing him of wanting to privatise the Crown Agents and he suggested that nothing had ever been further from his mind and that he hates privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that the Bill is not designed to initiate privatisation, let me quote from the first press release from the ODA, which stated:
  "The Government has decided to privatise the Crown Agents by transferring them to a newly created independent foundation with a social purpose and developmental objectives."
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has read that press release accurately. The hon. Member for Eccles made a bad point from the Opposition Front Bench when she suggested that Ministers have sought to disguise the Bill's intention. The purpose of the Bill is clear—it is about privatising the Crown Agents and moving it into the private sector. We have, however, made it clear, as way back as in the press release of 1993, that that process will be achieved through a
  "newly created independent foundation with a social purpose and development objectives."
  The idea that Ministers are involved in some sinister, macabre plot does not fit with the facts.
  Mr. Enright: The Minister is absolutely right—it is not a sinister, macabre plot, because there will be a five-year hold on full privatisation. That is spelt out in the Bill. The Minister said that the Government will ensure that the plans are tightly drawn. When I heard that, I scanned through the Bill once again. If it is tightly drawn, I shudder to think what a loosely drawn Bill would be like.
  Mr. Peter Berry is a most able managing director of the Crown Agents. If one reads his successive reports, as I did in preparation for the debate, it is clear that he has been whipped along a particular path. When he was interviewed by the Financial Times, his clinching

  57
  argument for being whipped along the path that the Government had chosen was that the new way of doing things meant
  "there will be no disincentive to be proactive."
  What gobbledegook. That sounds like the old Thatcherite language which the Government are trying hard to ditch. If that is the one argument for opting for that particular form of privatisation, with the ultimate aim of total privatisation, the whole thing is an absolute shambles.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Bearing in mind the total venom with which the hon. Gentleman talks about privatisation, can he give the House one assurance? In the event, heaven help us, of a Labour Government, would he press that Government to bring the Crown Agents back into the state sector, which would hamper its future prosperity?
  Mr. Enright: When we take over government again, as the hon. Lady has virtually admitted that we will do very soon, we will start from a different place. As the Irishman said, "I wouldn't have started from here".
  I will not start from where the hon. Lady would wish me to start. We will have to see what is happening at that time. I hope that the five-year estop, which has been imposed, will be most helpful in ensuring that we will be able to continue to run the Crown Agents properly.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his refusal to answer that question and the refusal of other Opposition Members to answer any questions about privatisation and renationalisation is the very reason why the Labour party will not win the next general election?
  Mr. Enright: As the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, I am not going to answer questions in the way that hon. Members want me to answer them; I am going to answer the question as I see it.
  Let us consider the disincentives to proaction. The Minister will recall that the tighter rules, of which he now complains, were brought in in 1979 for a perfectly good reason. They were originally mooted by the Labour Government because in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Crown Agents, given the amount of freedom it then had, managed to invest in Australian property and to make rather a muck of it. One of the great things about that episode was that it proved the Crown Agents' absolute integrity in public service, because it was examined closely as a result of the huge mess it had made in Australia among other places. One department was found to have made a muck of things by making investments it did not really understand. There was, however, no dishonesty involved.
  Such is the unique reputation of that public service which works closely with the private sector. The state and the private sector working together represents new Labour. That is precisely what the Crown Agents does so well now. To tip over that balance so that the Crown Agents is transferred completely into the private sector will tip the balance too far. That will unsettle an institution with a delicate balance.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman recalls the visit that he and I made to Tunisia—a client of the Crown Agents—last September? We saw the enormous contribution that privatised British Gas is making to the development of the Tunisian economy. Would he have made the same speech as he is making now against the privatisation of British Gas?
  58
  Would British Gas have been able to make that contribution to the Tunisian economy if he had had his way then? Does he not accept that the Crown Agents should be able to enjoy the same freedom now enjoyed by that fine British company?
  Mr. Enright: That fine British company has just given us an example of democracy at work at the meeting of its shareholders. The former Prime Minister used to shout that small shareholders now control the world. British Gas gave us a recent example of how it controls its small shareholders, who were lured into giving up their money on the understanding that they would have some power over that company. The Crown Agents may well run amok in the same way as British Gas has done in part of its operations. That would be a shame.
  I believe that one of the main factors in driving the Crown Agents into the private sector was the World bank—the bank of the old days rather than the new ones. It is a joy to know that GDZ has held out against the transfer and is likely to continue to do so.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that a certain contradiction is apparent from the three interventions from Conservative Members? The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that there was nothing wrong with profit-taking, but that, nevertheless, the Crown Agents will not be allowed to take profits but must redistribute them. At the same time, however, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that, if the Crown Agents was taken back into the public sector, its future prosperity would be put at risk. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) then drew a parallel between it and British Gas, which makes profits and takes profits. Does my hon. Friend agree that those Conservative Members must say clearly whether they see the Crown Agents as a privatised and profit-making business or as a public service working within the private sector. It is not clear which line the Government are taking and it seems that Conservative Members are split on it.
  Mr. Enright: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
  We can go further. The real problem of the Crown Agents is the disgracefully decreasing amount of aid that this country disburses. The Prime Minister and others are fond of comparing us with the rest of Europe. In fact, if we are compared with the rest of Europe in the amount of money, in the lack of increase in money, in our reduction in bilateral aid and in our attack on Lome, it is obvious that the home markets are shrinking for the Crown Agents, and that must be a factor.
  Finally, I join the Minister in the tribute that he paid to the Crown Agents for what they did in Rwanda. I have heard personally of some of the work that they did from a friend who works there, and that work was very considerable. It did not require special effort. The Crown Agents is, if you like, a seed that has been tended and has grown to flower. It is extremely effective and can spring into action year after year, season after season; that it did to great effect in the case of Rwanda.
  The destruction of the Crown Agents—for that is what it is, let us make no mistake about it—is another drain on the resources that we should be giving to the developing world. It may be a short drain, it may be a long drain, but a drain it assuredly is. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of feckless behaviour, even if it were postponed until five

  59
  years' time, we were to lose the collection of expertise that exists in the Crown Agents, which I have seen working on the ground and whose headquarters, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), I visited several times when I worked in Africa.
  I wish to draw a parallel. The Prime Minister was bleating, the other lunchtime, about the lack of competitive sports in schools. He failed to recognise that the impact on games was a direct result of naive and simplistic policies in other aspects of education. When I was professionally employed, teachers of Spanish, of physics and of classics would happily go out in the evening and coach teams of a variety of sports—the hockey that he so loves, cricket, football, and rugby. The changes that have been made, naively, in schools have had an impact on school sports, as many of us said would happen at the time that the changes were made.
  As the present Administration is set, if I read it aright, treating the Crown Agents in that way will have a similar impact on its effectiveness. The Minister and the Baroness must tread with care.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) because he and I have many interests in common. However, I disagree totally with what he said about the purpose of the Bill. I would not be standing here to support it if I thought for a moment that it was designed to make the Crown Agents less effective and in any way to reduce our development effort. I also share with the hon. Gentleman the trust that he has in Baroness Chalker, which I think is widely shared. Indeed, I share that trust with my hon. Friend the Minister who introduced the Bill, who also has common interests.
  I think that the hon. Member for Hemsworth was a little unkind about the Treasury, speaking about the hard-nosed Treasury. The Treasury and the Prime Minister have been foremost in the world in trying to relieve sub-Saharan debt. They have argued more strongly than anyone in the international forum for Trinidad terms plus. Indeed, the Chancellor did a tremendous job in Washington in proposing something that I know that he and I agree about—the relieving of debt—going as far as proposing selling International Monetary Fund gold, which is Oxfam's policy. It is hardly a hard-nosed Treasury that consistently and strongly proposes policies such as that.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Bill, he spoke about the many friends that the Crown Agents has. I admit, in my experience of development and on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, those friends are a very select band. Most people would say that the Crown Agents is unknown, unsung and unrewarded for the efforts that the Minister described in such graphic detail and to which others paid tribute.
  It might be a penalty for the Crown Agents that it has been in existence for so long—160 years—that its role has become lost in the sands of time. It has stayed in business because it has a reputation for integrity and impartiality and it has constantly adjusted to the changing circumstances in which it operates. As I see it, the Bill is another step in that direction.
  60
  It is important to realise that, since the Crown Agents Act 1979, the Crown Agents has received no subsidies from Government and has repaid £15 million of its initial debt capital.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made great play of the difference between the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Crown Agents and the reason why they are not treated similarly. It is obvious that the CDC has a totally different role from that of the Crown Agents. The CDC, as I have seen it all over the world, has the job of investing its own money for profit. but at profit margins smaller than those of the private sector. It offers long terms of repayment. It also has a role of encouraging further investment from the private sector in developing countries, especially countries that do not attract private investment.
  I cannot imagine a private sector CDC being able to carry out that role because people would simply ask, "Why does it not invest directly?" It has a catalytic role, which is crucial. The Rothschild committee in Jamaica, which brought in many American business men to revive industry in Jamaica, did not work because they expected a return in three years, and Jamaican industries simply could not make a return in three years, although they could make a return in 10 years—and have done. That is why the CDC schemes in Jamaica have been so successful.
  By contrast, the Crown Agents' main work has always been as agent of independent Governments and, increasingly, aid agencies. There is no role for Government in what are properly business decisions, so I strongly believe that the transfer to the private sector of the Crown Agents will enable it to meet the needs of customers such as by removing unnecessary restrictions.
  As has been said, the Crown Agents is an international business, but with a social purpose. Of course it makes a profit. It is projected to make a profit in 1994 of £800,000. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hemsworth and I would want it to remain in profit, especially if the profits are given to a foundation to re-invest in development issues. The last thing that I would want is an unprofitable organisation, wherever the profits go, because if it does not make a profit, in the end it closes down. It is crucial that that is recognised, and it is important that the foundation is set up in a way that reflects that developmental need.
  As we know, the Crown Agents operates in 150 countries with representatives in 38 and has orders worth more than $400 million world wide on behalf of clients, including the United Nations, the World bank, the European Commission and the Japanese Government. It is important to recognise that less than 30 per cent. of Crown Agents' income originates in Britain. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, although its activities are particularly helpful to small and medium-sized British firms that are trying to break into international export markets, the bulk of its business is generated world wide.
  Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to probe his previous point. I believe that the Bill is too skeletal and too limited in its outlining of the foundation. Therefore, it is a question of whether one trusts the Government. I accept that the hon. Gentleman trusts the Government and I hope that he will accept that I do not genuinely trust the Government. If he were in my shoes, would he agree with me?
  Mr. Lester: I have always been a very trusting person and I have not been let down too often. I trust not only this Government but a subsequent Government to bring to the House the changes in the Bill and to uphold the tradition of the foundation. We must ensure that the Crown Agents' energies and efforts continue to culminate in a profit—which is a measure of its success—so that the money can be reinvested, through the foundation, in things in which the hon. Member for Hemsworth and I are interested.
  We have talked about the range of issues and projects in which the Crown Agents is involved. Perhaps not everyone knows that it has improved municipal finances in China and assisted with tax computerisation in Nigeria. Many hon. Members have mentioned its significant involvement with convoys in the former Yugoslavia. I know from my own use of the know-how fund in the former Soviet Union that the Crown Agents played a vital role in that area.
  The Minister referred in passing to the Crown Agents stamp bureau which provides, on an agency basis, high quality stamp programmes and design, procurement and marketing services for more than one quarter of the world's postal administrations. Perhaps the stamp collectors of the world do not fully appreciate the Crown Agents' achievements in that area.
  The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has taken a continuing interest in the Crown Agents and the Government have undertaken to prepare a paper to present to the Select Committee. They are willing to look at other means of providing information about Government proposals. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee acts increasingly as the House's monitor on a whole range of issues. We are constantly concerned about a variety of matters, such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Crown Agents, and I am sure that the Select Committee will jealously protect the Government's promise to keep the Select Committee informed about the many issues that have been raised in the House.
  What would the foundation do, and how would it change the present system? The foundation could expand its own right business, and some examples have been given of how that could be achieved. The foundation could accept contracts from private sector clients, which it is currently unable to do in Britain, and it could accept contracts from public sector bodies in the United Kingdom other than the Overseas Development Administration. That is a valuable development for the Crown Agents.
  The foundation may also take investment decisions which presently require ministerial consent, including entering into partnerships and appointing directors of subsidiaries which will free the foundation's operations. Most importantly—of course, if hon. Members do not trust the foundation, it is not as significant—it will be free from financial controls imposed by the Government. I support what the hon. Member for Eccles said about privatisation having a positive effect on British companies. I think that the foundation will be in a far better position, as it will be stronger and better able to attract overseas customers on behalf of British exporters.
  The ODA has a very important interest in the success of the Crown Agents because it undertakes about 95 per cent. of ODA finance procurements. Of the procurement done by the Crown Agents for the ODA in the past three years, about 45 per cent., by value, in each year has been
  62
  in core countries. It should be recognised that the ODA has a keen interest in ensuring that the Crown Agents continues to work on its behalf. I do not believe that the disaster relief committee could have operated effectively without the Crown Agents' expertise in delivering humanitarian aid which has expanded enormously. I am sure that the Bill will make a great deal of difference in that area in future.
  All hon. Members recognise that the real value of the Crown Agents lies not in its physical assets, but in its personal assets—the people, the traditions and the concepts under which it operates. It has undergone major restructuring in recent years and costs have been cut. I welcome the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that there are no plans for any further redundancies. It is now a matter of expanding on the present basis.
  It is also important to recognise that important key clients, such as the World bank, the European Union and the Japanese, in particular, are satisfied that the Crown Agents' business will continue to be viable once it has changed.
  As I said earlier, more than 70 per cent. of the Crown Agents' business is derived from developmental sources other than Britain. It is a remarkable achievement for a British agency to attract that degree of support, and it bodes well for the foundation's future. It has satisfied its clients that the confidentiality of its relationships with them will be fully respected.
  In conclusion, I turn to the question of pensions. Whenever there is a change in status of a body—particularly one as involved as the Crown Agents—it is extremely important to reassure those who have given and who continue to give their services to the agency about their pension provision. I accept the Minister's assurance that the assets of the current pension funds 'are well ahead of what is needed in order to support the current pension base. There are no plans to change the present pension arrangements. The value of a pension surplus is a very important part of any transition and it is vital to hold together the people who have such a successful track record.
  I support the Bill. We must ensure that the foundation has a very clear developmental role. We must also make sure that, when the Crown Agents is released from government control, it will continue to have a developmental impact and to give its expertise freely throughout the world. It must use the resources that it generates to continue to perform the valuable work of a foundation which has a long-term social developmental objective.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) speaks with great authority and from a considerable reservoir of knowledge about developmental matters. It is a matter of genuine regret that I do not find myself of the same cast of mind as him this evening.
  All hon. Members agree about two things: first, that warm and generous tribute should be paid to the Crown Agents for its past and continuing work; and, secondly, that we should propose the early canonisation of Baroness Chalker. No doubt to her considerable alarm, she seems to have attracted uninhibited support and congratulations from both sides of the House.

  63
  I doubt that the House has been asked on many previous occasions to approve legislation that has been drawn in such exiguous terms. Perhaps we should congratulate the Minister on managing to get through his speech without showing any of the embarrassment to which the saintly Baroness Chalker admitted from time to time during the debate in the House of Lords when she was quite properly pressed about matters of detail and found herself unable to answer the questions.
  The debate would inevitably have been better informed had we all had access to the Coopers and Lybrand report. I understand that it has not been given a wide circulation, nor indeed has it been leaked in the past 24 hours on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Of course, commercial confidentiality is a proper basis for the restriction of circulation of documents, but it normally applies to financial matters.
  I cannot understand why a report, which no doubt contains important sections on structures, could not have been released, at least in respect of the structures. It would have been a matter of great interest to all right hon. and hon. Members to know precisely what Coopers and Lybrand said about the foundation and the relationship between the company which is to be formed and the foundation. It is a matter of regret that we have not seen the report, even in a bowdlerised form which would have allowed us to make a more informed judgment about the nature of the proposed structures.
  The structures are extremely unusual. We have passed the arid debate over whether or not it is a privatisation. It is now generally agreed that it can be described as a privatisation. It is a pretty unusual one, however, because, so far as I know, none of the others have been accompanied by the creation of a foundation.
  In the light of the events in the past week or so, it takes a certain amount of nerve to refer to the gas privatisation as a paradigm of privatisation and something to which we should all aspire. Considering the matter from a structural point of view, it is notable that when the gas industry was privatised, no one found it necessary to create a foundation in advance of the privatisation.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman talks about the paradigm of British Gas and its good works. Would not the environmentally friendly development of gas in Kazakhstan be a particular example of those good works? Would not the massive improvement to the urban gas network in Buenos Aires and to pipelines elsewhere in Latin America represent other good works which would never have happened in the bad old nationalised industry days?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman believes in the gospel according to privatisation, but those who attended the British Gas annual general meeting last week took a rather different view. It takes a particular courage in the House this week to suggest that everything that happened in the name of the privatisation of the gas industry has been perfect.
  I return to structure. The fact that it has been found necessary to introduce that intermediate step is in itself an acknowledgement that the privatisation is rather different in character from any of the others. Ultimately, it comes down to a question, as some have said, of trust and, as others have said, of belief.
  64
  I do not believe that the legislation has provided the House with sufficient detail about the disposal of the business and the future character of the foundation. That was clearly part of the rather concerted, and some might say successful attack mounted by the Opposition in the other place.
  There will be no parliamentary scrutiny of the transfer to the successor business. I understand that an amendment was proposed in the other place which was not accepted and which would have allowed for scrutiny at that time. I cannot imagine why the House could not consider such an issue at that stage, but no doubt we may be told why in due course.
  One is left with the overwhelming impression that what we have here is enabling legislation—admittedly, so described—that provides inadequate details of precisely what may result in the end. One is drawn to the conclusion that it would almost be better to have a privatisation such as the gas privatisation as that would force the Government to come clean about precisely what they intended to do and there would have to be legislation setting out all the details that we are now denied. In those circumstances, we would have to have the very detail being denied to us at the moment.
  I shall not detain the House any longer. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister, but he is asking the House to take too much on trust, and for that reason I shall certainly advise my colleagues to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: The debate has at least two characteristics in common with the debate on the Bill in another place. The first is that it has been an opportunity for general expressions of admiration for my noble friend Lady Chalker. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) paid tribute to her, as did the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and, most recently, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). That was one characteristic of the debate in another place.
  Mr. Enright: May I emphasise the fact that in the present bunch of Ministers Lady Chalker shines out like a beacon?
  Mr. Luff: She is one of the many causes for celebration about the Government, and another is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who opened the debate and who will reply to it.
  Another characteristic of the debate, as in another place, is that it is clear that the activities of the Crown Agents command widespread and universal support. There was a mood both here and in another place that nothing should be done to inhibit it from continuing to perform its valuable role and that it should be encouraged to develop and expand that role.
  I first became aware of the Crown Agents through my interest in stamp collecting, as you probably did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the recent recess I browsed through the collections of my father and grandfather and wondered how many stamps in those alburns had been procured as a direct result of activities of the Crown Agents.

  65
  We have been reminded on a number of occasions that the Crown Agents remains responsible for the stamps of about one quarter of the word's postal administrations. Perhaps that simple fact led a number of journalists to jump to the wrong conclusions about the Bill.
  We read in The Times on 12 November 1994:
  "The scrapping of the Post Office plans"—
  the plans to privatise the Post Office—
  "prompted the Prime Minister to back down his earlier opposition to proposals to privatise the Crown Agents. Plans to allow the Crown Agents to leave the public sector were shelved earlier this week after Mr. Major and Cabinet colleagues decided that it would provoke damaging opposition. However, last week's Post Office decision revived calls from senior ministers … to let the Crown Agents go into private hands."
  That is a bizarre conspiracy theory by any standards. The article continued:
  "The plan to privatise the body will prompt fears that Britain will lose some of its international influence, and in particular lead to a decline in foreign investment in Britain."
  However, quite the opposite is true. The Bill is necessary to enable the Crown Agents to continue to perform its excellent work.
  The Daily Telegraph fell victim to the same conspiracy theory:
  "A scheme the plan to privatise the Crown Agents has been revived by the Government after the collapse of plans to sell the Royal Mail".
  I do not understand how any serious journalist can sustain that argument. My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the privatisation is not one from which any revenues will flow to the Exchequer. In no sense can it be construed as enabling us to fund tax cuts—not that I accept that as an argument for privatisation. It is a privatisation strictly on the merits of what freeing up an organisation will enable it to do.
  The Crown Agents currently operates at no cost to the taxpayer, and since its incorporation in 1979 it has received no subsidy either. How many of the current privatised industries could say that? It has paid about £20 million in capital and interest to the Government and the only modest cash flow resulting from privatisation is the repayment of some £2 million in debt. The privatisation is being carried out because it is right for the organisation.
  The Crown Agents is a crucial part of the aid programme. It may be true, as a number of hon. Members made clear, that about 70 per cent. of its business comes from foreign principals and only about 30 per cent. from the British Government. But the Crown Agents' role within the British aid programme is still crucial. It must he allowed to flourish and continue to perform its role to the best of its abilities.
  We know that the British aid programme is one of the most effective in the world; that can certainly be said of our bilateral aid programme. The United Kingdom is a member of the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Part of the departmental report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reads:
  "The Development Assistance Committee periodically reviews the aid programmes of its members. In 1994, the UK aid programme was reviewed, and was commended on its highly concessional, business-like bilateral aid programme largely oriented towards the poorest developing countries."
  The Crown Agents is extremely important to that aid programme.
  66
  Three bodies are especially important—I may have overlooked others—each of which the Government are wisely treating slightly differently. Apart from the Crown Agents, there is the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the British Council. The council, which often seems to be simply an education organisation, has an important role to play in the aid programme. I shall quote again from the Foreign Office report. It states:
  "In 1994–95 ODA will provide some £33.7 million for the British Council and the grant-in-aid arrangements. These resources are being used to implement programmes in developing countries that achieve objectives central to British aid policy. Priority has been given to human development, environmental protection, health and population activities, open and accountable government and economic policy reform."
  The British Council operates on essentially a non-commercial basis with grant in aid from the Government.
  The week before last, I was in Barcelona as a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I am delighted to say—[Interruption.] I can assure the House that I and other members of the Select Committee were there for good reasons. I learned in Barcelona that the British Council's language teaching operations are paying for the cost of its overall activity. The council may not be a strictly commercial organisation but it is performing well.
  Mr. Foulkes: The House needs to know—those of us who are sitting through this long debate will find it fascinating to know—why the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs was in Barcelona. I hope that its members, especially those who are Conservative Members, took on board how successful devolution has been in Spain, as it has in other countries. It is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all extremely interesting but the hon. Member knows that he is going wide of the debate.
  Mr. Luff: Much as I would like to respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to stretch your patience.
  Another organisation that plays a crucial role apart from the Crown Agents is the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which essentially provides concessional loans to enable the private sector to develop within the developing world. The Government have said—in my view, rightly—that such activity should not be privatised. It is important to remember, however, that the Government have said that the CDC's activities should be market tested.
  The Crown Agents falls into a third and distinct category from the two other organisations that I have mentioned. The Financial Times has described the Crown Agents as one of the world's "biggest purchasing organisations". It has a considerable role in aid delivery. In the 1993 annual report, the managing director of the Crown Agents stated:
  "Increasingly, as aid becomes subject to a more detailed cost-benefit scrutiny than in previous cycles, we find ourselves able to demonstrate our effectiveness on several levels. Our cost effectiveness in the actual spending of aid is self-evident. Yet we can also monitor the aid process, interfacing between donor and client to provide surety to each that their money is being well spent, and we can manage and train recipients to handle effectively and accountably the funds made available to them."
  I am not one of those who believes that the quantum of the aid budget is the sole measure by which we should establish whether the Government have a responsible

  67
  attitude to the developing world. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe reminded us of the excellent work that is being done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on debt relief issues, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The International Monetary Fund has been called upon to dispose of part of its gold stocks. A significant aid budget is, however, an important part of our contribution to the developing world. It is crucial that our constituents should feel that the money is well spent.
  One of the most important factors that would undermine the support enjoyed in the country as a whole for the aid budget would be any feeling that the moneys directed to it were being badly spent. We have already heard that the OECD regards the British overseas aid budget as well spent, and a crucial role is played by the Crown Agents in ensuring that the moneys are well spent. We must not undermine that activity.
  The Crown Agents is an extremely large organisation; it is much larger than most people realise. It serves about 150 different countries and provides a range of services to aid agencies beyond the British Government—for example, the United Nations, the World bank, the European Union and, especially, Japan. It has carried out work for many large public sector organisations throughout the world. I have talked to one or two representatives of those who have benefited from the services of the Crown Agents. I have been delighted to hear of the support that its work enjoys among many organisations and of the strong feeling that the organisation represents excellent value for money.
  A bewildering range of projects is pursued by the Crown Agents, which ranges from bank training in Tashkent to humanitarian relief in Macedonia. Its work is expanding into banking. In the 1994 annual report, the managing director, Peter Berry, stated:
  "Through Crown Agents Financial Services Ltd … we are developing and expanding our role as a recognized specialist provider of banking financial advisory services relating to the disbursement of development aid and the financial control of development projects."
  As I have said, Crown Agents is a bewilderingly large organisation. Most of its activities are closely related to the private sector. Indeed, it has a close and intimate relationship with the privatisation process itself. In the 1994 annual report, an entire page is dedicated to its work on privatisation and commercialisation. In the context of the Bill, it is worth examining what it is doing in more detail. We read that lecturers of the Crown Agents are delivering a series of courses at the Moscow Institute of Privatisation and Management
  "to train the Institute's own trainers in passing on further instruction "
  We read too that the Crown Agents' "legal advice" is helping
  "in setting up privatization trust funds in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda".
  We read also that the
  "Administrative Staff College of Nigeria is in the forefront of enhancing the professionalism of that country's management cadre."
  The Crown Agents has a close involvement in that work.
  The business sector review tells us that the Crown Agents has been
  68
  "engaged in a major economics consultancy project for Japan's OECF to assess the progress of privatization in Ghana, for which we formed an Anglo-Japanese team."
  It is active also in Sarawak with its economic development corporation.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend find it bizarre and ironic in many ways, especially in the light of the debate and given some of the remarks of Opposition Members, that all the countries that he has mentioned can recognise the benefits of privatisation? It seems that only Opposition Members are unable to do so.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Crown Agents is one of the many forces involved in exporting Britain's most successful product—privatisation—around the world. The process has been emulated by virtually every country on the globe.
  I return to the review from which I was quoting. The Crown Agents is active in Romania. The review reads:
  "We organized in-country seminars for the Romanian State Ownership Fund, covering the creation of a market for stocks and shares".
  An organisation that is so closely committed to privatisation surely deserves to be privatised itself. I believe that the process would richly enhance the organisation's work.
  It is important to remember that Crown Agents is not an organisation that deals only with commercial issues. It has a crucial role to play in humanitarian assistance in former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. It is part of the United Nations emergency response to the flight of over 1 million Rwandan refugees across the border of Zaire. The Crown Agents review tells us that its
  "logisticians and equipment were airlifted to Zaire to help with … operations and transportation."
  It has been involved also in Croatia and Malawi where it
  "handled the procurement through our Durban office of maize for drought-affected Malawi, funded by the ODA."
  It has been active in Angola
  "on behalf of the Japanese government".
  The review tells us that it
  "purchased major medical equipment and ambulances for Uzbekistan."
  Technical assistance was provided in the Philippines. The Crown Agents has been working in Bosnia and humanitarian aid has been delivered to Macedonia. It is interesting that it is involved with the ODA in a major project. I shall quote again from the 1994 annual report:
  "We ended the year in discussions with ODA about plans to provide a full-time emergency response unit, based in Sutton but on permanent standby ready to deliver an immediate logistics response anywhere in the world, with full head office back-up."
  Many hon. Members have, rightly, drawn attention to the principal asset of the Crown Agents—its staff. That is certainly the case and the country has every reason to be proud of them as well.
  As Baroness Chalker reminded the House of Lords on 28 February, over the past year, some 11 members of staff of the Crown Agents have been honoured for their work in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. We can say with confidence that, had it not been for the work of the Crown Agents, many more lives would have been lost in both those countries.
  I am a little surprised not to have had an intervention yet from an Opposition Member to ask, "If it is so successful, why change the basis on which the

  69
  organisation works?" I believe that it is important to do so for two separate but important reasons. First, I believe that it needs a greater independence than it enjoys at present. Secondly, I believe that it needs to be made more responsive to the needs of its customer base, which privatisation always achieves.
  Let us take the issue of independence. We have heard that some 70 per cent. of the work of the Crown Agents is now conducted for non-United Kingdom principals. We have heard that the use of Crown Agents by the ODA has declined but remains very important in the delivery of its aid programme.
  In the Financial Times, though, Mr. Peter Berry, the managing director of the Crown Agents, said, on 26 August:
  "When you need ministerial consent to do anything materially different from the act that governs us, then there is 'a stop in the mind' against doing it. It will be very different going back to a board. There will be no disincentive to be pro-active,"—
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Hemsworth for the use of that word, but it is in a quotation from Mr. Berry.
  Mr. Berry continues:
  "Accountability will be closer to home. It will also be easier to demonstrate to doubters that it is independent of government pressure to 'buy British'."
  We have heard a great deal from Opposition Front Benchers about the role of the Crown Agents in encouraging a "Buy British" policy. I fully acknowledge that, being based in Britain, and with a large number of ex-British colonies, with members of the British Commonwealth among its client base, there will be a strong tendency to buy British, hut, nevertheless, with about 70 per cent. of its business coming from non-British sources, foreign Governments want an assurance that there is not an excessive bias in the Crown Agents work to British suppliers. The independence that privatisation will bring to the organisation is hugely important and will help the organisation to flourish again.
  What about responsiveness? A very interesting point indeed, which, I am glad to say, was raised by the Opposition Front Bench, is the ability of the organisation, as a result of the privatisation, to start to provide services within the United Kingdom. I think that that will be an extremely healthy development indeed. Other important United Kingdom purchasing organisations have need of the services of an organisation such as the Crown Agents. That is extremely important. We know that privatisation brings responsiveness to the customer.
  Opposition Members have laughed and sneered at some of the examples of privatisation, but that is simply unfair. Only this week in my postbag I received a publication from BT, in which it told me:
  "On average, a BT customer is now unlikely to experience a network fault more than once every five and a half years, or experience more than one inland call in 200 failing because of the network."
  We do not have to cast our minds very far back to remember the old state-owned BT, and remember what a radical transformation there has been of the particular organisation.
  What about public payphones?
  Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is by no means a one-way street in terms of public attitudes to BT? Earlier this week, I received a letter from one of my constituents, who complained that the telephone
  70
  directories are no longer published promptly. He had been looking for the number of a company in my constituency. He was unable to find it and so was unable to get in touch with it to offer it business, because the latest telephone directory for my constituency is now 18 months old.
  Mr. Luff: I am looking rather nervously at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and wondering what you will make of this diversion into the ways of BT. As I have started, I think that I had better finish.
  I am glad to say that I have had no such similar complaint. Telephone directories in the Worcester area are a great improvement on the old directories. The business pages are now separate from the residential pages. That, again, is another example of the enhanced responsiveness that privatisation brings to organisations such as British Telecom and will, I am sure, to the Crown Agents.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On the matter of telephone directories, is not the problem, perhaps—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Telephone directories are nothing whatever to do with the Bill. We should get back to the debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Luff: Bearing in mind that ruling, I shall not refer to the vast improvement in public payphones that has resulted from the privatisation of British Telecom. It is important to remember that privatisation can put organisations into a world-class position. I am sure that that is a position that Crown Agents already enjoys, but I am sure that that position will be enhanced if this process continues.
  I was interested to read—I shall make this very brief comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that BT is now about to become
  "the first operator to abolish unit charging across its entire network, increasing almost threefold the number of telephone lines"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience now, whether he is being brief or not. He must get back to the Bill.
  Mr. Luff: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I shall respect your ruling, but the point is that privatisation of the Crown Agents will bring benefits to the organisation, the staff and its customers. Every privatisation that we have so far had in this country has shown precisely that pattern, and the pattern will be repeated when the Bill is enacted.
  I see no problem whatever with moving the Crown Agents into the private sector, but I have some questions to ask the Minister about the structure of the privatisation that is envisaged, not in the Bill, as has been made clear, but in the process that will follow after enactment—the transfer of Crown Agents to the foundation.
  I have heard it suggested that one of the principal reasons why the Government have followed this proposed route of privatisation is because the Japanese Government, the second largest customer of Crown Agents, were unhappy about the prospect of a full-blown privatisation and then having to deal simply with another private sector organisation. I do not know whether that is right, but the foundation's structure, which has been set up—not in the Bill but in ministerial speeches that have accompanied the Bill—is novel, to say the least.
  I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the absence of detail, and particularly about the absence of memoranda and articles of

  71
  association of the new Crown Agents. I hope that the novel structure does not represent a loss of confidence in privatisation itself. Given the success of privatisation, I am sure that we would not want to send that message to our constituents.
  Where does the idea for the foundation come from? Has it come from the Crown Agents? It seems to me, from reading some of the material in preparation for this speech, that Crown Agents has introduced the idea of a foundation, or was the idea driven by the Government? Will the foundation that the Government promise be sufficiently commercial?
  The Financial Times described the foundation as having a structure
  "similar to the Wellcome Foundation, the health insurance groups PPP and Bupa, the motoring organisations the AA and the RAC and the British Standards Institute."
  An official at the ODA, to which the Crown Agents answers, said that it will be entirely commercial in its approach and will be expected to make a return, but profits will he ploughed back into the agency. It will answer to a board of directors, which will be selected from a cross-section of its users, including foreign aid agencies and exporters. By not exposing it to the pressure of shareholder interests, it will be able to act more easily in its own interests and in the interests of clients in the developing world.
  One of the advantages of privatisation is that companies become responsive to shareholder interests. I worry that perhaps the Government have not gone far enough in this particular privatisation.
  The board of the Crown Agents said, in its 1993 annual report, that it recognised that the preponderance of non-UK clients
  "might make it more desirable for the ownership of the Crown Agents to reflect a wider base than that of UK Government. As an alternative, the Board therefore recommended that the business and assets of the Crown Agents should be transferred to a specially formed foundation."
  That seems to suggest that the drive for this has come from the Crown Agents itself.
  I worry about the details that we have so far about the foundation. We read that it will have a two-tier structure with the foundation being the sole owner of the operating company. Does that mean that the foundation will be able to purchase other organisations with broadly similar objectives to Crown Agents?
  I worry whether Crown Agents will indeed be able to register as a charity, and whether that is the right route if trading is the major activity. I know that that issue was discussed in another place, but I do not think an entirely satisfactory answer was given.
  I welcome the fact that the memorandum and articles of association are to be tightly drawn up to reflect and build on the social, ethical and developmental principles on which the Crown Agents business is based, but those have not yet been published.
  I also read among the conditions of the new foundation that the operating company will be able to pass its profits to the foundation. The foundation will not distribute dividends but will use any profits in the Crown Agents business in pursuit of its overall objectives. Does that
  72
  mean that such profits can be applied to activities outside those of the Crown Agents in new companies, new organisations or other kinds of activity?
  I would also appreciate more clarification on the members of the foundation. We read that they are not to be appointed by Ministers in order to guarantee the independence of the organisation. I presume that that means—I think that I understood my hon. Friend the Minister to say this in his opening remarks that —the current members of the board of Crown Agents will appoint the new members of the foundation.
  Mr. Baldry indicated dissent.
  Mr. Luff: I see my hon. Friend shaking his head so I must be wrong, but I should like to know how the members of the foundation will be appointed. We know who will not do it, but who will do it?
  If anything, although the Bill might go far enough, the follow-on procedures do not. I, unlike the hon. Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Hemsworth, would have preferred a full-blown trade sale of the organisation to a reputable body with a carefully drawn memorandum and articles of association, perhaps, as a quid pro quo, with a golden share for the Government lasting rather longer than the five years envisaged as part of the foundation treatment. That would give the Crown Agents the true freedom that it needs to win the battles in the world.
  The Bill is much better than the status quo and I have no hesitation in supporting it in the Lobby tonight. However, I hope that we are giving the Crown Agents a sufficiently free rein.
  7 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I declare my interest as a former stamp collector. No doubt, at some stage, I too managed to collect stamps from around the world which were purchased and provided by Crown Agents. In addition, I do not intend to be the only one this evening not to give my support to Baroness Chalker for her fine work in bringing forward this valuable and important legislation.
  Much has been said this evening about the concept of privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to the theory going around that the legislation has been brought forward because of the lack of such legislation for the Post Office. That is arrant nonsense. Even to compare the two privatisations is ridiculous. I, like many of my hon. Friends, would have far preferred to see the privatisation of the Post Office, with certain provisions for rural areas, to allow it to prosper and flourish in the private sector. That is not to be, but the privatisation of Crown Agents has nothing to do with the attempt to privatise the Post Office. It has been brought forward on its own merits and should be supported on its own merits.
  Much has also been said this evening about the profit motive and about whether an organisation such as Crown Agents should be allowed to make a profit and, if so, what it should do with that profit. It is vital that we encourage Crown Agents to be as profitable and businesslike as possible. As has already been said, its profits will be reinvested in the good work of the organisation. Baroness Chalker said in the other place that no dividends would be given to shareholders per se, but that the money would be reinvested in the Crown Agents' good work.

  73
  Crown Agents has a long history. Before 1979 it was unincorporated. The current Act gives it a strong regulatory framework, following some misguided forays on its own account which came to light in the mid-1970s. Since 1979, Crown Agents has been profitable and has received no Government subsidy. There is no good reason for it to remain in the public sector. It is a truly international organisation with a fine reputation, as we have heard. We must ensure that, whatever changes are made, that reputation remains untarnished and its good work continues.
  The Overseas Development Administration is no longer the largest client of Crown Agents. As we have heard, it provides only 30 per cent. of its current business. Crown Agents needs greater freedom to take business decisions, while its clients, including, the ODA, look to it to maintain the highest standards and impartiality for which it is rightly renowned.
  Mr. Bayley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House when he said that the British Government were no longer the Crown Agents' biggest customer. They are, of course, the Crown Agents' biggest customer, but no longer its only customer.
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I obviously would not wish to mislead anyone. I simply put it on the record that 30 per cent. of ODA money will go through Crown Agents.
  The interests of clients and aid programmes would be well served if the organisation could operate with greater freedom than the Crown Agents Act 1979 allows. Therefore, it should be accepted on both sides of the House—I was surprised to hear some of the reservations expressed tonight—that the 1979 Act is out of date and needs to be changed along the lines suggested by the Minister.
  As we have heard, Crown Agents is a major international supplier of procurement, financial management and technical services to clients in some 150 countries, including bilateral aid donors and multilateral agencies such as the World bank, the United Nations and the European Union. It plays an important role in assisting the Overseas Development Administration to implement the bilateral aid programme. Crown Agents is a vital aspect of developing the third world. Its agricultural assistance—crop storage and development—energy advisory service, power generation distribution and water supply and sanitation systems all add up to a highly proficient package for those who need it.
  That sterling work includes the safe delivery of emergency aid in Bosnia and Rwanda. The Library research paper documents clearly some of the excellent work done by Crown Agents. I was in Croatia in December and I went to Pale in the previous January to see some of the work being done there. I am sure that the House knows of the devastation currently being visited on that region. We all wish that the peace process was more constructive, and we must be realistic about the problems faced in that region. We should applaud the work of Crown Agents in that regard because it is one of the unsung heroes of the conflict. Everyone talks about the work of other agencies, but Crown Agents is rarely mentioned. Its work in ensuring that aid gets through is vital. I wish that it did not need to be there in the first place.
  74
  From what I have heard today, it is clear that Crown Agents is a good organisation which needs to be freed up, but freed up in such a way that it fulfils the important social and developmental objectives that we all share. As we know only too well, today everyone has to pay his or her way and it is right that Crown Agents should do so, too; it should trade fairly and profitably. We must accept that this is an era of rapid change in world trading patterns. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred to the way in which the world has changed and other countries' privatisation policies, and Crown Agents must square up to that. There are new challenges to be faced throughout the world.
  One need think only of the finalising of the Uruguay round and the establishment of the World Trade Organisation to realise that there has been a phenomenal change in world trading patterns in recent years. It is the Government's duty to see that Crown Agents is in a position to benefit from those changes and to improve its commercial activities. That is what the Bill does. It is an enabling Bill, in effect transferring Crown Agents to an independent foundation.
  The Bill provides enabling powers for the Secretary of State to vest the corporation's assets, rights and liabilities in a Government-owned share company and, in time, to an independent foundation. The company will thus be transferred. The present statutory corporation will be dissolved once its remaining functions have been satisfactorily discharged. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. The new way forward for Crown Agents appears to be commercial, although not in a revenue-raising sense; the £2 million of outstanding debt is likely to be paid off, but little else will be. That is why the suggestion that this is the privatisation to replace that of the Post Office is ridiculous. The Crown Agents will answer to a board of directors, which will be selected from a cross-section of its users, including foreign aid agencies and exporters. That, too, strikes me as a fine idea.
  Throughout the discussions on the future of Crown Agents, I have been as delighted by the attitude of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development as everyone else. She has heeded two key aspects when changing the structure of the organisation: consultation and flexibility. The consultation process has been comprehensive. The Minister announced her intentions back in August 1993, giving plenty of notice to interested parties who might wish to contribute to the mechanics of the Bill. The Bill clearly allows for considerable flexibility in its implementation—which should be welcomed, rather than subjected to the criticism offered by Opposition Members.
  The changes advocated by the Bill will maintain the "honest broker" status of the organisation. I hope and expect that the Crown Agents' 18 overseas offices and UK-based marketing force will continue to provide their splendid monitoring service of central tender boards. That is best done via a broadly based organisation. No doubt the agency will continue its role in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I recently visited both Moscow and the republic of Azerbaijan—not, I hasten to add, with the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, but under other auspices—and I saw the gains to be made from the training of staff in procurement agencies in those states. I saw definite benefits for agriculture, energy, health and transport.

  75
  It is plain that the core of the Crown Agents' business is buying, and that its other activities ultimately support the buying activity. Surely that is an ideal set-up for the kind of changes that the Bill will bring. Greater autonomy will allow the multi-disciplinary nature of Crown Agents to blossom—in particular the technical services, which allow the work of the aid programme to flourish.
  I fully support the Government's aim to recreate Crown Agents as an independent foundation with a social purpose and continued developmental objectives. In addition, Crown Agents will no longer be limited to serving aid agencies and other public bodies as its present constitution dictates: in fact, newly established private corporations in the developing world, which used to be Crown Agents' clients when it was Government-owned and would like to continue to be supplied by Crown Agents but are prohibited by its present constitution, will be able to become its clients again when the Bill is enacted.
  Many of the Crown Agents' former trainees now occupy positions of great importance for UK exports, including directorships—or their equivalent—of Government supplies in countries as diverse as Sri Lanka, Malawi, Saudi Arabia and Papua New Guinea. I am sure that their loyalty will continue with the new agency. I have been fortunate enough to visit both Malawi and Sri Lanka—although, again, not with the Welsh Select Committee—and have observed that the wisdom of Crown Agents is vital to the development of those countries' infrastructure.
  I was in Malawi last summer, just before the general election there—the first election held in Malawi for more than 30 years. It was a great pleasure to see democracy rolling across the country. There is no doubt that Malawi is not only one of the poorest countries in Africa but one of the poorest in the world. The work of Crown Agents has ensured that supplies get through as quickly as possible, particularly when the area is devastated as it was during the recent drought, and that the maximum number of lives are preserved. I hope that last year's elections and the change of Government in Malawi will give the country a shot in the arm, and the chance to develop in the way that is best for it rather than a way imposed on it from outside or, indeed, from within by powers acting for their own ends.
  Malawi has great tourism potential. Other parts of Africa have been able to benefit in that way, but so far Malawi has not. Perhaps its past character has been part of the problem. I hope that the new democratic Government will be able to open its doors to many more tourists, particularly from the United Kingdom. Many tourists visit Malawi because Crown Agents has been there and ensured that the country has not suffered, although it could easily have done so. I hope that tourism, alongside aid, will ensure Malawi's future.
  It is easy for us to think that the fact that a country such as Malawi is in receipt of aid in itself constitutes a long-term future. That patently is not true. People living in Malawi need something a bit more secure: they need a future outside aid from countries such as the United Kingdom. I believe that it can benefit from tourism, just as South Africa did as a result of a change of Government and the opening of its doors—and that country has also benefited from the work of Crown Agents.
  76
  Crown Agents has given Malawi other aid: for instance, the local government development project in 1994–95, Malawi fisheries training in 1993, the Lake Malawi fisheries research vessel and the evaluation of ODA fisheries programme in 1988.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Evans: I should be delighted to.
  Mr. Arnold: Is it not significant that the Crown Agents project was funded by the World bank—by a foreign rather than a specifically British donor? Is it not even more significant that Crown Agents was seen as a channel to bring local government experience from Britain to bear in Malawi?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's only relevant point was contained in the two words "Crown Agents".
  Mr. Evans: It was Crown Agents that was able to facilitate the programme to which I referred.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been patient, but the hon. Gentleman has strayed from the Bill. He has persisted in using the words "Crown Agents", which has enabled me to remain in my seat, but I hope that he will return to the Bill.
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall leave the subject of Malawi, but I felt that it was important to give a specific example of a country of which I have some experience, where I have seen the work that is going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Done by Crown Agents."] Yes. Thank you.
  The Crown Agents' report shows that good work is being done in other countries, however. Sri Lanka is an example. As I said earlier, I had an opportunity to go there. The problems of such countries cannot be overestimated. In Sri Lanka, the war involving the Tamil Tigers is unfortunately still going on, even following last year's change of Government.
  Reform of Crown Agents is long overdue. It will bring a breath of fresh air to a successful organisation that is currently being stifled. At the same time, I see no reason why it should not retain its reputation for impartiality in advising the cheapest and most effective way of supplying projects. This evening, the word "privatisation" has been bandied about as something for which we should apologise, but I am not apologetic—not in this case, or in the case of the other 47 industries that we have privatised since 1979. Each of those companies are far better privatised than they would have been in state ownership.
  The same refreshing attitude as is visible in the industries that we are discussing is possible in this context. By no stretch of the imagination can they be described as perfect, but they are far better privatised than they would be if they were run by the state. When the Bill is enacted, Crown Agents will be given the same impetus.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: When I first saw the Bill emerge from the House of Lords on to our Order Paper for consideration, my heart sank slightly. I thought, "My goodness, here we go again. Do we really have to stir a pot totally unnecessarily?" I looked at the Bill with some trepidation because of the recent immense rows

  77
  about certain privatised industries and wondered whether we were unnecessarily letting ourselves in for further trouble.
  I therefore made it my business to listen to what was said by our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, the Minister for Overseas Development, because both Houses have great respect for her work for overseas development over many years as a Minister both in this House and in the other place. She has terrific experience of international affairs and overseas development, especially in Africa, where much of the work of Crown Agents takes place. In going in some detail through her comments on the Bill and its related privatisation, it gave me considerable encouragement to see the advantages that could flow from the Bill's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke earlier and we will shortly hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Crown Agents is based in its home borough of Sutton, I take it that considerable anxieties would have been expressed by my hon. Friends if there was deep unease among the staff of Crown Agents. In fact, that has not been the case and, apparently, there has been much talk of opportunities for the future.
  I first heard of Crown Agents, as did some of my hon. Friends, through my collection of postage stamps. That is, of course, a principal business of Crown Agents. It carries on wide-scale procurement of those wonderful articles that in the past taught me geography, history and goodness knows what else.
  The other point at which I became aware of Crown Agents was the news of its disastrous performance in the 60s and 70s—decades of great moment to our socialist friends opposite, whose imprudent banking brought this proud institution almost to its knees.
  During the 80s and 90s—one might say, the Tory decades—the work of Crown Agents has improved out of all recognition. It has built up a proud record of work, but it has become increasingly clear that the restrictive constraints within which it operates as a Government entity are becoming an ever-increasing restraint on its development. It is interesting to note that Crown Agents has been restructured considerably over recent years and has generated significant surpluses.
  A constituent has represented to me his concern that there is no provision specifically and as such for the foundation within the text of the Bill. In considering that, I note particularly the assurances of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development that the company would indeed be a foundation and established as a company limited by guarantee. If there is one thing that we have learnt in this House, it is that our right hon. and noble Friend is extremely honourable, and I have no doubt that the necessary structures will be followed through under the Bill's provisions.
  A foundation is a highly appropriate way in which to establish the organisation. Not far from me in Gravesham in Kent is the Wellcome Foundation, which is structured in a very similar way to that proposed in this case. We know of the examples of the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the British Standards Institution, BUPA and the PPP health care organisation, all of which operate under such structures.
  78
  The House should pay due heed to the considerable vote of confidence which has been given to the proposals in the Bill by a number of organisations which have expressed interest in becoming members of the foundation. The British Consultants Bureau, the British Chamber of Commerce, the International Chamber of Commerce and various chartered institutes, notably the Chartered Institute of Building, have shown considerable interest in participating. That can only strengthen the Government's proposals to widen the scope of participation in the important work of Crown Agents.
  The business in which Crown Agents is engaged is steadily changing. In 1954, when the name was changed from Crown Agents for the Colonies to Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations, most of its business was based in the Commonwealth, the colonies and in countries that had had a close relationship with Britain, especially in respect of their administration.
  Today, the work of Crown Agents is significantly different. If we consider the Crown Agents' annual report for 1994, we find that quite a bit of its business still concerns the overseas aid programme of the Overseas Development Administration and notably aid to India, South Africa and Zambia, all of which are now members of the Commonwealth. Indeed, Crown Agents has handled and managed the disbursement arrangements for 150 British bilateral aid agreements with a total value of £1.8 billion.
  However, Crown Agents has spread its work wider. If we examine its programme, we can see how wide it has gone beyond the Commonwealth—to Ethiopia, for instance, where it carried out a programme of purchasing vehicles and equipment for the civilian police under the ODA programme. It has extended its operations to eastern Europe and on to Russia where it has continued its work alongside the Russian Government in managing a £350 million programme which is financed by a rehabilitation loan for imports to improve the agriculture, health, transport and coal sectors.
  In view of the matters that have been discussed in the House in recent days, we should note that the Crown Agents' work in the former Yugoslavia, where it administers the convoys that deliver humanitarian aid and is responsible for recruitment, supplies, cargo movement, vehicles, vehicle workshops and logisticians involved in the World Health Organisation and the operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, shows the significant broadening of its work.
  The House should pay due heed to that expansion beyond these shores of the Crown Agents' work. For instance, the European Community now makes considerable use of Crown Agents for the introduction of its overseas development programmes. If one were to go to the almost unpronounceable countries of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, one would see that Crown Agents has managed the inauguration of a regional bank training centre based in Uzbekistan.
  In Poland, Crown Agents has provided technical assistance to the work-out department of the Bank Zachodni Spolka Akcyjna. All that was commissioned by the European Commission and the European development programme and was carried out by the Crown Agents. One could go further to the Crown Agents' assistance in Slovenia, where it is working on establishing a project co-ordinating the regional customs programme for all 11 PHARE beneficiary countries. In Syria, which is not in

  79
  the Commonwealth, Crown Agents has carried out a programme on the proposed methods of financing and implementing the modernisation of the commercial bank and the central bank, as part of the European Commission's overseas aid programme.
  The work of Crown Agents goes wider still. It has won World bank projects in countries such as Angola, where it has supervised the infrastructural, economic and fisheries components of the ports rehabilitation study. Together with a number of colleagues, I visited Angola at the time of its first elections; the work concerned was proving immensely important. On behalf of the World bank, Crown Agents has carried out a procurement course in Fiji, assisted in the design of an improved system of tax administration in Hungary, and provided a procurement agency service for the population and family health projects in Nepal. We have already heard about the Crown Agents' work in Papua New Guinea, establishing a specialist unit to advise, finance and help with the planning of the Government's privatisation project.
  It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that Crown Agents is active in the Caribbean, where is has been commissioned by the Caribbean development bank to prepare a study on road and bridge improvements in Dominica, in the Commonwealth West Indies. Crown Agents also executed the British component of the know-how fund in Romania and Belorussia.
  It might be argued that Crown Agents could carry out all this work as a nationalised agency, as in the past, but it is rapidly developing into new areas and winning new business on the basis of its expertise and excellence. It is in these new areas that the agency needs the freedom to operate independently of Government. Some of its more recent contracts are relevant in this context. It has, for instance, won a contract from the Arab Authority for Agricultural Investment and Development to conduct a technical and financial evaluation of one of Egypt's largest land reclamation projects—a task demanding considerable expertise.
  Elsewhere, the agency has carried out a joint project combining our overseas aid programme and Norwegian aid in Mozambique, a country devastated by civil war and just about everything else that could go wrong. Crown Agents has designed and implemented an aid monitoring system for the Bank of Mozambique, and has validated both Norwegian and British aid programme funds.
  Perhaps the most significant work that Crown Agents has done on behalf of foreign Governments—the crux of why the change has been structured in this way—relates to the major contract that it has signed with Japan to carry out Japan's aid programme in sub-Saharan Africa. Japan, now a major economy becoming increasingly involved in overseas aid, is casting around for people who know what they are doing to implement its aid programme with efficiency and integrity. Britain's experience as a colonial power in that area and as a member of the Commonwealth has resulted in bodies such as Crown Agents being admirably suited to carrying out such work. Already it has gained commissioned work from Japan to the tune of £720 million.
  Crown Agents has also won business from the Asian Development bank which, perhaps surprisingly, approached the British Government to administer a programme in Micronesia. The House will recall that
  80
  Micronesia consists of Japanese islands which, after the war, came under the administration of the United States and only recently achieved independence. One might therefore expect the United States or Japan to manage its overseas aid programmes, but the ADB commissioned our Crown Agents to conduct a review of Micronesia's federal education system at national and state level.
  Further afield, the Swedish International Development Authority has commissioned Crown Agents to carry out its programmes in Vietnam. Financed by the Swedes and administered by the World bank, the programme was carried through by Crown Agents, enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the banking sector by means of a sustained programme of technical assistance and staff training.
  This shows the modernity of the world in which Crown Agents has to operate. It is not the old-fashioned world so beloved of the socialists, which is why the agency cannot continue as a Government entity. That would prevent it from effectively developing.
  The origins of, and trends in, the Crown Agents' revenue stream are significant. The last set of accounts published by Crown Agents show that 70 per cent. of its revenue now comes from overseas. I was fascinated to hear the magisterial rebuke delivered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who claimed that most of the revenue comes from overseas. I am afraid that the hon. Member for York was wrong—
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that the United Kingdom accounted for most of the Crown Agents' business. That was incorrect—although the United Kingdom is its single biggest customer. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley acknowledged that that was true.
  Mr. Arnold: The British overseas aid programme may be the biggest single customer, but our point is, and remains, that Crown Agents gets most of its revenue today from overseas sources. That underlines the importance of giving it maximum flexibility, as will be granted to it by privatisation.
  Given the agency's in-house expertise and procurement capabilities, it is not surprising that most of its business comes in the form of advisory, financial and purchasing services. This expertise, built up over a long period, should be put to far wider use internationally. British expertise is renowned the world over, even if we are sometimes rather too modest about it.
  A significant part of its business is the procurement of bank notes and stamps and vital secure documents. Britain's expert printers produce a great deal of such material. Crown Agents should rely on the excellence for which it is famous and should be free to be flexible.
  I expected the debate to be incredibly boring and thought that everybody would take the view that this was a meritorious but low-key issue. But that is not the case. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who spoke for the Opposition, immediately decided that this was privatisation. The red flag was raised and she charged into an extraordinary mode of opposition to the proposal.
  Mr. Foulkes: I must spring to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. She may not be a noble Lady, but she is correct, impressive and powerful. On this occasion she is right, and it was not she who first said

  81
  that it was privatisation; it was the Overseas Development Administration. That was said in ODA press releases and it has been said by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman must not attribute that comment only to my hon. Friend, who expertly exposed what the privatisation means in practice.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Immediately this was labelled as privatisation, the red flag was hoisted and hostility was the order of the day. It is immensely revealing about this wonderful, glossy, new, Blair Labour party that one has merely to mention the word "privatisation" and Labour Members go ape.
  Miss Lestor: I go what? I do not understand what I went.
  Mr. Arnold: I think that it is called estuary English. As I say, the Opposition go ape and there is the usual hostile tirade against anything that is dubbed privatisation. That is highly unconstructive when debating the future of one of our great expert organisations. The reasonable tones of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, were delivered in the usual honeyed way. The hon. and learned Gentleman ended by saying that his party would oppose the Government. That is about par for the course for Liberal Democrats, who have not looked properly at the facts of this privatisation.
  Privatisation is not a simplistic monolithic approach. All privatisations are different and could be categorised. Many of them are straight privatisations of independent companies which many Conservative Members would say should perhaps never have been privatised. Companies such as British Airways, British Steel, the bus companies, Amersham International and British Petroleum were all separate companies in the same way as Crown Agents.
  Those of us who were in business used to travel frequently with British Airways when it was nationalised. We did that out of loyalty to the flag which was stuck on the aircraft. but there was a certain amount of embarrassment about the standard of service provided. When BA had the freedom, the scope and the competition of the marketplace and was unable to put its hands in the taxpayers' pockets it turned itself into the world's favourite airline. The same is true of British Steel in terms of quality. I could go through the gamut, but I fear that I am starting to make you restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I shall deal with privatisations that contrast with the one that we are debating. The House gets steamed up about the utilities, but there is also privatisation by means of franchise. The train operating companies were privatised in that way, and by no stretch of the imagination are they comparable with Crown Agents. We are debating a privatization—let us be proud of the phrase, Conservatives certainly are—that is a transfer to an independent foundation. It will bring together many interested organisations and bodies, non-governmental and international organisations and a variety of institutions which will participate to oversee and ensure that the excellence of what Crown Agents offers is expanded, extended and developed in a way that could never happen under direct Government control.
  The world is developing fast, and flexibility is essential if one is to succeed in delivering a wide-ranging service in the way that Crown Agents has always done. We should never underestimate the fact that Britain is a great international player. It is a permanent member of the
  82
  Security Council of the United Nations, one of the great powers of the European Union and a leading nation in the Commonwealth and in the G7. I could continue with the list of our contributions.
  In debating the subject of Crown Agents, we are also considering some of the outstanding work throughout the world that is carried out by some of our non-governmental organisations. They have a proud record of service, especially in the third world where many of them work with Crown Agents. Those organisations serve well not because they have been born and bred of Government but because they are independent. Many organisations based in the United Kingdom do exceptionally good international work. By supporting the Bill, we shall take a great organisation with a great history which embodies the expertise for which Britain is world renowned and place it alongside the NGOs. They will work with Crown Agents, which will build on the past and develop in the future in a way of which the House can be proud.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I had not planned to speak in the debate and I apologise to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for missing their speeches. I was at a meeting of the Standing Committee which is examining the Pensions Bill. However, listening to the debate has prompted me to intervene and I shall start by declaring an interest. Last year I went to Japan for a series of meetings with officials in the Japanese Foreign Ministry. I was a guest of the Japanese Government who paid my fare and my accommodation. I shall speak later about the Japanese overseas aid programme.
  The Minister confirmed in clear terms to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that the Bill proposes to privatise the Crown Agents. As a supporter of the new Labour agenda of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I do not take the crude view that everything in the public sector is necessarily good or that private sector provision is necessarily bad. I take a pragmatic view, and the pragmatic question about the Bill is whether the privatisation of Crown Agents will make it more efficient or more effective.
  Crown Agents is held in high public regard in this country and abroad. That is reflected in the size of its portfolio—the number of countries that come to it for its services. It is one of the oldest institutions in the British public service. It is far older than the Overseas Development Administration and it is older than most of the Departments of State which have Ministers who report to the House.
  There has been some sentimentality, especially from Conservative Members, about Crown Agents. Until this debate, I had not realised that being a schoolboy stamp collector was an essential requirement for a Conservative candidate.
  Mr. Baldry indicated assent.
  Mr. Timothy Wood (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)indicated assent.
  Mr. Bayley: I see the Minister and the Government Whip nodding their heads. I did not realise that the first question at a Conservative selection conference was. "What colour was the 4 cent stamp for the West Indies

  83
  Federation and when did the West Indies Federation cease to exist?" I now realise why the Conservative party gets the candidates that it does. Sadly, future generations of Conservative Members will not search in their watermark trays for Crown watermarks on the back of their stamps, but for Foundation plc watermarks. Sentimentality may be a fine thing and Crown Agents is a fine thing, but sentimentality in itself is not a good reason for not privatising Crown Agents.
  We need to consider whether privatisation will make Crown Agents more efficient, more effective and more accountable to the people who go to it for its services. It would be possible for the Government to make the case that that would happen, but they have not done so to date. The reason that they have failed to do so is that they have set out in the Bill the framework, but not the detail about how the private Crown Agents will operate.
  Without that detail, I am not prepared to take a gamble that the high ethical standards, the social commitment and the commitment to development which have characterised Crown Agents since it became a public corporation will be maintained. There are hon. Members who will seek that reassurance from the Government if they are to support the Bill. The Minister will have to say far more on Second Reading and in Committee to win that support and to achieve the cross-party consensus which exists about many parts of the Government's overseas aid programme.
  Other hon. Members have quoted from the Financial Times article of 26 August 1993 which commented on Baroness Chalker's letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee outlining the Government's plans for the future of Crown Agents. The Financial Times reported that the Japanese
  "lobbied the UK government against outright privatisation, arguing that this would imperil the honest broker status of the organisation."
  In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Barry Ireton, an ODA official, said:
  "I think it is fair to say the Japanese would have concerns if the Crown Agents simply became an ordinary commercial private business."
  What the Japanese say matters not just because the Japanese are the second biggest customers of Crown Agents, putting hundreds of millions of pounds of business in its direction, but because Japan is an enormously important player in overseas development assistance. This year, for the first time, Japan has become the world's largest overseas aid donor—larger even than the United States. Japan may give less as a proportion of gross national product than the United Kingdom, but because its economy is hugely larger than the United Kingdom's, it gives more overseas aid.
  Traditionally, Japanese overseas aid has gone to developing countries in its region of south-east Asia—to countries with which the Japanese have historically had trading or other ties. Those countries include the Asian tiger economies such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia which have been development success stories. They are no longer poor or under-developed countries, but developed countries with strong economies and a high standard of living for many of their citizens. There is a limit to how much overseas aid one can give to a middle-income or high-income country.
  84
  The Japanese, therefore—I applaud this—have turned to providing more aid for the benefit of poor people in poor countries. To do that, one must inevitably turn to providing aid for Africa, the poorest continent. In contrast to its historical links with countries in its region of south-east Asia, Japan historically has had little to do with Africa so it has turned to donor countries that have had a historical relationship with Africa, most notably the United Kingdom, for technical assistance and advice.
  When, for example, the Japanese decided to send a contingent from their national defence force to assist Rwandan refugees in Goma—an important decision in itself because it was the first time that land forces from the Japanese national defence force had been deployed outside Japan—they went to the UK high commissioner in Nairobi for advice, which was willingly given, on the logistics and practicalities of working in such a role in Africa. Such advice does not apply only to emergency situations. The Japanese Government come to Crown Agents for advice about providing long-term development assistance in Africa. They use Crown Agents as an agent for the Japanese Government's overseas development programme in 14 sub-Saharan countries and they have put £720 million of business through its hands.
  The amount of overseas assistance from Japan to Africa via Crown Agents is likely to increase because the Japanese economy is likely to grow and the priority that they give to Africa in their overseas development programme is likely to increase. The Japanese have found already that they can be helped ably by Crown Agents in terms of the expertise that they require to deliver their overseas aid objectives effectively.
  The Government have, in the Bill, responded to the view expressed by the Japanese that there should not be outright privatisation of Crown Agents. They have produced instead a curious hybrid—a privatisation without teeth. It is a toothless tiger which will create a public interest, private sector development organisation. It is toothless because all the profits created by this private development organisation will be recycled to pay for further development work and no dividends will be provided for shareholders.
  To date, all the Government's privatisations have been predicated on the assumption that it is the profit motive and the shareholders' insatiable desire for dividends which act as a spur to efficiency and effectiveness and which contribute to the benefit of privatisation. It is, therefore, something of a surprise that the Government now argue that privatisation can be equally effective without the incentives of the profit motive and dividends to shareholders. Why was British Gas not privatised on the basis that profits made would be reinvested for the benefit of customers and that dividends would not be paid?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The losses.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) asks about losses. In the past, the losses were always paid for by the consumers so there would be no change in that regard. The same case could be made about the privatisation of British Telecom or the electricity boards.
  With their proposed privatisation of Crown Agents the Government are creating an entirely new concept and a new entity—a private sector, public interest corporation. If they believe that that can be the basis of a successful

  85
  privatisation, there are good arguments for using the same approach elsewhere. If the benefits of privatisation can be gained in that way, but with additional benefits and safeguards for the public interest and the customers, surely the principle could be applied elsewhere.
  I shall now ask the Minister a few specific questions. According to the Bill, the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board will have between two and 10 members. The Library briefing for the debate suggests that representatives of charities and other development organisations, among others, could be appointed to the board. If the Government wish to reassure the public and Opposition Members that the ethical principles and the commitment to development that have underpinned the work of Crown Agents to date will be retained under the new regime, one of the most effective ways of doing so would be to ensure that people with a commitment to development rather than to profit-making would have the whip hand on the board.
  If there were one token representative from one development organisation I would not be reassured, but if a substantial proportion—perhaps 20 or 30 per cent.—of board members had that commitment I should welcome the fact.
  Mr. Baldry: I understand and fully accept the reason why the hon. Gentleman was not present for my opening speech, but let me put his mind at rest now. I have already said several times that the Government will not appoint the members of the foundation. I would hope that all its members will have a strong and total commitment to the development purposes and philosophy of Crown Agents.
  The Bill transfers Crown Agents from its present 1979 statutory format into a company limited by guarantee that the Secretary of State will on some future occasion transfer to the foundation—also a company limited by guarantee. The members of that foundation will not be appointed by the Secretary of State. Some of the existing people at Crown Agents, together with other charitable and philosophical organisations, will come forward and say that they wish to be members of the foundation. The Government will have to look at them in the round, consider their competence and probity and decide whether to hand over the body that the Bill sets up to that foundation.
  Clearly it is the intention that everyone involved with the foundation should be totally committed to the development purposes and philosophy that Crown Agents now espouses. We seek to provide the structure to enable it to do its work more successfully as we approach the 21st century.
  Finally, without trespassing much further on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to explain that if one is not careful the use of the word "privatisation" in the context of the Bill becomes a form of shorthand. Yes, the Bill will privatise Crown Agents in so far as it will take it out of the public sector, but if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My patience is now at an end. That was a very long intervention.
  Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I shall certainly read his speech. There is still something that confuses me, and if it was not covered in the Minister's speech I should be grateful if he would deal with it in his summation. I had understood that the Crown
  86
  Agents Holding and Realisation Board was intended to be a sort of stalking horse for the foundation—a foundation in waiting.
  Clause 11 says:
  "The Board shall consist of not less than two and not more than ten members appointed by the Secretary of State".
  It then makes further provision for the appointments. If I am wrong and the Minister has already explained why, I shall find out when I read his speech.
  However, if there is a chance that the new foundation will grow out of the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board and its constitution and coming together is likely to be guided by that body, I shall want some reassurance from the Minister that a substantial presence on the Holding and Realisation Board will come from non-profit-making charities and non-governmental organisations with an interest in development issues.
  My second question about the Holding and Realisation Board has already been raised several times in the House in recent months, and indeed over the years. It concerns the pay and other remuneration of directors of privatised organisations. There is undoubtedly widespread public concern about the escalating salaries and fees being taken by such directors. There would be public outrage if six-figure salaries of the type that have caused so much concern when paid to the directors of other privatised public organisations were paid to directors of the new foundation or its subsidiary company—a body whose raison d'etre is to assist the process of development for the benefit of poor people in poor countries.
  Mr. Enright: Does not my hon. Friend consider that a good example of what he is talking about is provided by Clare Spottiswoode, who was appointed to look after the public interest and operated at a public service or civil service level?. But we now know that she is putting in for a huge rise that will take her salary well into six figures.
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend draws attention to just one of the examples that have given rise to genuine public concern.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I was becoming intensely frustrated by his gross slur on the integrity and probity of Crown Agents. He seems to suggest that its personnel will become corrupt and selfish in future. Will he retract any slur that he might have cast on Crown Agents?
  Mr. Bayley: I was drawing a parallel not with Crown Agents but with what has happened in other public sector enterprises that have been privatised. If the hon. Lady thinks that it is a slur to refer to the fact that directors of privatised companies earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, perhaps if she manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will explain why. However, if she thinks that it would be appropriate for the directors of a privatised Crown Agents to receive six-figure salaries of the sort that have caused public concern elsewhere, perhaps she will make that case to the House instead.
  I appreciate the fact that when there is a privatised body the Government will not set salary levels, but they will set levels for the interim body—the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board. On page 6 of the Bill—
  Mr. Baldry: It might be helpful if I clarified the matter before the House gets into a muddle. The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board is completely different

  87
  from the organisation which the Bill is dealing with. The board was set up by the Crown Agents Act 1979 to handle the consequences of the speculative investments on its own accounts by Crown Agents in the 1970s. That was the whole reason for the legislation.
  An organisation was needed which could draw a line under those losses and manage them, and that organisation is the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board which is dealt with in clause 11 of the Bill. It is totally separate from Crown Agents, and the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board—as I said in my opening speech—will not transfer to the private sector with Crown Agents. It will do the residual work which it has to do, and as soon as it has finished that work it will be wound up by the Secretary of State. The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board to which the hon. Gentleman refers is history, and relates to losses made in the 1970s.
  Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister for the explanation, and I do not need to pursue that matter further.
  There are two other issues which I would like to put to the Minister. First, the aims and objectives of the foundation should he set out in the memorandum and articles for the company. This is not a technical detail—it is essential to the debate. Opposition Members, and some Conservative Members, are concerned that the privatisation of Crown Agents could destroy the ethical principles of social justice and development which are the hallmark of Crown Agents. Those principles attract its customers.
  We need to be reassured that the new-style Crown Agents in the private sector will not change its nature, and that it will continue to subscribe to these principles under its no-dividend, profit-recycling constitution. That will be the point upon which the opinion of many Opposition Members will turn as to whether to support the Bill or not. If the Government genuinely want to maintain the high standards of public service provided by Crown Agents, I for one would not object in principle to that being done in the private sector rather than the public sector. But because of some things which have happened following other privatisations, I fear that the commitment to public service will be undermined unless those principles are firmly guaranteed in the founding constitution of the new-style private sector Crown Agents.
  Will the Government give an undertaking to publish a draft of the memorandum and articles before the Bill goes into Committee? The debate will be meaningless if it is predicated on a "what-if' assumption and if we do not have the memorandum and articles before the Committee debate starts. If the Government wish to reassure the Opposition in Committee by going through in detail how it will work in practice, they should publish the memorandum and articles. If the Government wish to obscure the real nature of a privatised Crown Agents until after the House—with the benefit of the Government majority—has passed the Bill, they will come up against suspicion and opposition from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Baldry: It would be disingenuous of me not to respond, as I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be misinformed when he votes at the end of the debate. I made clear in my opening speech and in response to interventions that we have nothing to I do not think that it will be possible to publish and articles of association prior to the Bill going into
  88
  Committee, for a number of reasons. Not the least of those is that we must consider whether the foundation should be a charity. Charity law at present is in a state of flux post-Barings. Hitherto, charity trustees have had an interest in placing all of their charitable funds in a secure bank because that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to stop the Minister, as I know that he tends to make helpful interventions. However, I assume that he will be winding up the debate, and he can then answer the questions which have been put to him.
  Mr. Bayley: Without treading on your toes in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might say that it was thoughtful of the Minister to try to reassure me.
  Some changes may be necessary to the final memorandum and articles before they are submitted to Companies House in view of what has happened to Barings and to the Barings trust. But that will not alter the substance of the memorandum and articles. I ask the Minister to publish a draft of the memorandum and articles, as that must be done if we are to have a constructive debate in Committee. If not, we will be debating the issue blindfold.
  The Minister may have seen a draft which has reassured him, but he has not made such a draft available to the House. Without such a draft, the debate will be determined and dictated by the suspicions which obviously exist.
  I understand that the Government are to take limited reserve powers over the foundation. They will have a golden share to prevent fundamental changes to the purpose of Crown Agents in its privatised form, but that golden share is only for a period of five years. I presume that the provision has been made because of concerns expressed by the Japanese Government and by other countries which use Crown Agents. They are seeking reassurance that the honest broker status of Crown Agents will be maintained. We need to give that reassurance for longer than five years.
  Nothing is ever cast in stone for all time. If we find in five or ten years' time that the new-style Crown Agents has built up a track record and has reassured people that its commitment to development rather than to profit-making remains unchanged, the Government at the next appropriate overseas aid legislation could remove the provision and give away the golden share. But if we want to provide the reassurance which I believe is necessary for the 70 per cent. of Crown Agents' customers who come from overseas, five years is too short a period.
  8.17 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I give a warm welcome to the Bill, which is in response to Crown Agents' wish for greater commercial freedom. First, I declare a constituency interest, as Crown Agents has its headquarters in Sutton. I am enormously proud of its achievements, and I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) in wishing Crown Agents well as it moves into the future.
  Crown Agents is a unique organisation, whose historical background goes back 162 years. Its members were first appointed in 1833 as Crown servants acting under prerogative for the procurement of goods and services for colonial administrations. They formed the backbone of British interests overseas.

  89
  Today, a meeting at the Crown Agents' Sutton headquarters is always stimulating. It always has something new to tell. Its staff, its proudest asset, are enthusiastic, dedicated, and totally committed to their work.
  When one hears of the organisation's sheer range of activities, one well understands why it is one of Britain's great ambassadors across the globe, covering 150 different countries. It employs 850 staff in 30 offices worldwide, and places annual orders worth more than £200 million for its clients. More than 70 per cent. of its income originates outside, and that percentage is growing. Tantamount to its success is that it has now paid more than £20 million in capital and interest to the Government.
  As we have heard throughout this debate, the Crown Agents provides a range of services for aid agencies such as the United Nations, the World bank and the European Union, and for a number of bilateral donors, including Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands. Similar work is carried out for a large number of public sector organisations around the world. Projects range from bank training in Tashkent to humanitarian relief in Bosnia.
  As we speak, with tension rising all the time in Bosnia, another aid convoy with food and medical supplies is crawling slowly over the mountains to reach such desperate towns as Banja Luka, Sarajevo, Mostar, Zenica and Gorni Vakuf. The drivers are all supplied by the Crown Agents, called in by the ODA to do a job that calls for unremitting courage and determination. The ultimate result is that they are saving thousands and thousands of lives. Their lot is full of risks, driving in perilous conditions.
  Paul Goodall paid the ultimate price when he was killed in a vehicle hijack in Bosnia. His colleagues, Simon King and David Court, were seriously injured, and were duly recognised in the Queen's 1994 birthday honours list. Drivers John Crosthwaite, John Ellis, Raymond Milton, Nigel Moore. David MacAdam, Bob Phillips, Tony Winton. Edward Perks and Cyril Dawes fully deserve their honours from the Queen for keeping the aid convoys going in extremely difficult circumstances.
  I salute those men all the more for their modesty because, unlike the soldiers who protect them, they do not receive public acclaim. Although they are often overlooked, they are the key to the humanitarian programme's success. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister's decision last week to send troop reinforcements to secure the protection of those valuable convoys.
  The House has heard many references to the Japanese Government, who have such a high regard for the Crown Agents that they have chosen to place their aid programmes in its hands. In their first pilot aid programme, they asked the Crown Agents to deliver food aid to the far eastern sector of Siberia. That package was worth £25 million and, as expected, the programme was a success.
  Indeed, it was such a success that today the Crown Agents has a major office in Tokyo, which I have visited. It supervises Japan's aid programme, which is worth $590 million since 1988 and covers 40 individual grants to 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Philippines and Peru. The Japanese Government are now the second biggest client after the ODA.
  90
  The European Commission, through European procurement agents on behalf of the European Union, has nominated the Crown Agents, one of its members, to carry out a number of contracts across the world in countries ranging from Malawi to Bangladesh.
  The Crown Agents' work is far wider than delivering assistance to the third world. The know-how fund makes full use of the Crown Agents. One project is the management and training programme in Belarus to assist the republic to change to a market-based economy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said, the Crown Agents is also active in the Caribbean, where it works on development in both the public and private sectors. In Asia and the Pacific, it focuses on aid, economic management and public sector development such as tax administration. I pay tribute to the rapidly growing and successful department that deals with tax administration, which is developing a vigour of its own.
  The Crown Agents has been teaching countries to create self-sustaining projects such as bank training in Tashkent and Vietnam, bringing their performance up to international standards. In Africa, it provides not only support for major health and education programmes but international banking, account and foreign exchange services to Governments and central banks.
  Those services are crucial to developing countries such as Malawi, which I visited last year and where I had a chance to talk to some of the Crown Agents' representatives there. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in wishing the newly elected Government well. By bringing in an ordered democratic government, Malawi is more likely to benefit fully from the Crown Agents' work. The range of the Crown Agents' work extends to other countries such as Tanzania, where it undertook a comprehensive review of public procurement and supply of management arrangements.
  Given the range of activities, we might ask why so many countries choose to turn to the Crown Agents to deliver and handle those aid programmes. The clue might lie in the fact that it delivers real value for money. Not a penny is wasted. In the 1993 annual review of the Crown Agents' activities, Mr. Peter Berry, the managing director, stated:
  "Increasingly, as aid becomes subject to a more detailed cost-benefit scrutiny than in previous cycles, we find ourselves able to demonstrate our effectiveness on several levels. Our cost-effectiveness in the actual spending of aid is self-evident. Yet we can also monitor the aid process, interfacing between donor and client to provide surety to each that their money is being well spent, and we can manage and train recipients to handle effectively and accountably the funds made available to them."
  That sums up one of the qualities of the Crown Agents.
  A brief resumé of the Crown Agents' wide-ranging work will help to understand why I welcome the Bill: it is vital that it should now be able to develop further. Times have moved on since the passing of the Crown Agents Act 1979, when it became a public corporation with a board appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It came into being after a turbulent history, which prompted a regulatory framework designed to give the Government tight control over its affairs.
  That may have worked at the time, helping to build public confidence, hut, by the same token, as the years went by and the range and scale of business done on

  91
  behalf of other Governments and agencies increased, it became evident that the constraints were unrealistic. In short, the Crown Agents had outgrown its constitution. It needed to be set free to compete with the world in the 1990s and beyond.
  The problems were first set out clearly in the annual report of as long ago as 1992 by the chairman, David Probert. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development recognised those problems and stated in another place that she would review the status of the Crown Agents. Her responsiveness is typical.
  Given that the Crown Agents receives not a single penny from the Government in any subsidy, and the fact that Government contracts are significantly down due to changes in Britain's bilateral aid, the Crown Agents has had to compete in the international arena in order to survive. During those initial days, however, it passed through a crisis and had to lay off staff, much to its regret. Even with its hands tied behind its back due to restrictions imposed upon it, it has done extremely well.
  Just imagine how the Crown Agents would prosper if it was granted total freedom from the Government's apron strings. It would be able to make major decisions fast without having to refer back to a Government Department. where red tape and bureaucracy cannot respond with the necessary sense of urgency. Even a simple decision on a proposed joint venture scheme can take weeks, even months—or, in one case, well over a year. That is not good business practice, and opportunities can be lost.
  To begin with, slow progress was made in responding to the problems highlighted by the Crown Agents. The chairman, assisted by his able and energetic managing director, Peter Berry, kept up the pressure. In the 1993 annual report, they noted that their advisers, Price Waterhouse and S. G. Warburg, recommended that the ideal solution would be to transfer the business and assets to a specially formed foundation, the profits of which would not be distributed but would be retained for the development of the organisation and its services to clients. Such a structure would ensure that the Crown Agents continues to be good for development, good for the transfer of skills and good for international trade.
  I have been somewhat saddened by the remarks of Opposition Members, who seem determined to retain the Crown Agents within the public sector. I totally reject that idea, which would hamper its freedom. The Opposition were asking the wrong question. The right question is why the Crown Agents should continue to be owned by the Government.
  The blindness and hostility of the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to privatisation is so well known that all she could do was rampage in and focus on other privatised industries. She drew attention to certain high-profile examples, and drew a direct parallel between them and the Crown Agents, but did not accept that it operates in a different sphere.
  The hon. Lady did not say what would happen if there ever were a Labour Government. I am confident that that will not happen, but we must still ask whether she would try to claw the Crown Agents back into the state sector. If she did so, she would kill the Crown Agents stone dead. She would cramp its style in an extremely difficult and competitive world.
  92
  For the Crown Agents to prosper, the Government should be able to stand back from detailed control, but they cannot do that as long as they continue to bear ultimate financial responsibility for it. Government ownership requires the Government to take an internal interest in the affairs of the Crown Agents, or, as some would suggest, to interfere. There is no need for that.
  No one is suggesting that there will be any repetition of the events that influenced the introduction of legislation in 1979. In any case, the Government would retain an interest as a customer of the Crown Agents. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government support the transfer to a foundation in principle, but that is not reflected in the Bill.
  An enabling Bill simply gives the Government the means to transfer the Crown Agents to another status at a later stage. That may suit the Government when considering other forms of legislation, but this case is different. In terms of client confidence, especially of Japan, which is the second single major customer of the Crown Agents, it is necessary to include in the Bill a commitment to make the transfer into a foundation.
  It is not enough just to leave that in the air and trust to hope that the Government will do as they have promised verbally. The blinds are being pulled down over exactly what will happen next during the transfer, and the final outcome will not be subject to any control.
  I am concerned that, at this stage, key factors concerning the future of the Crown Agents are still to be resolved. I share the concerns expressed by the Opposition about the memorandum and articles of association. I find it disturbing that, so far, the Government have not produced their own memorandum and articles of association of the companies.
  I can understand that the Government do not want to set a precedent, but the Crown Agents is a unique organisation. Its strength lies in the morale of its employees. As they are largely my constituents, I have a special interest to express on their behalf.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the staff's nervousness about their future. It is reassuring to note that there are no plans to change their pension arrangements or to announce any staff redundancies in the future. None the less, the whole structure of the employees' working environment is enormously important to them. As staff morale is the key asset of the Crown Agents, they deserve priority treatment.
  It would make a great difference to the staff if my hon. Friend produced a memorandum and articles of association sooner rather than later, so that they may have a clear idea of exactly what he has in mind on their behalf. A clear statement about that today would be much appreciated.
  Such a statement would also increase confidence among the many major customers of the Crown Agents. I appreciate, however, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has discussed the options, and taken full account of the concerns of the Japanese Government as well as of other clients.
  The constitution of the future foundation will be bound by the operational structure of the successor organisation. I understand that the Crown Agents would like a sleek, single company, limited by guarantee, which cannot distribute profits to its members. That equates with the continental not-for-profit foundations, well understood by

  93
  the Crown Agents' clients overseas. Research bodies have been transferred to the private sector in that way. It appears, however, that the Government have other ideas, which are frankly cumbersome. They have proposed an interlinked, two-company structure, which is unwieldy and unnecessary.
  The Government have suggested that the holding company might have charitable status. As I understood it from my meeting with the Minister, that is still under consideration. In my view, that proposal is inappropriate. I understand that the Government are anxious to ensure that there should be no exploitation. We all share that concern. The very word "charity" means good, but charitable status is extremely restrictive, and could tie up the operational nature of the foundation in such knots and create so many complications that that could damage the potential for development of its business. From the Government's point of view, charitable status achieves the objective of external regulation of the holding company by the charity commissioners.
  Matters are not helped by recent press comment in the wake of the Barings collapse, which has highlighted the duty of charitable trustees to operate their investments for the benefit of their charitable objects rather than moral considerations. In this case, charitable status, as opposed to not-for-profit status, could have a negative impact on the market position of the Crown Agents.
  Clients want to be assured that the operating company is run commercially but for a social purpose, rather than geared to generating maximum profits for distribution by a charitable parent. Clients would want the Crown Agents to plough more resources into its operations, rather than make disbursements in accordance with the company's charitable objectives.
  Another factor that is extremely important to the Crown Agents is capitalisation. That is crucial to the future of the Crown Agents. It affects the whole viability of the new foundation. The Government say that they are anxious that the foundation should be viable. My hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that he did not want it to be overburdened with debt. However, that must be balanced with an obligation to repay its debts to the taxpayer on a good value for money basis.
  One cannot have it both ways. Either one burdens a new foundation to such a degree that it is unable to flourish, or else one gives it the lift-off so that it can really float free. Therefore, I was worried to notice that in clause 2 the Bill makes provisions for a clawback of the commencing capital debt of about £2 million plus.
  Including that debt, the capital and reserves of the Crown Agents are extremely modest, totalling £15 million. That is a meagre amount when one takes into account the fact that working capital needs are increasing all the time. Reduce that sum by £2 million being called in by the Government, and one might wonder how any major company could achieve client confidence with a working capital and reserves of only £13 million. Accountants that I have spoken to tell me that it is simply not credible in a commercial world. Indeed, in my opinion, the Crown Agents would be better served by buying a lottery ticket and trying to raise capital that way. It certainly could end up with more.
  Even as a layman, I was amazed, when I looked at the balance sheet, how near the bone the Crown Agents operate. No one could say that it is wallowing in a fortune of greed; quite the opposite. There is never any suggestion
  94
  from its bank accounts and its balance sheet that it could be profiteering, and I doubt that it would ever be the case in future. The Crown Agents has no real estate to call upon. The headquarters in Sutton is leased. The only capital equipment could be the computers, which depreciate. The real asset is beyond price—the quality of the staff, their dedication and sheer professionalism.
  It is all very well for the Treasury to try to extract every penny it can. That is its responsibility. However, that must be balanced by the fact that it is reducing severely, at a stroke, the ability of the Crown Agents to withstand a crisis.
  If I may, I wish to give an example. In recent years, the Crown Agents has had to weather events such as the sudden change since 1992 in procurement volume from the Overseas Development Administration. Uncertainties have developed created by totally outside events, such as the collapse of a long-established bank such as Barings, which might affect the Crown Agents at any time.
  It would be most embarrassing for the Government if they set a foundation free only to find that it then had difficulties because it had been starved at the start of much-needed resources. The foundation needs to embark on its rebirth with a robust financial base, not—to quote the Viscount of Oxfuird on Second Reading in the other place—
  "born into a state of penury."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 1432]
  Crown Agents is under-capitalised as it is. Far from the Government grabbing the £2 million, they should be topping up the capital and reserves of at least £20 million, thus strengthening the foundation and giving it the boost that it deserves. After all, faced with the future and with all the internal costs that it will have as it goes into the future, that is essential.
  It is not only generous-spirited to ensure the viability of the Crown Agents; it is plain common and commercial good sense. I trust that when the Government consult independent financial advisers, they will agree with me. Indeed, if I may remind the House, my hon. Friend the Minister did say that he wanted the foundation to have a healthy rebirth.
  Generally, the good news is that the scene is set for a bright future, facilitated by the Bill. When I survey the vast array of work that Crown Agents does, the good will that it engenders throughout the world, the benefits that we as a nation receive from basking in its reflected glory, its story is born of modesty, professionalism and pride. Crown Agents reflects the best of Great Britain today, and it is my proud boast that I happen to be its Member of Parliament.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I do not think that I shall be able to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in her stirring and heroic manner, although I agree with some of her arguments in relation to the memorandum and articles of association of the foundation, the role of the staff, the excellent work done by the staff and the role of the Treasury. I shall return to those later.
  The debate has been useful. Someone said earlier that it had been a surprisingly interesting debate. It is no surprise to me that it has been interesting. For those of us who are involved, and have been for some time, in

  95
  development, it is an important and interesting subject. It has been good that so many people have participated. Some of my colleagues have been unable to do so because of service on Select and Standing Committees, although I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) for coming out for some time from the Select Committee on which he serves to participate and to make such a brilliant speech.
  The debate as a whole—I know you have not been able to sit through it as I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has been surprisingly full of philatelists. I had not realised the high correlation between philately and interest in development, but it has emerged strongly tonight, especially among Conservative Members. The debate has also been full of world travellers. It was surprising how many hon. Members prefaced or interspersed or concluded their speeches with mention of their travels around the world, to Malawi or Sri Lanka—not all as members of the Welsh Select Committee, although it did entrance us to know that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) had been to Barcelona as a member of the Welsh Select Committee. It has been a remarkable revelation of a debate.
  I wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to reiterate what has been said on several occasions—the Leader of the House will be pleased to know that I am still on my first paragraph—from both sides of the House, and I do not mean the effusive congratulations and effusive words that were said about Baroness Chalker. She would be embarrassed if we were to go any further along those lines.
  We all agree about the great value of the work—brilliantly described by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—undertaken by Crown Agents, and the exemplary way in which it has performed those tasks to date. I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Worcester. It occurs to some Labour Members, and perhaps even, occasionally, to some Conservative Members, that if Crown Agents is so good, has been working so well and has done so much in so many sectors in so many countries so effectively and so brilliantly, why do we need to change it? What is the purpose of the Bill? What is it all about?
  I think it was an American who said, if it ain't broke, why mend it?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Fix it.
  Mr. Foulkes: It was one of my honourable and erudite Welsh friends who said, if it ain't broke, why fix it? And it ain't broke. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said how well Crown Agents was doing, so why do we need to go through that process?
  The Minister will be pleased to know that I shall be able to allow him a few minutes at the end of the debate to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for York and others. The Minister spoke earlier, at some length, but he has not convinced me. There were no arguments; there were no explanations; there were no reasons. There was dogma. There was certainly the continuation of a long diatribe that was made in the other place, but there were no real arguments and no real explanations. The Opposition hope that the Crown Agents' good work will continue long into the future, but whether that is possible remains to be seen.
  96
  Labour Members have expressed many doubts and concerns and I will express some more in a moment. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also expressed some concerns. It comes down to one word: trust. It is a question of whether we can trust the Government with an enabling Bill on such a vital issue. I hope to prove in more detail that it is difficult to trust the Government on this important issue.
  The Crown Agents has been correctly referred to today as an organisation of which Britain can be proud. I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) was taken to task because she said that it is an organisation that bats for Britain; it works for Britain and it looks after British interests. A Conservative Member took my hon. Friend to task and said that the Crown Agents' new-found independence will free it from having to look after British interests.
  Labour Members are always accused of talking Britain down, but when my hon. Friend took the opportunity to talk Britain up, she was attacked from the other side. Would an equivalent French organisation, which had proved so successful in promoting French interests overseas, be endangered by a move into the private sector? I do not think that that would happen.
  Lady Olga Maitland: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to talk Britain up, surely he would agree that we are giving the Crown Agents and the subsequent foundation the freedom to expand the business. The hon. Gentleman is trying to cramp the Crown Agents' style, hinder its business and snuff it out. Surely that is no help to anyone.
  Mr. Foulkes: I will come to that point in a moment. The hon. Lady is as vigorous in her intervention as she was in her speech. That is a constant refrain from Conservative Members, and particularly from Ministers. I do not wish to dodge the hon. Lady's question. The Government impose artificial and unnecessary limits on organisations in the public sector. When those organisations cannot achieve the targets that the Government have set, they then say that they must be privatised. There is an alternative—the Government could take away their arbitrary and unnecessary limitations.
  Ministers say that the limitations are imposed by the Treasury, as though the Treasury were an ethereal body, completely separate from Government, which lays down immutable laws. That is not the case. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury are not immovable, as the previous holder of the post of First Lord of the Treasury demonstrated. Governments can give commercial freedom to organisations without moving them from the public sector into the private sector.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Crown Agents is retained within the state sector, it will give Governments the right to interfere? How do we know that Governments will not interfere in the Crown Agents' operations? We must set the Crown Agents free and enable it to make its own decisions.
  Mr. Foulkes: I will return to that point in a moment. The hon. Lady suggested in her speech that, while she did not want any interference in the operations of the foundation, she wanted some kind of supervision, protection and guarantees for its staff.
  It may come as some surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. to learn that not all members of the parliamentary Labour party know about the full range of the Crown Agents' activities. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East will know that in Scotland we have the Crown Estate Commissioners and other bodies with similar names which may be confused with the Crown Agents. I believe that the organisation can be best described as a facilitator, but perhaps that is a simplistic view that underestimates the Crown Agents' role. It has worked very hard to carve out an individual role within the current legislation which the Government are seeking to alter.
  The Under-Secretary of State has said—and other hon. Members have repeated it—that the Crown Agents is one of the world's largest international public sector purchasing organisations. It has orders of £400 million placed every year and the hon. Lady referred to other statistics. It is a large organisation that works for major donors, such as the European Union, the United Nations, the World bank and many individual Governments. It is a major international corporation that has built up an impeccable reputation throughout the world.
  The developing world receives the Crown Agents' expertise in the form of sustainable development, institutional strengthening and disaster relief. The developed world channels aid funds through the Crown Agents, with the result that some two thirds of its business is aid funded. Both the recipients and the donors hold this uniquely British institution in the highest esteem.
  We have been given examples of the Crown Agents' work, but I wish to underline the organisation's importance. it provides a wide range of humanitarian assistance. As chairman of the British Albanian group, I am particularly interested in its work in Albania. It has provided humanitarian assistance in the form of supplying and delivering emergency medical equipment for disadvantaged children.
  Its work in the Caribbean has been mentioned. Following the hurricane in Jamaica, which caused so much devastation, the Crown Agents supplied roofing materials, corrugated sheeting, nails and ridge-capping, together with logistics support. In the Sudan it supplied antibiotics, bladder tanks, blankets, cutlery, cups, tents, trucks, polybags, feeding kits, fast tanks and solar lamps as part of famine relief. [Interruption.] I am practising for when I am a Minister after the next election. The Minister is being disparaging.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Two assumptions.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East is absolutely correct: I have made two assumptions. One is certain and the other may be less so.
  In Albania the Crown Agents has provided procurement and quality standards input to a detailed audit of a small and medium enterprise development programme. In Dominica it reviewed social security fund portfolios with a view to adjusting asset allocations and risk to meet long-term economic objectives. In Hungary it assisted in the design of an improved system for tax administration.
  98
  In Namibia the Crown Agents undertook a review of the staffing structure and operations of the national development corporation and in Vietnam it enhanced the effectiveness and efficiency of the banking sector through a sustained programme of technical assistance and staff training in a joint venture with the Institute of Computer-aided Management Foundation.
  Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley rises on cue. He wonders why I am mentioning the Crown Agents' achievements, because some of them involve the private sector, such as banking. That is the kind of work that the Crown Agents has performed in its existing form in the public sector. Why do we need to change it? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is saying that a great wealth of experience and expertise has been built up over many years, along with a great trust in the Crown Agents. Therefore, why cannot we allow it to flourish and expand into other areas, simply building on what it has achieved rather than stifling it?
  Mr. Foulkes: The range of activities that I have described does not sound like stifling. I shall go even further into the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. To this day, the Crown Agents has successfully diversified its operations. We heard today about its beginnings in the 19th century and its procurement functions for colonial Government.
  The Minister implied that the Crown Agents has been in the public sector only for the past 15 years. It has been a public corporation for the past 15 years, but before that it was certainly part of the Government and its staff were civil servants. According to a note that I have here, having been colonial servants,
  "They continued as civil servants under the aegis of the home government as the colonial empire waxed and waned, and continued to provide services to public authorities in Commonwealth countries after independence from British colonial rule."
  The staff of the Crown Agents have been in the public sector as colonial servants, home civil servants and members of a public corporation. It has diversified and persistent expansion has resulted in its currently having offices and representatives in 30 countries, as we heard tonight. That does not sound like stifling to me. It has operations in more than 130 countries. That is a long way from stifling.
  Crown Agents is expanding and developing, and throughout that expansion it has never forgotten its developmental purpose and its principal role. That is important and crucial in what we are discussing today. It must never be allowed to forget its developmental purpose. The trust and responsibility that have been placed in its operations has never been subservient to commercial interests or to the interests of one particular company, sector or organisation.
  The Opposition hope that Crown Agents is not forced into the commercial world with commercial pressure and increased commercialisation by a Government who are ideologically obsessed with their utopia of a free market which underlines and underpins almost everything they do.
  The idea behind the Bill has been on the table for many years now. As long ago as 1984, the Minister for Overseas Development said that the Government were considering

  99
  whether the Crown Agents could carry out its business in the private sector. The ill-conceived nature of the proposal was correctly put to the Minister by the Crown Agents. Meanwhile, other privatisations continued.
  We cannot go into detail about the other privatisations, but the privatisation of water has not been a wholesale success. Prices have risen and those in charge of the industry have been awarded excessive wage increases, and similarly in electricity, telecom and gas. The hon. and learned Member for Fife North-East mentioned the non-democracy of the British Gas annual general meeting.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the water industry has not been a success when our highly expert water companies in the private sector went to Latin America, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, and returned with $2,000 million in contracts to provide British expertise to those countries in Latin America in terms of water supply and soiled water disposal? How can he say that that is not a good example of privatisation when it is bringing British privatised expertise to the third world?
  Mr. Foulkes: Exactly that could be done irrespective of whether the industry were in private or public ownership, so long as the constraints were changed. The Government have an almost Marxist view of life. They limit the power and scope of public enterprise and then say, "Look at this. They cannot do it. Is it not disgraceful? It shows the failure of public enterprise." [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) must not put me off.
  The Government draw attention to the failure of public enterprise to increase the almost revolutionary fervour and desire for privatisation. It does not convince or fool the Opposition.
  I know that the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Worcester considered it too much of a fantasy to suggest that because Post Office privatisation flopped the Government scrabbled around to find a figleaf to cover their embarrassment by the flop of the Post Office privatisation. The Government business managers said, "Find us something that we can say is privatisation, so that we can then say that the steam has not gone out of the privatisation programme." The Government's response was to introduce the Bill.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman asked for an example. I shall remind him of an attempt by government to go into business, which should be the preserve of private enterprise the first majority Labour Government's charge into the groundnut scheme. The hon. Gentleman might remember that it was a Labour Government who had to pick up the tab, no doubt at the expense of hospitals, schools and pensions, for example.
  Mr. Foulkes: That is a really up-to-date example. I could talk about the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce by a Tory Government. That is an example in the other direction. Some more contemporary examples might serve.
  The Government were looking for a figleaf. They produced a hurriedly formulated proposal that went against the wishes of the Crown Agents. We know that the Crown Agents was against privatisation originally. It has had a gun put to its head. At the same time, its arm
  100
  has been twisted. It has been told that if it does not accept the Bill, things could be worse for it. As a result, it has reluctantly accepted a foundation as a compromise solution. That response has been against the wishes of the staff, the trade unions and, most importantly, the clients of the Crown Agents.
  The speed with which the Government filled up their ridiculed legislative programme resulted in the mess in which we now find ourselves. The Post Office fiasco caused the Tory party to recognise that privatisation is not the political answer to every problem that presents itself to a Government.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) does not understand what new Labour means. Of course we oppose privatisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman is often in his place, but if he were in the Chamber for Question Time and debates week after week he would be aware of our opposition to the privatisation of the Post Office. We have opposed the privatisation of British Rail and now we are faced with the privatisation of the Crown Agents. Of course we are against it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for York said, we are pragmatic. It is principled pragmatism.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East.
  Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the success of the opposition to another privatisation. I refer to the attempt to privatise the water industry in Scotland. The volume of opposition, if I may use the term, was so considerable when a referendum was held in Strathclyde that the Government were forced to back down.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. His intervention has ridiculed what the hon. Member for Gravesham was saying. The Government did not press ahead in Scotland with the privatisation that they thought was so wonderful in England. They took that decision because we argued the case effectively. The hon. and learned Gentleman has produced an excellent example in the form of the Strathclyde referendum, in which 97 per cent. of those who voted opposed privatisation. I think that a Liberal councillor suggested that there should be a referendum. The suggestion was accepted by the Labour-controlled Strathclyde region. There were many who said that the authority's fingers would be burned, but the referendum was extremely successful from our point of view. The Government, rightly, did not go ahead with privatisation.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman will have heard example after example of the concept of privatisation having been exported throughout the world, probably even to some of his most beloved socialist republics. Other countries have grasped and embraced privatisation because they see it as the future. Why is it that Opposition Members cannot see the benefit of the concept?
  Mr. Foulkes: I used to find it somewhat paradoxical to hear the former Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, say that Thatcherism had been exported to every corner

  101
  of the world. I note that the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) nod in agreement. However, when we were faced with economic problems, Ministers said that they were the result of a worldwide recession. Might there not be some connection? Perhaps the worldwide recession was influenced somewhat by Thatcherism being exported throughout the world? I had better not go too far down that road. We are, of course, talking about the Crown Agents.
  The use of the Crown Agents to fill a gap in the Government's failed legislative programme is disparaging to the work of the Crown Agents. We have all been in agreement today about the excellent work that it has done. Why should it be taken out of context, as a figleaf, as I said earlier, for the Government's gap in their privatisation programme?
  We have heard about the similarities between the Crown Agents and the Post Office, those two great public sector corporations. This might answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester. Both the Crown Agents and the Post Office seek greater freedom from Ministers—not surprisingly, incidentally—but that can and should be done with a view to retaining the nation's assets. We continually hear Conservative Members attacking the Labour party for, supposedly, as I said earlier, running down British interests, but the Crown Agents, like the Post Office and British Rail, is a national institution, which we are and should remain proud of, within the public sector.
  The Crown Agents, in its annual report of 1993, stated publicly that it believes that the transfer is in the best interests of clients, aid programmes and of its employees. The Government cannot commend the work of the Crown Agents on the one hand and then on the other dictate to it that they know better when it comes to the future of the organisation. We see that an awful lot in Scotland, as some of my hon. Friends will know, where Ministers come to us and say, "We want to consult you. We want to hear your views," only to pay no attention to them, because "we know better." It is that arrogance, that paternalism, that has resulted in the Government being so low in the national opinion polls today.
  The Government have told us today that the Crown Agents must meet the changing needs in its market. That has been expressed by the Crown Agents, but to a lesser degree. The needs, though, of the beneficiaries of the work of the Crown Agents have not changed. The poverty statistics for the developing world continue to make grim reading, and the Crown Agents has the responsibility for the alleviation of some of that poverty.
  In 1993, the Crown Agents managed disbursement arrangements for 150 British bilateral aid agreements worldwide, with a total value of £1.8 billion. That sort of commitment cannot be utilised for party political gain or for particular commercial purposes. Nor can it, to use a Government term, be distributed by hard-nosed business men. It needs to be distributed by people with a primary—if not a unique—interest in the development of the third world.
  Mr. Luff: If the hon. Gentleman is so hostile to the idea of the private sector and privatisation, what does he make of the fact that the Crown Agents makes a lot of its money out of advising foreign Governments on privatisation?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He says that we are hostile to privatisation and also to the private sector. We have not said that we are hostile to the private sector. We say that there is a role for the private sector—of course there is—but we do not necessarily see the role of distributing money to third world recipients as part of an aid programme. We do not see that that should be part of the Crown Agents' responsibility.
  I must move on, because I have quite a lot more to say. I am only on page four.
  The Crown Agents, in its annual report, prides itself on being independent of any commercial interest. We have to be honest and say that there has been a tendency towards corruption in areas in the private sector, in privatised industries. To impose the Government's programme on the Crown Agents unnecessarily is placing political dogma before development.
  I now deal with the foundation, which I think is the key part of this whole debate today. We have had frequent explanations from the Under-Secretary of State, in his speech and in detailed and helpful long interventions, but I think that they have rather unfortunately helped to obfuscate rather than clarify exactly the position.
  In addition to the strong reservations expressed by Opposition Members, many reservations have been expressed and questions asked by Conservative Members. I pay tribute to Conservative Members for that. They make their points in a more polite, perhaps less trenchant, way than my hon. Friends, but, nevertheless, the questions, the challenges and the doubts are there.
  We see in this legislation that there has been squabbling within the Government. We have seen that in other areas all too frequently. The full-scale trade sale or the public share issue has, apparently, been avoided in the interim—in the interim—but we must be cautious that it cannot take place in the future. Apprehensions about the Government's long-term plans for the Crown Agents are still prevalent, certainly among Opposition Members and, I am sure, elsewhere.
  No one should be fooled by the simple promise of a foundation. The first opportune moment for the Crown Agents to be exposed to what was described by Conservative Members as the full rigours of the competitive free market environment could be utilised. The failure of some future legislative measure, perhaps even rail privatisation, could require the Crown Agents to be used again for full privatisation in order to try to obtain some money for the Exchequer.
  The Minister has said that the Government's plans to reform the Crown Agents were being discussed in 1984. I said that myself earlier. They have continued for more than 10 years. It took nine years to decide that there would be a foundation and that was announced in August 1993. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, for nearly two years now we have all waited patiently for the Government's social and developmental objectives to be outlined.
  Our colleagues in another place have been given repeated assurances that we would be able to discuss such social objectives in this House and we are still waiting. We have been promised a foundation and we are being asked to trust the Government. However, the Government's record of broken promises does not inspire trust from this side of the House, nor do they deserve it.

  103
  We do not know what will happen after the five years. We may, in Committee, change that period. If the Secretary of State's oversight—this emerged from an intervention earlier—is necessary for the first five years, why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) rightly asked, is it not necessary afterwards? In some ways, the further one moves from the current position the more necessary it may be.
  The lack of information being made available to Parliament also increases suspicion about the Government's negotiations or wranglings with the Crown Agents and, presumably, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the wranglings or negotiations with the Treasury for the best deal available.
  In particular, the healthy state of the pension fund, a matter of particular concern to the trade unions, with a value of between £60 million and £70 million and an actuarial surplus of £19.5 million, means that beady eyes might be cast on it. Those funds have the potential to be siphoned off and used for other purposes. Those who serve on the Committee will have the important function of trying to obtain some assurances in relation to the pension fund.
  In contrast to the 1979 Act, the Bill does not even mention the employment or pension rights of the staff who have been so highly praised by the Government and by Conservative Members. Surely, as I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was saying, something should be written into the Bill to protect their rights. Mere bland assurances from Ministers are no longer enough. Crown Agents' staff should have written into the Bill assurances about their terms and conditions, their right to trade union membership and a guarantee that the pensions will be protected.
  In the other place, the Minister described the Bill as both unusual and usual in its form. That is symptomatic of the mess that the Government are in danger of making with an organisation that has requested simple reforms to allow for change. It does not wish to lose its developmental objective. I am sure that it is as eager as the rest of us to see the Government's idea of a social objective.
  The guarantee that for five years the Crown Agents will be protected is ludicrous. As I said earlier, what will happen after that? The whole operation could be changed by members of the board, and sold off in pieces along with its developmental objectives. The pension fund and the financial services branch could become prey to big-city institutions. Such a scenario could come about if guarantees are not clearly set out in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles demanded such guarantees earlier.
  Opposition Members are concerned about the subversion of parliamentary scrutiny. Crown Agents has been grateful for such scrutiny in the past. In 1979—to which the Minister referred—the responsibility and power of Parliament effectively saved Crown Agents, and put it back on the right path. Parliamentary scrutiny has been important throughout its long existence.
  The problems of the mid-1970s, when the pursuit of financial gain overtook Crown Agents' responsibility, were ironed out in legislation. That legislation—although it was introduced by Labour Ministers—was implemented
  104 s
  by a Conservative Government: a Conservative Government who now seek to allow Crown Agents to move outwith the accountability of the public sector, without proper explanation. I do not think that the company will be any safer in the private sector in the 1990s than it was in the 1970s, following the climate created by BCCI, Barings—which was mentioned earlier—and all the private sector problems of the past decade.
  Over the years, Parliament has become increasingly familiar with a phrase that is written into Bills—"The Secretary of State may". This Bill has taken that to extremes: the phrase appears nearly as many times as the Bill has clauses. Some of my colleagues have described the Bill as a skeleton, but I consider that an exaggeration. It does not contain even any bare bones of legislation; all that we have are a few clauses, hastily thrown together, allowing the Secretary of State to do as he pleases.
  Empty promises from Ministers are no longer good enough. We demand from the Minister that the memorandum and articles of association of the company be made available to be addressed fully in Committee, as required by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked whether the company should be a charity. I know that its employees have some anxieties about what that might actually mean. What about the membership of the foundation? We have heard question after question about how that membership should be chosen. Will it ultimately become a self-perpetuating oligarchy? Will there he any accountability, beyond the foundation, to Parliament, the courts or the charity commissioners? A degree of accountability is needed beyond the membership of a self-perpetuating board.
  What powers will the Secretary of State have in relation to the foundation after the five-year or other period? We have heard what happens in the event of a profit; what happens if there is a loss? This foundation or operating company may not always create a profit. Will it go into liquidation? What will happen to its projects in that event? At present the Government are there to help, but that long stop will not be available in the private sector.
  The Government's argument for reform of Crown Agents does no justice to the valuable work that it has undertaken. As I said earlier in reply to a number of interventions, the commercial freedoms that it requires could be easily achieved by simple amendments to the 1979 Act; there is no need to change the whole nature of Crown Agents itself.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke of extra work with local authorities. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke of greater freedom—the acceptance of contracts from the private sector and public sector bodies other than the ODA. All that can be achieved by the granting of commercial freedom within the public sector. There is no need to privatise to achieve that.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is not being required to be privatised? There are many similarities in the services that the two bodies provide. Why should there be restrictions on but no privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation while what is clearly the first step to privatisation of the Crown Agents is under way through the Bill?
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. That question was raised and the hon. Member for Broxtowe tried to answer it. He certainly did not convince me. I hope that the Minister will try to answer it, but I do not think that he will succeed, because there is no answer. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend Lord Judd in another place, by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and outwith the Houses of Parliament. It has not been answered adequately; the CDC is a very similar body but it is not to be privatised.
  The Government have failed to prove that the reforms will result in an improvement to the service provided or even in any savings to the taxpayer. The only justification for such a measure is the obsession with privatisation as the epitome of Conservative philosophy even when no improvement can be shown.
  Mr. Watson: Dogma.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is dogma every time.
  The Government's attitude to the Bill is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) rightly said, at odds with the treatment being given to the CDC.
  The Minister for Overseas Development, when speaking on the Bill in another place, said that she did not wish to make the organisation the subject of party politics. That contention was admirable and one which the Labour party would support in regard to an organisation which has all-party backing. However, one cannot request such support when an organisation has been used to resolve ideological problems in the Tory party.
  The Bill is going to bring in privatisation for the Crown Agents unless we introduce the necessary safeguards. [Interruption.] I am actually being helpful, if Conservative Members would listen for a change instead of barracking.
  If the Minister was willing to come up with the safeguards that we demand—and that some Conservative Members have requested—we could consider the possibility of accepting the changes that are being proposed. We could do that as long as we had safeguards that the Crown Agents is not going to be privatised—that Lonrho or some other international corporation will not snap it up. There are no such protections written into the Bill at the moment.
  The advice of the Crown Agents itself has been ignored. There has been a continual refusal to let all concerned analyse and seek to improve the foundation and to guarantee the continuing nature of the foundation. The Government refuse to entertain even a constructive dialogue about the future of the Crown Agents. Secrecy surrounds the whole Bill.
  Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: I was coming to the end, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Forman: Before the hon. Gentleman perorates, he said that the advice of the Crown Agents has been ignored. We clashed on that point earlier. What evidence has he? It is not my impression at all.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is in the 1993 annual report. There have been negotiations and, of course, the chairman and members of the board have altered their views as time has gone on. The Government may argue that they have
  106
  persuaded the board that the Bill is the best course. I think that the board has accepted that the Government have a majority in the House and can legislate for whatever Conservative Members want. The board has therefore said, "Okay, let's compromise; let's have a foundation. It is better than going totally into the private sector." There has been some toing and froing. All the indications that I have suggest that even at the very top, Crown Agents was initially reluctant to change from the present situation. It was only after pressure and arm-twisting that it moved in that direction.
  Mr. Forman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there may have been understandable initial doubts and questions, the position in 1995 is that the senior management and the staff of the Crown Agents are enthusiastic about the change and wish it to proceed?
  Mr. Foulkes: No, that is not my interpretation. Crown Agents has been given Hobson's choice and has to go along with it because it knows that there is no alternative if the Government force this measure through. Unlike some Conservative Members, I am not a dogmatist: I am reasonable. I hope that the Committee will look at ways of improving the Bill and extracting guarantees, to ensure that this foundation will be as workable as possible. That is only reasonable.
  I should prefer no change at all. The Government, I believe, are moving in the wrong direction. The secrecy surrounding the Bill and the attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny arouse our suspicions of a Government who have to be judged on their actions. We oppose this back-door privatisation and want Government commitments, made to the House. Until we get the undertakings about the foundation that we want, we shall believe that dogma has once again triumphed over judgment. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Baldry: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  It is always a great pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) because his wind-up speeches are always a cheering experience. Indeed, the last time he and I debated in the House he was so magnificent that our former colleague Matthew Parris felt obliged to write the next day in The Times:
  "I can report that he was magnificent. This tubby whirlwind, creating his own weather system, blew himself into a localised but intense hurricane, bellowed 'systematic abuse and corruption!' at the Tories, and so impressed"
  friends behind him that they called for morning sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays as well.
  It is all great fun, but the truth is that precisely two Labour Back Benchers spoke in today's debate. It is therefore ludicrous of the hon. Gentleman to talk about a subversion of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government dedicated an entire day of prime parliamentary time to this Bill; only two Labour Back Benchers have taken part, one of whom was not here for the opening or closing speeches. I appreciate that he is serving on a Committee, but it is clear that the vast majority of Opposition Members who eventually serve on the Committee will not even have heard any of today's debate. That is why one does not take the hon. Gentleman's farrago too seriously.

  107
  The first important issue before us is the question of trust. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was perfectly correct to say that the House will have to decide whether it trusts the Government's good intentions in respect of the best future for Crown Agents as we move into the 21st century. I am sure that I can count on the trust of all Conservative Members, but nothing I could say—no undertakings, no guarantees, no memorandums or articles of association—would satisfy Opposition Members on the question of trust.
  The reason is that the debate hinges not just on trust but on a second important element—the fact that the Labour party opposes privatisation altogether. Just because the word "privatise" appeared in the original press release on the future of Crown Agents, the Labour party decided to oppose this measure, come what may. It would be impossible, therefore, for me to convince the Labour party to support this Bill, because it is determined to oppose any legislation that turns a public sector body into a private sector one.
  I think that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley misunderstood my point about the Crown Agents being a public corporation for just 15 years. For most of the 162 years of its history it has functioned, in effect, as a private organisation. The statement by the Crown Agents in 1954, which I read at some length, made that quite clear. It was only because of the financial crisis in its account activities in the mid-1970s that the 1979 legislation was introduced.
  At that time, Judith Hart was Minister of State for Overseas Development, and it is quite clear from her Second Reading speech that the Government at that time deliberately intended that the constraints upon the Crown Agents should be tight and that there should be strict provisions about reserves, borrowing powers and audit arrangements. The whole purpose of the 1979 legislation was to seek to ensure that the Crown Agents never again got into the sort of pickle in which it found itself in the mid-1970s.
  For a long time, we have taken the view that Crown Agents' business can be better carried out in the private sector. We believe that transfer to the private sector will strengthen its ability to meet the needs of its customers, particularly in developing countries, and will end the requirement for the Government to involve themselves in the details of Crown Agents' business. Of course, the Government will continue to have an interest as a major client, but the current Act reflects the circumstances of 1979. It is too prescriptive and too limiting. For example, it requires an affirmative order for Crown Agents to carry out own-right activities beyond those that are set out in the Act. It requires the Minister for Overseas Development to consent to what are properly business decisions for Crown Agents. Those include the formation of companies, the appointment of directors to subsidiaries and so on.
  It is ludicrous that Ministers should have to get involved in such detail. But that detail was in the 1979 Act, which was brought about by circumstances that are irrelevant today. That is not the right framework for today's Crown Agents. It is right to replace the 1979 Act with a framework for the future which provides the freedoms that are available to a private sector body and which also safeguard the Crown Agents' unique role and character. The proposed foundation will do that.
  108
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked why we could not retain Crown Agents in the public sector and give it greater freedom. That is the wrong question, although it is of course always the question that the Labour party asks. The philosophical divide between us is that the question that we ask is: "Why should the Crown Agents continue to be owned by the Government?" The Crown Agents' main work has always been as an agent of what are now independent Governments and, increasingly, aid agencies and Governments of all parties have been careful not to intervene in that. Clearly, more and more of the Crown Agents' work will, hopefully, involve winning business from overseas Governments, multilateral agencies and other organisations.
  It may have been right for the Government in 1979 to take powers to provide a framework of control for Crown Agents' activities, but it has been perfectly clear for a long time that those activities can be and will be better carried out in the private sector. We want to be able to stand back from the detailed control of Crown Agents but, of course, we cannot do that if we have to continue to bear ultimate financial responsibility. Government ownership—state ownership—requires the state to take an interest or, as some would say, to interfere.
  We think that the most appropriate framework for control will be provided by a private sector foundation. That would give Crown Agents' international clients the assurances that they require, and we are confident that it would also ensure that there is no repetition of the events which influenced the 1979 legislation. We shall, of course, continue to retain an interest as a customer of Crown Agents.
  Some of my colleagues have said, "Is not having Crown Agents moving into the private sector and having a foundation, with the profits of Crown Agents being reinvested for development purposes, somewhat tame?" My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) suggested that we should consider a trade sale. A trade sale would, however, be wholly inappropriate for Crown Agents because of its particular contribution to development, which we and everyone else feel is important to retain. There is no way in which I can convince Opposition Members that we wish Crown Agents to continue its developmental role because it is clear that they are opposed to the Bill simply because it will move Crown Agents from the public to the private sector.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have a simple point for the Minister. He would have a much better chance of convincing us if he produced the memorandum and articles of association so that we knew exactly what he was talking about.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman refers to the memorandum and the articles of association, and others have referred to the Coopers and Lybrand report. As I have endeavoured to explain to the House on several occasions today, we want to get this right. In all fairness, one could argue both ways on some of the issues. I have no doubt that if I had said in the House this afternoon that we had considered the issue of charitable status for Crown Agents and that we had decided against it because it would provide an extra tier of external influence and control over the foundation, some Opposition Members would have said that that proved that the Government were simply seeking to set up a foundation for five years and then to hand over Crown Agents.

  109
  A number of important issues have to be taken into account and we need to get them right. Charitable status may not be the right way forward for Crown Agents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) raised some of the concerns about that which, I suspect, reflect concerns that have been expressed to her by some of the management of Crown Agents. That is a perfectly respectable and honourable thing for them to do because she is their Member of Parliament.
  I assure the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that our not having yet produced the memorandum and articles of association is not the result of our wishing to hide anything from the House or to misinform it. The reason is simply that it is important that we get this right for the future of Crown Agents and for the future of those who work with it.
  I am not, of course, insensitive to the fact that, in the not too distant future, we shall take the Bill into Committee. I am not insensitive to the fact that all of us will be better prepared if more information is given to the Committee. However, as I said earlier, I will not give a guarantee that the memorandum and articles of association will be in their final form when the Bill goes into Committee. However, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley can be assured that I will seek to ensure that the Committee is as informed as it can be so that we can have a sensible and serious debate.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that on Second Reading the important issue is the principle? The principle must be that the efficient supply and provision of goods and services is always better in the private sector than in the public sector. The difference between 1979 and now is that that principle is even better established under this Conservative Government.
  Mr. Baldry: That point has been part of our debate. Conservative Members have made clear the successes that privatisation generally has brought for the United Kingdom; we have heard myriad examples.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister was being quite helpful before that intervention. Would he consider making the draft of the memorandum and articles of association available while the Bill is in Committee? Some members of the Committee, including even one or two Opposition Members, may have useful comments about charitable status versus some other status. To have a draft in Committee would be helpful. The Minister was edging towards being helpful, and I am sure that the Whip will not mind too much if he goes the whole hog.
  Mr. Baldry: I appreciate that it comes hard to the hon. Gentleman to have to acknowledge that on occasions—or rather often, or even always—Ministers seek to be helpful. As I see it, my responsibility here is to take the legislation through the House. Life is too short for us all to spend every Tuesday and Thursday morning having sterile debates about fantasies that do not exist. Obviously, I shall take such steps as I can to enable the hon. Gentleman to understand that the Bill represents a wholehearted commitment to the future of Crown Agents into the 21st century.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Now that the Minister has started to mine that rich vein of co-operation, will he consider producing the parts of the Coopers and Lybrand
  110
  report that are not commercially confidential? The whole report cannot be so described; there must be passages dealing with the question of structure that are entirely germane to some of the issues raised in the debate. Surely it would assist the Committee if those parts of the report could be produced.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. and learned Gentleman made an uncharacteristically brief speech, lasting for about six minutes—
  Mr. Campbell: Seven minutes.
  Mr. Baldry: I apologise; it lasted seven minutes. Anyway, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have fixed on the Coopers and Lybrand report. However, in the context of the debate that report is pretty much history. The Government's responsibility is to bring proposals before the House, and we have made clear proposals, which I explained earlier in considerable detail. We shall have a foundation, whose members will be concerned with the development of Crown Agents, which will be responsible for the operating company, whose profits will be reinvested for the developmental objectives of the foundation.
  That is perfectly straightforward and clear. Given the circumstances of Crown Agents, we seek to ensure that that great British success story continues as such.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way again now—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have given way quite a lot and I shall give way again, but first I must cover some of the points raised by some of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.
  I have been asked why we are treating Crown Agents differently from the Commonwealth Development Corporation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said, they are different organisations. The job of CDC is to act as a catalyst for private sector investment in developing countries, showing others that they can invest profitably in poorer countries. However, it has a mandate to pursue the investments that the private sector regards as being on the margins of acceptable risk, and a CDC owned by the private sector would be bound to take a different attitude to profit and risk. That would be incompatible with the development objectives that the Government want CDC to pursue.
  Public sector status is also valuable to CDC in its dealings with the Governments of the countries in which it operates. The two organisations are very different, and we believe it right for CDC to remain in the public sector while, for different reasons, Crown Agents moves towards the private sector. That is not an ideological hang-up; we are simply looking at each organisation and deciding what is in the best interests of each.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) asked what guarantee there was that Crown Agents' business would not fail after transfer, and what would happen if it did. Indeed, for the few Opposition Members who have taken part in it, the whole debate has been characterised by an attempt to think up the worst possible scenarios. However, Crown Agents has about 150 international clients, including the Overseas Development Administration, for

  111
  which it provides a wide range of services. Transfer to the foundation will give it greater freedom to meet its clients' needs.
  The House can have every confidence that the proposed foundation has a bright future. Of course there can be no Government guarantee of success. Management of the foundation will be the responsibility of its members and board, who will have been chosen for their experience and expertise. I see no reason why the foundation should not succeed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) asked if I would set out clearly the reserve powers of the Secretary of State, but his powers will be set out clearly in the foundation's memorandum and articles of association. The reserve powers exist to provide a period during which the foundation's structure can bed down satisfactorily. Opposition Members have suggested that the Crown Agents will be up for grabs following the five-year period. That simply will not be so, as anyone who actually understands the nature of the structure under which the foundation of the Crown Agents will be established would realise.
  My hon. Friend was also concerned about the control of the foundation on the operating company in respect of day-to-day commercial decisions. I made it clear that the foundation will be the shareholder in the operating company and will appoint the directors. But it will not have a role in the day-to-day decisions, which obviously will be the responsibility of the directors of the operating company. Those directors will seek to ensure that the new Crown Agents makes a proper return, as they will know that those profits will be reinvested for developmental purposes.
  Moving the Crown Agents out of the public into the private sector will, as my hon. Friend said, give the Crown Agents greater freedoms. It will enjoy the same rights as other UK companies, and will be freed from the limitations imposed by the Crown Agents Act 1979. As the foundation expands, it will be able to accept business in its own right, and it will also be able to accept contracts from private sector clients, which it cannot do at present.
  The Crown Agents will be able to accept contracts from public sector bodies in the UK other than the Overseas Development Administration. Health authorities and other organisations, which at present cannot use the procurement expertise of the Crown Agents, will now be able to do so. All of those matters will certainly lead to a greater turnover of the Crown Agents' business.
  The Crown Agents will be able to take investment decisions that currently require ministerial consent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, it is ludicrous that whenever the Crown Agents wants to take practically any decision, it must come to Ministers for our personal imprimatur.
  For all those reasons, the Bill will give the Crown Agents considerable freedoms, powers and abilities which will be to the benefit of the Crown Agents and the work it is doing throughout the world.
  The powers of the foundation—which will be set out in the memorandum and articles of association—will ensure that it can use its profits for the development of the Crown Agents' business through the operating company,
  112
  which will be free to make new acquisitions for social and developmental purposes. As my hon. Friend said, there are a number of organisations which could easily find a greater synergy if they were owned by the Crown Agents.
  The Bill has a firm, positive and constructive intention to put the Crown Agents in a far stronger position. The debate has been characterised by a vein of ideological disputation that the very fact that it was being moved from the public to the private sector would somehow undermine the developmental purposes of the Crown Agents.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was one of only two Labour Back Benchers to take part in this debate. It is a sorry state when as many Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen take part in a debate as Back Benchers. If that is new Labour, it is a pitiful sight. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, by moving the Crown Agents into the private sector, privatisation would put profit before developmental purpose. He clearly fails to understand that the profits made by the Crown Agents will not be distributed to members but will be reinvested in the foundation's work.
  The foundation will be constituted as a company limited by guarantee to preserve the essential character of the Crown Agents. As members of the foundation will not receive dividends, and there will be no unit of proprietorship to sell, the foundation will not be subject to commercial pressures from its members, which would conflict with its other objectives. Obviously, it will be expected to act in a commercial environment in a commercial way. Hopefully, the benefit of that will be that it will make profits which it can then reinvest for developmental purposes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam expressed concern about capital structure. We are determined that the Crown Agents should start on a sound footing but there are certain consequences of the Crown Agents moving from the public to the private sector. One of those consequences is that one of its loans must be repaid because it cannot be sustained in the private sector. The fact that that loan must be repaid will be taken into account when considering the capital structure for the Crown Agents at the time of transfer.
  However, it has been made clear to the House this afternoon that the Bill is not about seeking to raise large sums of money for the taxpayer; it is about trying to ensure the correct and proper structure for the Crown Agents as we approach the 21st century. Like my hon. Friend, we wish to ensure that the Crown Agents has a sound structure.
  This enabling Bill ensures two steps: first, the transfer of business from the present statutory corporation to a successor company set up under the Companies Act 1989; and, secondly, the Secretary of State transferring that successor company to a new owner, the proposed foundation.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asks about the staff. Naturally, it is important that they be reassured and I take this opportunity yet again to put on record that there will be continuity of treatment for Crown Agents' staff and their pensions. I am not sure how often I must say that.
  Mr. Foulkes: How can the Minister guarantee that if it is not written into the Bill and he does not continue to

  113
  have control after five years? After five years, the Secretary of State loses control and has no power to guarantee it.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I explained in opening the debate that TUPE applies to this legislation. I have explained that we have no intention of changing the relationship with trade unions and it has been made clear that the Crown Agents has no intention of making redundancies as a consequence of the Bill. I can explain that time after time but it is clear that Opposition Members are determined to try to create in the minds of those who work for the Crown Agents the fear that, by being moved from the public to the private sector, their future will somehow be jeopardised.
  This is a sensible Bill, which will enable the Crown Agents to move forward into the 21st century as a continuing great British success story. It is one of the largest procurement agencies in the world. It is an organisation of which we can be rightly proud. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, as I am sure it will, the Crown Agents will go forward from strength to strength and make a considerable contribution to Great Britain's reputation around the world. It will also make a considerable contribution to the development policies which I believe every responsible Member of the House wants to see Britain promote.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 259.

  Division No. 158]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Couchman, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  Booth, Hartley

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dover, Den

  114

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hague, William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mills, Iain

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Harris, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  115

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sackville, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink,Dr Robert

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spring, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Whittingdale, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stern, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Alton, David

  Church, Judith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blunkett, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

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

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

  Denham, John

  Burden, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Byers, Stephen

  Dixon, Don

  Caborn, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Cann, Jamie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  116

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fraser.John

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hall, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hardy, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell.John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hutton,John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  117

  Simpson, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wallace, James

  Snape, Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Soley,Clive

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watson, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Straw, Jack

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Trimble, David

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CROWN AGENTS BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 december],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Agents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

  (b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.

  To be decided forthwith, pursuant to Order [19th December].—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee of eleven Members be appointed to consider the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 2850) so far as it relates to the rules and procedures of this House; to advise on how its recommendations relating thereto might be clarified and implemented; and to recommend specific Resolutions for decision by the House;
  That the Committee shall report as soon as possible and shall in any event make an interim report not later than Friday 7th July;
  That five be the Quorum of the Committee;
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time;
  That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Burns.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Speaker shall—

  (1) at the sitting on Thursday 8th June

  (a) not later than one and a half hours after their commencement, put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Robert Jackson relating to Disclosure of Select Committee Papers, &c.;

  (b) not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Hurd relating to the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Russian Federation) and (Ukraine) Orders 1995; and

  (2) at the sitting on Monday 12th June, not later than three hours after it has been made, put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995;

  and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Burns.]

  Disabled RUC Officers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I am glad to have an opportunity to refer to some of the concerns of disabled Royal Ulster Constabulary officers. The matters to which I shall refer have been brought to my attention by the Disabled Police Officers Association, representatives of which are present here this evening.
  The DPOA exists for the relief and benefit of those members of the RUC and RUC Reserve who, as a result of any subversive activity, have received "serious permanent personal injury". That definition is deliberately framed to concentrate the association's work on those really seriously injured, so that it caters for just a fraction of thousands of police officers who have been injured in the past 25 years.
  At present, there are 275 members of the association, including some 40 who continue as serving RUC officers, and 15 widows. The association receives no grant aid from any Government source. It is a charity which depends entirely upon voluntary subscriptions from those in the force, as normal fund-raising is impossible because of the terrorist threat, and that threat cannot yet be regarded as having been dissipated.
  Disabled police officers must provide for their future medical needs, including the extra needs generated by their disabilities. The equipment they require is not always available. Earlier this evening, Mr. Mulcolmson, the former chairman of the DPOA, told me that he had to purchase the callipers that he was wearing on his legs, as he was unable to get them through the national health service.
  They have the needs that are generated from their disability. They have to maintain the living standards of themselves and their families. In trying to meet their various needs, they have recourse to state benefits, compensation claims and charity. I shall deal with each in turn.
  In dealing with state benefits, I shall focus on industrial injury legislation, under which claims can be made for disablement benefit. It is especially important for officers to qualify for that benefit, because, if they do so, they can claim a reduced earnings allowance, which can be significant for them. The benefit is payable if the injury arises out of or in the course of their employment. There is no difficulty with the first requirement. Officers of the RUC, whether they are attacked on or off duty or after retirement, are attacked because they are or were RUC officers.
  There is a problem with the requirement that injury arises in the course of employment. The requirement means that benefit will be allowed only if the injury occurred while the claimant was at work or on duty. That is a reasonable requirement in normal cases or circumstances, but it operates in a most unreasonable manner when applied to the circumstances that have arisen in Northern Ireland.
  Terrorists in Northern Ireland do not confine their attacks to times when their victims are formally engaged in their employment. Attacks are made when the victims are off duty. Too rigid an application of the test has caused injustice. The RUC defines being on duty for regular members. It provides that they have a 24-hour responsibility, and when off duty can take a conscious
  120
  decision to place themselves on duty. Reservists cannot put themselves on duty, but have to be placed on duty by a regular member.
  I shall use some examples to show how the test has operated rather unfairly. I refer first to an officer I met in Lurgan. Kenny was shot on Lurgan golf course while on his way to the club house. Three terrorists, concealed in a laurel bush, opened fire on him. The first thing that Kenny knew of it was when he was hit on the face. He threw himself down and, thankfully, the other shots missed him. He could not have put himself on duty so as to qualify for benefit, because the injury occurred before he was aware of the threat. Had he seen the gunmen before he was hit, he could have been regarded as having put himself on duty.
  It is crazy that an officer's right to benefit should depend on which way he is looking when attacked, especially as terrorists will concentrate on sneaking up behind RUC officers. Is it right that the state will pay benefit only if terrorists have made what they would regard as the mistake of being seen? If the terrorists, in their terms, are efficient and do their evil work without being spotted, the state disclaims any liability to pay benefit.
  The requirement that a regular RUC man must see the threat before he can be awarded benefit has been applied in many cases. The representative federation has challenged the requirement by bringing a case to the social security commissioners.
  The case concerned an off-duty RUC officer who was murdered at Newry. The facts given in the case were that a witness stated that he, the witness, had gone into the bar. He said that the constable came into the bar and told him that he wished to speak to him. The constable was off duty at the time. Two men entered the bar carrying guns. One of them stood at the door, and the other shot the constable several times in the back. The evidence was that the deceased shouted and tried to get out.
  The three commissioners who heard the case held that there was no entitlement to benefit. They said that the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased sustained the fatal injury after he had an opportunity to put himself on duty. In other words, the fact that he had his back to the gunmen disentitled him to benefit.
  Another case was brought by the federation that concerned an off-duty RUC officer who had been disabled by an under-car booby-trap bomb. The case failed. To obtain benefit, the officer would have had to know that the bomb was under his car. Such a situation is bad enough for regular members, but it can be even more unfortunate for RUC reservists, because they cannot put themselves on duty.
  I met another officer, Ronnie, who was a reservist. He was in his car in uniform. His gun was strapped to his side. He was about to drive to the police station to go on duty. A booby-trap bomb was underneath his car. The bomb exploded, and he lost both his legs. He was told that there would be no disablement benefit, because he was not on duty until he arrived at the police station and had been formally tasked for his period of duty, even though he knew what duty he would be undertaking that evening.
  Another reservist, David, was employed in Mackie's, in west Belfast. He was the subject of three different attacks, and was seriously injured in the third. On that occasion, he was leaving work when he noticed two men approach him in a suspicious manner. He started to run. The next thing he felt was a pain in his hack. At that point, he drew his

  121
  personal protection weapon and turned, trying to cock it, but just as he was doing so, his strength failed, and he found himself standing with a half-cocked gun, staring at the two gunmen who had opened fire on him.
  Thankfully, the mere sight of his pistol was enough to make both of the armed republicans run away. A tribunal, however, in 1986, disallowed his appeal: he was not on duty, nor was he doing anything connected with his duty. Being a reservist, he could not put himself on duty in the same way that a regular could.
  In describing these decisions, I intend no criticism of the tribunals. They have to administer the law as the House makes it, and they do so sympathetically: if they can bring the injured officers within benefit, they do so, as they did in the case of Hazel, a reservist like her husband.
  On the morning in question, Hazel left home, dropped off her baby with the child minder, and drove to her husband's daytime place of work, before going on to the school where she was a teacher. She and her husband noticed a car, because of the circumstances were suspicious of it, and noted down its number. As her husband got out, the men in the car opened fire. Her husband escaped, but she was hit three times, suffering head and back injuries.
  Hazel was eventually held entitled to benefit—I say "eventually", but there was an interval of 18 years between the injury and the benefit being paid—because the act of recording the number of a suspicious vehicle was treated by the tribunal as being "reasonably incidental" to her employment, so she was treated as being on duty. It was a good result in that case, if perhaps not entirely consistent with the RUC regulations.
  This is a problem primarily for police officers. It does not arise to the same extent with regard to regular soldiers or to members of the home-based units of the Royal Irish Regiment, and, before that, the Ulster Defence regiment. If any of the latter receive injuries in similar situations to those that I have described, they are entitled to a war disablement pension, which has a very generous range of additional allowances. I shall not go into detail about the allowances, but the war disablement pension is more beneficial than disablement benefit, primarily because of free drugs, no prescription charges, priority hospital treatment, and more regular reviews of condition.
  There are also police ill health pensions, but they are less beneficial than the war disablement benefit, because, if a person can do some work and is in receipt of a disablement benefit, one may, if it will advance or improve one's medical condition, whereas under the police pension one cannot work.
  The complaint concerning criminal injury compensation is that awards are sometimes low and can he inconsistent. The belief that awards have been inconsistent is a general belief in Northern Ireland, not only among police officers but within the professions. It is difficult to make comparisons, but I have been given some examples that indicate a degree of inconsistency. I shall use only two.
  One concerns the loss of a leg. The DPOA has given details of two officers who had lost a leg. The cases were settled in successive years, 1978–79. One received £27,500 in compensation; the other, £45,000. The former, who received less, returned to the police service. The latter left to start a business. I do not know, but it might be the case that the larger figure was regarded as reflecting the uncertainty as to future income.
  122
  The other comparison—an easier one to make—involves the loss of an eye, where all three officers continued in employment. There was no question of loss of future earnings. It was purely a matter of pain and suffering and loss of amenity. The first case, settled in 1972, was awarded £11,500. The second, settled in 1975, was awarded £22,000. The third, settled in 1980, was awarded £50,000. There may have been some changes in the value of money between the three awards, but compensation is supposed to take account of that. The earlier awards, particularly the one for £11,500, will now have been seriously eroded by inflation.
  Hazel, whom I mentioned earlier, was a further education lecturer, grade 1, earning £9,000 per annum when she was injured in 1976. She had injuries to the eye, both shoulders, both arms, back, right lung, liver, stomach and right kidney. She was retired on medical grounds from her college in 1978 and from the police in 1981. In 1979, she was awarded £18,500 in compensation—an incredible award, scarcely enough to cover the special damage from the time of injury to the time of the award of compensation. From that, she has to pay for prescriptions, for physiotherapy and osteopathy for pain relief. It is a derisory award. One can imagine her feelings today as she listens to regular appeals for generous provision for the resettlement of offenders.
  In the Belfast News Letter last Wednesday, there was an interview with Phyllis, whose husband died last year, 13 years after being wounded and having had six operations in the interval. She said that her compensation was barely enough to pay off their mortgage, and was soon gone altogether. Phyllis's husband had been in receipt of benefit, but the day he died, she lost the car and more than £200 a week in benefit, and was reduced to little more than £80 a week. The article records that Phyllis
  "is high in her praise of the RUC's welfare branch and the Police Dependants Trust which helps out financially."
  Sam Malcolmson, a former DPOA chairman, in the same article, says:
  "All members in the DPOA depend on police charities to maintain a decent standard of living. Without their help they couldn't afford the treatment needed to ease the chronic pain many suffer or the physiotherapy treatment they need."
  It is a shameful state of affairs that all the members of the association—I do not doubt what Mr. Malcomson says—who have made such sacrifices for the community now find themselves dependent on charity.
  In the same article, Mr. Malcolmson said that early compensation awards for injuries were an insult to people who were maimed, and, if the Government were determined to spend millions of pounds on the rehabilitation of prisoners, they should also have to care for their victims. He concluded that the Government would have to show "parity of esteem", to use the modern term.
  Obviously, we hope that the present temporary ceasefire develops into a permanent peace, so that the horrific injuries inflicted on members of the security forces are not repeated. If that is the case, the matters that I have mentioned are past matters, and that complicates the solutions to them.
  If we were dealing with future events, there are obvious changes. At the very least, RUC regulations could be amended so that RUC reservists are not at a disadvantage. For example, I understand that the Metropolitan police allows special constables to put themselves on duty "in a real emergency" But that would not tackle the real

  123
  problem, which is the industrial injury benefit test of "arising in the course of employment", which is simply not appropriate.
  The emergency exists over and above the details of employment duties, and that emergency can approach unawares. The legislation needs to be capable of coping with the consequences of that emergency, and presently it is not.
  We could change the industrial injuries legislation to reflect the facts, but if we are to go that far, would it not be better to broaden the scope of war disablement pensions? Such pensions are not limited to soldiers. As well as the UDR members, they include injuries in time of war to the home guard, the nursing and auxiliary services, civil defence workers, the naval auxiliary services, merchant seamen and coastguards. Obviously, the intention is to cover all those persons who are affected by the emergency. Including the RUC would be within the spirit of that list, and would end the invidious distinction made between the RUC and the UDR.
  Alternatively, if one wants to keep the distinction and keep the names of the two pension schemes, we could ensure that there is the same standard of provision in both of them. If changes are being made, obviously they must be retrospective.
  Compensation should also be considered. Technically, all the cases have been determined. People have made claims and accepted settlements. I understand that reopening settlements would be resisted, because it would set awkward precedents. But I would ask the Minister to have a quiet look at the discrepancies, and to consider what must be done.
  Here, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who the DPOA tells me was the most sympathetic of previous Northern Ireland Office Ministers on the point. Apparently, when it raised the issues with him some years ago, he said that he felt that the best thing to do was to increase the amount of money going into the Police Dependants Trust.
  That could be used as a channel where, with respect to past decisions and settlements, we can leave the formal position as it is, and effectively modify those settlements by making additional grants out of something like the PDT. That could bring provision for disabled RUC officers up to the level that it should be, while, of course, putting in place a better and more coherent provision for the future, should it be needed.
  10.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on securing the debate. I share his great concern for members of the Disabled Police Officers Association. I know that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) also takes a special interest in Royal Ulster Constabulary affairs, and has a particular interest in this important subject.
  Unusually, a number of hon. Members are present, including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Members for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). I know that, with their
  124
  particular concern for the RUC and those who have served in it in the past, they will take the fruits of tonight's debate back to Northern Ireland.
  I have listened closely to the hon. Member for Upper Bann,, and I assure him and others that I shall consider what he has said very carefully to establish whether the situation can be improved in any way. I cannot, of course, comment on individual cases tonight, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so—particularly on the case of Mr. Arthur Mullan, which is subject to court proceedings and is therefore sub judice.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman and others that the Government are ever mindful of the many sacrifices that have been made by all members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their families in carrying out their duties over the last 25 years. Indeed, given the many terrorist atrocities that have been perpetrated over the years, it is debatable whether anyone in Northern Ireland—police officer or civilian—has escaped unscathed.
  But the House will pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who, together with their colleagues in the armed forces, have been in the front line in the fight against the terrorism that has plagued Northern Ireland for so long, and have borne its brunt: some 297 have been killed, and at least 7,300 have been seriously injured. Those who have so grievously suffered have not been, and will not be, forgotten.
  The Government, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, have made provision by way of pensions, compensation and rehabilitation for all officers who have been injured on duty. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the definition of duty.
  Police disability pensions, in common with such pensions paid in other fields of service and employment, are primarily based on the officer's length of service and average pensionable pay. An officer who is medically retired from the Royal Ulster Constabulary because of having sustained an injury on duty is generally entitled to ill health pension, an annual pension part of which may be commuted to a lump sum. He is also entitled to injury on duty pension, an annual pension based on average pensionable pay, the degree of disablement suffered by the officer and the officer's number of years of service.
  The amount actually paid is its total, less three quarters of the total ill health pension and certain social security benefits paid in respect of the injury—for example, incapacity benefit, disablement benefit and reduced earnings allowance. He is entitled to an injury on duty lump sum, paid only to officers who have been permanently 100 per cent. disabled, and to injury gratuity, based on the officer's length of service and degree of disablement.
  Pension awards are paid without delay by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, generally within three to four days of an officer's medical discharge. Provision is made for pension increases based on movements in the cost of living. The pension arrangements are matters for national consideration, and are dealt with by the police negotiating board, which is responsible for the determination of all police pensions. A lump sum and pension are not all for which there is provision, and neither should they be all; more help is indeed available.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a long established occupational health unit. This unit, along with the welfare and personnel branches, has made, and continues to make,

  125
  a major contribution to the rehabilitation of officers who suffer periods of sickness or injury. Twelve trained welfare officers working with seven support staff also provide a wide range of confidential services to Royal Ulster Constabulary members, their families, widows, next of kin and pensioners.
  The police dependants' trust provides substantial financial support to officers incapacitated as a result of an injury on duty, and to the dependants of officers who have died in similar circumstances. I will look further at the work of the trust to see how it is progressing, and whether it can be expanded. I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann that its work is very important.
  There is also the Disabled Police Officers Association, some of whose members are, I believe, witnesses to this debate, which has successfully completed a programme of events, commenced in 1993, marking the 10th anniversary of its formation. Special emphasis continues to be given to encourage members of the association to participate in sporting and leisure-based activities whenever and wherever possible.
  The association has full and free access to all the Royal Ulster Constabulary's resources—for example, the gymnasium facilities. The Chief Constable is the president of the association and takes a keen interest in its affairs; and, since 1990, regular meetings, involving, among others, the Royal Ulster Constabulary's welfare services, are held to review issues of interest and concern to the association and its members.
  The police benevolent fund, an in-house charity, is run by the Police Association, which comprises the Police Federation, the Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The fund continues, as it has done for many years, to provide assistance and support, where appropriate, to serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve, and to pensioners, ex-members, medically discharged personnel, widows and dependants.
  The fund's management committee liaises closely with local Royal Ulster Constabulary welfare committees and Police Association representatives to identify need and to provide support where assistance is shown to be required. The fund also continues to support, both financially and practically, the welfare activities of local voluntary welfare groups.
  In addition, support for the northern police convalescent home, which services all northern constabularies, remains at a high level through individual membership from benevolent fund subscriptions. In 1994, 150 serving members and 22 former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary visited the home for continued convalescence or treatment.
  Protracted work on the purchase of a much-needed additional home was concluded during the year and it is hoped that the new home, in Scotland, will open its doors later this year. I hope that that will be viewed as very good news.
  Separately, in each individual case, there is the question of criminal injuries compensation. Provision is made for such compensation in the Northern Ireland criminal injuries scheme which is based in statute, the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Orders.
  126
  In assessing the amount of compensation which may be payable under the terms of the scheme, account is taken of the additional expenditure a disabled officer is likely to incur over the rest of his or her life—a point that the hon. Gentleman touched on.
  Neither I nor the hon. Member, I am certain, would presume to suggest that physical or indeed mental disability sustained while on duty, however slight, can be fully compensated for by money alone. But I trust that he and the House will recognise that, from what I have outlined tonight, the degree of assistance—financial, practical and in terms of counselling support provided for disabled officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—is considerable.
  Of course, individual cases which are particularly tragic, through force of circumstances at the time of the disablement or those coming about in the course of retirement, will from time to time heighten awareness of just how much sacrifice has been made over the years not only by the Royal Ulster Constabulary but by all who have been in the line against unprecedented and such vicious terrorism. When that happens, it can stir emotions to the point at which, in the extreme, comparison is made between what has taken place in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years and a general state of war.
  The declaration of the ceasefires, the calls for the release of "prisoners of war" or "political prisoners", seem to some to lend a boost of justification to that comparison. That, of course, is absolutely wrong. There can be no way in which the terrorist campaign, so long suffered by the people of Northern Ireland and often carried to the mainland, should be construed as a war.
  There are no prisoners of war and no political prisoners in the prisons of Northern Ireland. Let there be no misunderstanding: every prisoner is there because he or she has passed through the due process of the normal criminal justice system and has been convicted in and sentenced by the courts. That statement should be clear and unambiguous.
  I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about war pensions. Police pensions compare well with those that are available to members of the armed forces in similar circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman knows, police officers are well paid, and that is reflected in pension and injury benefits. The chief difference relates to taxation. Since 1939, members of the armed forces have received their income resulting from awards for injury while on service tax-free from the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security. That is a unique recognition of the special status of service personnel.
  Other differences relate to priority of treatment under the national health service for the disability in question and the provision of fares for hospital and similar travel. I am not aware that any Royal Ulster Constabulary officer has been seriously disadvantaged in such matters, but I am, of course, willing to look at any particular cases that come to my notice to see what device—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which items from the national food stockpile remain to be liquidated. [26973]

  Mr. Jack
  Flour is the only commodity remaining in the stockpile. We expect that remaining stocks will be disposed of before the end of September.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26242]

  Mr. Jack
  In accordance with the citizens charter initiative customer service standards have been published for the MAFF regional organisation, inspectorates, most agencies and public facing non-departmental public bodies. These standards include target times for responding to correspondence; they also make reference to the prompt answering of telephone calls.

  On performance, I refer the hon. member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on 23 May 1995, Official Report, column 508, and also to the reply given to my hon. Friend the member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 20 July 1994, Official Report, column 356.

  Performance data on answering telephone calls are not currently held by MAFF and could not be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Tobacco Fraud
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he expects the Italian and Greek authorities will have concluded their inquiries into alleged tobacco fraud related to the suicide of the former head of the tobacco sector. [26121]

  Mr. Jack
  This is a matter for the Italian and Greek authorities who, we understand, are liaising closely with the Commission.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the future organisation and location of his Central Science Laboratory. [26964]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Central Science Laboratory currently occupies five major sites at Slough, Berkshire; Worplesdon, Surrey; Harpenden, Hertfordshire; Norwich,2
  Norfolk and Tony, Aberdeen and a number of smaller sites including those at Luddington, Warwickshire and Cambridge, Cambridgeshire.

  CSL provides essential services within Great Britain to MAFF and other Government Departments to promote the safe and efficient supply of food and to protect the environment. In order to ensure that it continues to do so on a cost-effective basis and to overcome serious shortcomings in the buildings on the older CSL sites, a new laboratory complex is under construction near York. This will be available for occupation in the summer of 1996. It has been known for some time that the staff and facilities at the CSL sites apart from Norwich and Tony would relocate to York with the subsequent closure of the sites.

  I have announced today the financial and other targets that I have set for CSL in 1995–96. The CSL will not achieve cost recovery in 1995–96 and action needs to be taken to ensure that a deficit does not occur in future years.

  Accordingly, it is my intention that the CSL Tony laboratory will also relocate to York in September 1996. Unfortunately, the Torry site has very high overheads and the laboratory there has not been able to compete successfully in the research and development market and will operate at a loss in 1995–96.

  I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to transfer to the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, responsibility for a range of work on the monitoring of algal toxins in shellfish and water and the analytical capability for hydrocarbons, both areas of particular relevance to Scotland. I will also ask my officials to explore with the business, academic and research community in Aberdeen any future opportunities for the site. Much of the work which my Department commissions at CSL Tony is subject to open competition and I would welcome interest from scientific establishments in Scotland as well as elsewhere. Officials will explore the further in the light of any interest which emerges.

  All mobile staff at the Tony site will have the opportunity to relocate to York, and some are likely to be transfer to the Scottish Office marine laboratory at Aberdeen. I am hopeful therefore that closure can be managed without any compulsory redundancies among these staff. Arrangements for seeking job opportunities for non-mobile staff among other Government establishments in the area will be operated in the usual way.

  There are no plans to relocate the CSL Norwich laboratory which is competing successfully on a national and EU basis for science funding.

  Overall, my aim is to ensure that these changes will mean no diminution in the service provided to all parts of Great Britain, including Scotland.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Central Science Laboratory in 1995–96. [26962]
  3
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have set the Central Science Laboratory the following strategic targets for 1995–96:

  Financial:

  —97 per cent. recovery of full costs after allowing for relocation costs

  —1 per cent. improvement in utilisation of productive time

  —1 per cent. improvement of ratio of overhead to total costs

  Service delivery:

  —at least 90 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget

  —achieve a mean score of three on a scale of zero to five for the assessment of customer satisfaction using the established methodology.

  These are demanding targets which challenge the agency but reflect the considerable planning and disruption likely to arise from the relocation to a new purpose built laboratory in Yorkshire which will occur during 1996.

  Agriculture Council
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 May; and if he will make a statement. [26961]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, concentrated mainly on a proposal from the Commission for changes to the agri-monetary arrangements and on rules for the welfare of animals in transport.

  No decisions were reached. The Council will return to both subjects at its next meeting on 19 and 20 June, when it will also aim to decide farm prices and related measures for 1995–96.

  The Commission's proposal on agri-money would reduce the cost and scope of the compensatory measures accompanying any green rate revaluation that took place in 1995. It is the present rules on compensation which have led the Council and Commission to delay green rate revaluations that should have taken place, resulting in distortion of trade and excessive levels of support in the Community as a whole. I strongly supported the Commission's proposal. The German Minister, with some support from others, suggested alternative changes that would lead to permanent differences in payments to farmers in different member states. I made it clear that this would be wholly unacceptable.

  The discussion on animal transport showed that member states are broadly agreed on the main lines of new arrangements, but still differ on the key questions of maximum journey times and the length of breaks between journeys. I welcomed the assurance from the French presidency that it gives high priority to this issue, and urged all parties to make great efforts to reach an agreement in June.

  The Council formally adopted by majority vote, with Germans and Netherlands opposing, the measures necessary to implement the compromise decision on Italian, Spanish and Greek milk quotas, reached at the October meeting of the Economic and Finance Council. It also adopted unanimously a proposal fixing support prices for certain fruits and vegetables for June 1995.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the International Whaling Commission held in Dublin from 29 May to 2 June 1995; and if he will make a statement. [26963]

  Mr. Jack
  The International Whaling Commission's 47th annual meeting was held in Dublin from 29 May to 2 June. The UK delegation was composed of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, assisted by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment and representatives of environmental organisations. For the UK, the meeting was a satisfactory one, and we achieved virtually all our objectives. The meeting confirmed that the IWC remains the only effective international body for the conservation and protection of whales.

  I am pleased to report that the moratorium on commercial whaling, which has been in force since 1985–86, remains in force and unweakened. A request by Japan for an interim quota of 50 minke whales, to be taken by its coastal communities, was once again rejected.

  At last year's IWC meeting doubts were raised about the estimate of minke whale numbers in the north-east Atlantic produced by Norwegian scientists, and endorsed by the IWC's scientific committee as the best figures available. Detailed discussions on this complex issue took place over the year, but this year's meeting of the scientific committee was unable to resolve the differing views and concluded that there was currently no valid estimate for this stock. Despite this uncertainty about the number of minke whales present in the north-east Atlantic, Norway restarted its commercial whaling operations on 2 May.

  At the meeting of the IWC itself, Norway's behaviour was widely condemned. A strongly-worded resolution was adopted calling on Norway to reconsider its objection to the moratorium, under which it is legally able to continue commercial whaling, and to halt its whaling activities immediately. In supporting this resolution, we made it clear that we deplored Norway's continued refusal to observe the moratorium, which in our view weakened the credibility of the IWC.

  At the meeting, very widespread concern was also expressed about scientific whaling. A resolution was adopted calling for all scientific whaling within IWC sanctuaries and, in particular, the southern ocean sanctuary, to be halted. The IWC also adopted a general resolution on scientific whaling, initiated and introduced by the UK, which called for research on whales to be conducted, in principle, by non-lethal means, with the killing of whales for research purposes permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances. The resolution also requested the IWC's scientific committee to review all existing, and future, programmes for research involving the killing of whales against these criteria. This resolution received a very wide measure of support. Although it will not prevent countries from authorising scientific whaling, since this is expressly provided for under the IWC's parent treaty, it will enable the IWC in future to reach clear conclusions on whether it considers any lethal research to be justifiable and to condemn unnecessary scientific whaling.
  5
  Little progress was made on the revised management scheme, which is being devised to regulate all aspects of any future commercial whaling which might be permitted in the future. Discussion concentrated on the inspection and observation scheme which will be needed, as part of the RMS, to ensure that any new rules are properly observed. Positions on this scheme remain far apart; we are continuing to insist that the RMS must include a fully effective, comprehensive and enforceable inspection and observation scheme.

  The IWC meeting was preceded by a workshop on whale killing methods. The UK has consistently argued that if whales are to be killed, this is to be done humanely, and we were represented at the workshop by a strong team of scientists and veterinarians. The workshop agreed to a revision of the humane killing action plan agreed by the IWC in 1992, and this was subsequently adopted by the IWC itself.

  A particular topic of discussion at the workshop was secondary killing methods and, most notably, the use of the electric lance to kill whales wounded, but not killed, by explosive harpoons. Papers presented to the workshop indicating that the electric lance is ineffective and inflicts unnecessary suffering received considerable support, although the workshop was not able to reach definitive conclusions on this issue. In these circumstances, we did not seek a vote on a proposal to ban the use of the electric lance, which would have required a three quarters majority to pass, which UK and New Zealand had put forward earlier; instead we introduced a resolution calling on the IWC to re-examine the issue next year, with a view to reaching a decision and urging all countries to suspend the use of the electric lance in the meantime. This was adopted with widespread support.

  The UK delegation also put forward a resolution on killing methods used in the Faroese pilot whale drive hunt; this was adopted by consensus. This followed a discussion on this drive hunt in the workshop. The resolution encouraged the Faroese Government to continue work on introducing alternatives to the gaff and on other ways of improving the humaneness of the hunt. It is particularly helpful to have secured the commitment of the Faroese authorities to these improvements. Introducing this resolution, we emphasised our continuing concern at the welfare aspects of the drive hunt, and said that we hoped alternatives to the gaff would be introduced as soon as possible and the use of the gaff banned.

  Environmental threats to whales and other cetaceans again received attention. The scientific committee reviewed the results of a workshop held in March on the possible effects of pollution on cetaceans, and confirmed arrangements for the forthcoming workshop on the possible implications of climate change. In the IWC meeting itself, we helped promote a resolution carrying forward the recommendations of the pollution workshop and urging Governments to send experts to the climate change workshop. This is an important new topic for the IWC, and we look forward to making further progress at next year's meeting.

  At the meeting, the IWC made further progress on devising guidelines for whalewatching, another issue to which it will return next year, and adopted a resolution, following up the one it agreed last year, for improving mechanisms to prevent illegal trade in whale meat. This calls for stockpiles of whalemeat predating the moratorium to be disposed of domestically in the near
  6
  future, and encourages the development and use of DNA testing of whalemeat to establish the species of origin.

  The IWC's 48th annual meeting will be held in Aberdeen next June. The UK will, once again, be playing an active role, and I believe that, as a result of this year's meeting, we are well placed to make further progress on a wide range of issues.

  Spanish Fishing Subsidies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much subsidy has been given to Spain in each of the last three years from the European Community for fishing; and what is the forecast of funding to Spain for each of the next three years. [24681]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: Prior to 1994, European Community aid to the fishing industry was financed under both the guidance and guarantee sections of the budget. Figures for 1992 and 1993 in the table relate only to certain parts fisheries guidance expenditure—these were extracted from the European Court of Auditor's annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Those for guarantee expenditure are set out in reply to my hon. Friend's related question about subsidies to Spanish agriculture.

  From 1994 onwards, the financial instrument for fisheries guidance came into force, amalgamating the various fisheries structures and marketing and processing regulations. The figures in the table for the years 1994–1998 show the amount of Community funding available for the fishery investment set out in the relevant Spanish programmes for objectives 1 and 5a.

  In addition, Spain is eligible to benefit from certain payments relating to third country fishery agreements, although we do not currently have detailed information about the allocation between member states.

  Elements of European Community financial assistance to the Spanish fishing industry (fisheries guidance only)

  Year

  Mecu

  £m

  19921

  11.20

  7.93

  19931

  12.80

  10.06

  1994

  154.13

  119.07

  1995

  165.28

  133.41

  1996

  175.92

  146.11

  1997

  186.92

  155.25

  1998

  201.64

  167.48

  1 Figures exclude fisheries guidance expenditure on redeployment, adaption and modernisation of fishing vessels, and restructuring of small scale fishing as well as fish marketing and processing awards under EC regulation 355/77, the majority of which were paid prior to 1994 and financed under the agriculture guidance fund.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  R. v. Field and Ghiassi
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to public funds of the case R.v. Field and Ghiassi, at Liverpool Crown court in respect of which the defendants were acquitted on 22 May. [27192]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is too early to say how much has been spent from public funds in respect of the prosecution and the defence of this case. Costs to the legal
  7
  aid fund and to the prosecution will not be known until final bills have been submitted. It is not possible to identify separately the cost to the Court Service.

  Hale v. Wilson Dyer Gough
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams of 5 May regarding the case of Hale v. Wilson Dyer Gough. [27357]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 25 May.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the judgment will be given in the case of Hale v. Wilson Dyer Gough; and if he will make a statement. [27356]

  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 Michael Huebner to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the judgment in the case of Hale v Wilson Dyer Gough. I can confirm that judgement in respect of the hearing on 28 November 1994 has now been given. A copy of the judgment has been sent, by first class post, to the solicitor for both parties today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to recover for public funds the legal aid funds made available to the Wilson Dyer Goughs, following the withdrawal of their legal aid certificate. [27358]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The administration of the civil legal aid scheme is the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board. In cases where the board has a right to recovery, the board's debt recovery unit takes such steps as are appropriate and justified, after the amount owed to the legal aid fund has been established.

EDUCATION

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which her Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing her Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if she will make a statement. [26321]

  Mr. Boswell
  All land and property occupied by the Department forms part of the civil estate and is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what studies have been conducted on the educational effect on schools of losing students to other schools under the assisted places scheme. [26430]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There have been a number of independent studies on the assisted places scheme which caters for about 1 per cent. of the total secondary school population in England. None of the studies has demonstrated any significant adverse effect on educational provision in maintained schools which 8
  assisted pupils might otherwise have attended. On the contrary, the scheme helps to promote academic standards, choice and diversity; and it is the responsibility of maintained schools to seek the highest educational standards from and for their pupils.

  Retired Teachers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will investigate the reasons behind changes in the numbers of teachers retiring on the grounds of infirmity. [26723]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Teachers themselves take the initiative in applying for ill health retirement. It is granted if they submit satisfactory medical evidence to the Teachers Pensions Agency. Any detailed investigation into the reasons why teachers apply for ill health retirement would require specialist medical research into the background to each case. That would be expensive and, given the average of likely causes and the diverse nature of the teaching force, would probably not reach firm conclusions.

  Social Development Summit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she intends to issue a report on the implications for the United Kingdom of the commitment to the goals of universal and equitable access to education agreed at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. [26761]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Engineering Degree Course Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals exist to extend engineering levels of course funding to apply to building services engineering degree courses in order to recognise the special laboratory and equipment needs; and if she will make a statement. [26769]

  Mr. Boswell
  Funding for courses is a matter for the Higher Education Council for England and I am asking the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  School Quality
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she will issue proposals for the improvement of the quality of schools in low-income communities in conformity with the declaration and action programme agreed at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. [26762]

  Mr. Forth
  Following on from the introduction of the national curriculum, the inspection cycle and performance tables, my right hon. Friend announced on 25 May a comprehensive programme of measures designed to improve the quality of schools throughout the country.

  Teachers (Sexual Offences)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how long it takes to have a name added to list 99 after conviction of a person for child abuse. [26753]

  Mr. Forth
  The time taken varies. Under the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993 the person concerned must be given an opportunity to make representations, and each case must be considered on its individual merits. My right hon. Friend is consulting on an amendment to the
  9
  regulations which would enable those convicted of sexual offences against children under 16 years of age to be barred from teaching as soon as the conviction is notified.

  Nursery Education Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the names of those organisations that have made representations to her favouring the introduction of vouchers for nursery education. [27108]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education gave to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 7 February,Official Report, columns 145–49 The concept of a voucher scheme was among the wide range of issues mentioned by the organisations listed there, and by others subsequently.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction, pursuant to her answer of 18 May,Official Report, columns 307–308, what definition of participation in education by under-fives was used in the calculation of the figures shown in the answer. [26563]

  Mr. Forth
  The under-fives participation rates, for which the United Kingdom rate was 53 per cent., were based upon the number of pupils in schools who were aged three and four at 31 December in the 1991–92 academic year expressed as a percentage of the population aged three and four at that date. The UK rate of 68 per cent., also for 1991–92, quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education in her reply of 23 May,Official Report, column 691, was higher because, as requested, those aged five were also included.

  In both cases, children attending playgroups or other forms of day care provision only, but not school, were excluded. International comparisons of nursery school provision only or of publicly funded provision only are not available. Both answers therefore covered pupils in all types of schools whether public or private.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals in each year since 1989 in Hampshire, Dorset, West Sussex, East Sussex and Wiltshire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the table. Information prior to 1993 is not available on a comparable basis.

  Percentage of pupils in maintained schools who are known to be eligible for free school meals

  Position in January each year

  LEA area

  1993

  1994

  Hampshire

  14

  15

  Dorset

  9

  10

  West Sussex

  12

  13

  East Sussex

  19

  21

  Wiltshire

  13

  13

  University Teachers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in earnings in real terms for university teachers since 1986; and what is the actual average change for all occupations. [26534]
  10
  Mr. Boswell
  Between April 1986 and April 1994, university lecturers' pay rose by approximately 16 per cent. in real terms, and actual pay for all occupations increased on average by £155 per week, a real term increase of approximately 18 per cent. as measured by the new earnings survey.

  School Expenditure
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list each school in Northamptonshire for which capital spending approval has been granted in each year since 1987–88 together with the sum approved. [26372]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally. It is for local education authorities to decide how capital resources are used for individual county and voluntary-controlled schools.

  Grants for Education Support and Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 171, what is the average GEST funding for (a) local education authorities and (b) grant-maintained (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available for local education authorities' maintained schools. GEST funding for LEAs is not allocated by different types of school.

  For grant-maintained schools, GEST activities are supported through the payment of a special purpose grant development. The calculation and payment of a special purpose grants is now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools and I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  School Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the projected annual costs of assessing pupils of too low an academic standard to take the formal tests; and what have been the actual costs. [25958]

  Mr. Forth
  The projected and actual printing and distribution costs of the national curriculum tasks for less able pupils are as follows:

  £000

  Projected 1994–95

  Actual 1994–95

  7-Year-olds

  138.4

  135.3

  11-Year-olds

  390.0

  379.5

  14-Year-olds

  185.0

  167.6

  Totals

  712.4

  682.4

  The costs of developing the tasks are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the total projected cost of funding supply cover during standard assessment test was (i) nationally and (ii) in Nottinghamshire schools for(a) seven-year-olds and (b) 11-year-olds. [25944]
  11
  Mr. Forth
  The projected costs for supply cover for teachers administering the national curriculum tests to seven-year-olds and tasks to seven and 11-year-olds are as follows:

  (i) (a) around £11 million (b) around £4 million

  (ii) (a) around £250,000 (b) around £90,000

  Each local education authority is responsible for apportioning its total allocation to its schools.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the actual cost of funding supply cover during standard assessment tests (i) nationally and (ii) in Nottinghamshire schools for(a) seven-year-olds and (b) 11-year-olds. [25945]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available. Final figures on actual expenditure are not available until after the end of the financial year when the Department receives an audit certificate from local education authorities confirming expenditure for that year.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total amount that has been accepted in Government grants by schools to subsidise the cost of standard assessment tests. [25959]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available at present. Under the GEST programme, allocations are made to LEAs. Under GEST grant 2 for 1995–96, LEAs have accepted £15.3 million expenditure for supply cover of which 60 per cent. is payable in Government grant.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total amount that has been offered in Government grants to subsidise the cost of standard assessment tests. [25957]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department will provide about £9 million—60 per cent.— of the estimated £15 million needed for supply cover to support teachers administering the national curriculum tests to seven-year-olds and tasks to seven, 11 and 14-year-olds.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of her Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has recently completed a review of its procedures for dealing with letters from members of the public. Enhanced performance targets are being set whereby 75 per cent. of all letters from members of the public should be responded to in three weeks and 100 per cent. in four weeks. Appropriate procedures for monitoring these new targets are currently being considered.

  Requests for general information are handled by a dedicated public inquiry unit. This unit aims to answer all letters within one week of receipt. In 1994, over 92 per cent. of replies met this target.

  The Department's switchboard operators have a target of answering 80 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds and 90 per cent. within 30 seconds. Performance is monitored on a monthly basis through automated call logging software. During 1994, 90 per cent. of calls were answered within 20 seconds, with 92 per cent. being answered within 30 seconds.

  Mathematics Standards
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received about declining standards of mathematics in schools. [23155]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend receives such representations from time to time. Among the actions taken to improve mathematics standards in schools has been the introduction of the national curriculum and its assessment. The revised curriculum, which takes effect in schools from September 1995, will contribute further to raising standards by increasing the emphasis on basic arithmetic skills.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Main Installations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what water main installations have taken place in the constituency of South Down since 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1995, and of these, what road reinstatements have taken place. [25324]

  Mr. Ancram
  The water main schemes completed or under way between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995, and the road reinstatement position are as follows:

  Water Main scheme

  Road reinstatement position

  Rathfriland Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Attical Supply Area

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Mayobridge Area Distribution

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Deechommed Distribution Improvements

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Dromore Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Newcastle Watermain

  Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement

  complete

  St. Patrick's Road Raholp Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Oldtown Lane Annalong Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Church Road Ballynahinch Duplication of Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Seaforde Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Drumaroad Hill, Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Auglisnafin Road Dundrum Duplication of Watermain

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Downpatrick Road Crossgar Watermains Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Pillar Hill Ballynahinch Reinforcement of Distribution System

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  A24 Replacement Watermain

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Pound Lane Downpatrick Watermains Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Castleward Road Strangford Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  St. Patrick's Raholp Stage 2 Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Hillhead Outlet Main Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  13

  Water Main scheme

  Road reinstatement position

  Carnreagh Road Guiness Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Coilly Hill Road Killyeagh Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Crawfordstown Road Drumaness Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Stewarts Road Annalong Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Anthony's Road Ballymartin Watermain Extension

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Crossgar Road, Ballynahinch Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Tullykin Road, Killyeagh Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Hamiltons Folly Area Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Derryboye Road, Derryboye Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Ardtole Road, Ardglass Watermain Replace and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Ballykine Replacement Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Bannaghan Road, Raholp Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Guiness Road, Hamiltons Folly Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Manse Road, Raffrey Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Middle Road, Saintfield Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Ringhaddy Road, Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Roughal Park, Downpatrick Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  St. Patrick's Raholp Stage 3 Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Tullybrannigan ST Outlet Main Replacement Outlet Main

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Killyleagh Road, Darragh Cross Watermain Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Audleystown Road Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement complete

  Rathfriland to Ballyroney Trunk Main

  Permanent reinstatement under way

  Knock Area Distribution Improvements

  Permanent reinstatement under way

  Dromore Road, High Street, Lisburn St. Ballynahinch. Replacement and Upgrade (Scheme underway)

  Permanent reinstatement almost complete

  Dromore Road, Grove Road, Ballynahinch Watermain Replacement

  Permanent reinstatement almost complete

  Dundrum SR Outlet Main Replacement and Upgrade

  Permanent reinstatement under way

  Fofanny to Rathfriland Trunk Main

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Knock to Tullymurry Trunk Main

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Castlewellan Town Centre Mains Replacement

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  14

  Water Main scheme

  Road reinstatement position

  Ballymacarn Road, Ballynahinch Watermain Replacement (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Ballymaglave Road, Ballynahinch Watermain Replacement (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Downpatrick Road, Ballynahinch Watermain Replacement (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Downpatrick Town Centre Watermain Improvements (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement complete

  Ballyroney to Deechommed Trunk Main (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement under way

  Fofanny Area Distribution Improvements (Scheme underway)

  Temporary reinstatement under way

  In addition, various works for repairs and small diameter mains replacements have been undertaken. Information on these is not held centrally and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what work has been contracted out(a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96. [25660]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Work contracted out

  (a) Departments

  Environment

  1993–94

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Catering Services.

  Road Surface Dressing Work

  1994–95

  General Road Maintenance Activities

  Health and Social Services

  1993–94

  ICL MainFrame Computer Services

  Northern Ireland Office

  1993–94

  Maintenance of Hillsborough Castle Grounds

  Courier Service, Strormont Castle

  Prison Office Catering Services at four Prison Establishments, young Offenders Centre and the Prison Service College

  Air Charter

  Ministerial cars

  1994–95

  Hillsborough Castle Estate Management

  Hillsborough Castle Facilities Management

  Key Persons Protection Scheme

  Air Charter

  Ministerial cars

  Office cleaning

  15

  Work contracted out

  Northern Ireland

  1995–96

  Air Charter

  Office cont.

  Ministerial cars

  Office cleaning

  Security

  Civilian search arrangements

  (b) Agencies

  Child Support Agency

  1993–94

  Facilities Management

  Catering

  Typing

  Telephonists

  Receptionists

  Cleaning

  Security

  Post-Opening

  Messengerial

  Porterage

  Handyman

  1994–95

  In addition to the services contracted out in 1993–94 the following services have also been contracted out:

  Reprographic

  Stationery Store

  Off-Site File Store

  1995–96

  It is proposed that the services contracted out in 19934–94 and 1994–95 will also be contracted out in 1995–96

  Compensation agency

  1994–95

  Prior options study.

  In 1995–96, a number of work areas in the Northern Ireland Departments and agencies are being market tested but is not known if this will result in any work being contracted out.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, (1) what changes there have been in the number of staff in employment by grade in (i) the Northern Ireland Office and (ii) each agency for which the Northern Ireland Office is responsible in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96; [25424]

  (2) what changes there have been in the number of staff employed by (a) his office and (b) each agency for which his office is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96; [25557]

  (3) how many staff of (a) the Northern Ireland Office and (b) agencies for which the Northern Ireland Office is responsible were employed on a casual or short-term basis in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25502]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The numbers of permanent and casual staff employed by the Northern Ireland Office and each of its executive agencies in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 are published in "Northern Ireland Ependiture Plans and Priorities", copy of which is available in the Library of the House. No projections broken down by grade are available.

  Abortion
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government expect to take a decision on the recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights pertaining to the abortion law in Northern Ireland. [23571]
  16
  Mr. Ancram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 24 May,Official Report, column 627.

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) his office and (b) agencies for which his office is responsible for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96. [25646]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94 Outturn £

  1994–95 Outturn £

  1995–96 Estimate £

  Compensation Agency

  2,055

  355

  1,000

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  n/a

  n/a

  36,000

  Rest of Northern Ireland Office

  164,364

  382,764

  68,000

  Total

  166,419

  383,119

  105,000

  Note:

  The Northern Ireland Prison Service did not become an agency until 1 April 1995.

  Local Government Employees
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices in(a) Antrim borough council and (b) Magherafelt district council in (i) January 1992, (ii) January 1993, (iii) January 1994 and (iv) January 1995. [25400]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  (a) ANTRIM BOROUGH COUNCIL

  Department of the Environment

  Caulside, New Lodge Road, Antrim1

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Ferrard, Railway Street, Antrim1

  5

  5

  4

  5

  Church Street, Antrim1

  3

  4

  8

  nil

  Fountain Street, Antrim1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Steeple Road Industrial Estate, Antrim1

  25

  26

  18

  19

  Crown Buildings, Castle Street, Antrim

  nil

  nil

  nil

  8

  Roads Service, Station Road, Antrim

  44

  43

  42

  37

  Water Executive, Steeple Road Industrial Estate, Antrim

  44

  38

  37

  36

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Antrim

  15

  16

  18

  18

  Industrial Development Board, Regional Office

  4

  5

  5

  nil

  17

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Antrim Social Security Office

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Antrim Social Security Office

  93

  100

  94

  87

  Contribution Unit, North Area (based in Antrim SSO)

  11

  16

  16

  17

  Child Support Agency, Antrim

  —

  —

  6

  7

  Department of Agriculture

  Crown Buildings, Castle Street, Antrim

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Forest Office, Slemish Forest

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Greenmount College of Agriculture and

  106

  106

  105

  99

  Horticulture, Antrim1

  51

  52

  46

  42

  (b) MAGHERAFELT DISTRICT COUNCIL

  Department of the Environment

  Section Office, Station Road, Magherafelt1

  7

  10

  10

  6

  Crown Buildings, Station Road, Magherafelt1

  nil

  nil

  11

  10

  Queens Avenue, Magherafelt1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  8

  Magherafelt District Council, Ballyronan

  Road, Magherafelt1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  Water Executive, Station Road, Magherafelt

  41

  40

  38

  34

  Roads Service, Station Road, Magherafelt

  41

  40

  38

  34

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Magherafelt

  14

  15

  15

  14

  Training Unit, Castledawson

  2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Magherafelt, Social Security Office

  77

  79

  73

  76

  Department of Agriculture

  Rainey Street, Magherafelt

  16

  17

  17

  18

  Forest Office, Derrynoyd

  8

  9

  11

  11

  1 Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the location of the inward investment projects promoted by the Industrial Development Board between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995 indicating the financial amounts in respect of each project. [25926]

  Mr. Ancram
  The inward investment projects secured by the IDB between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995 are set out. The 1994–95 figures do not include three investments for which formal announcements have still to be agreed with the companies. These investments total £16.8 million against which £5.8 million has been offered to secure 415 jobs.
  18

  Inward Investment Projects: 1990 to 1995

  Company Name Country of Ownership Location in NI Product

  New Jobs

  Assistance (£000)

  Investment (£000)

  1990–91

  G C McKeown & Co (NI) Ltd

  39

  465

  1,152

  ROI

  Antrim

  Computer Software

  Webtech (NI) Ltd

  63

  867

  2,571

  ROI

  Enniskillen

  Flexible Packaging

  National Inspection Council

  7

  30

  87

  Quality Assurance Ltd

  GB

  Ballymena

  Certification and Registration of Company Management Systems

  Avery Label (Northern Ireland) Ltd

  12

  161

  595

  GB

  Belfast

  Self-Adhesive Labels

  Delwyn Enterprises T/A Yardmaster, International

  22

  206

  718

  France

  Draperstown

  Metal Garden Sheds

  Inland Revenue

  410

  none

  not known

  GB

  Belfast

  Her Majesty's Customs and

  100

  none

  not known

  Excise

  GB

  Newry

  Child Support Agency

  500

  none

  not known

  GB

  Belfast

  1991–92

  Vision Information Consulting Ltd

  32

  90

  317

  ROI

  Belfast

  Design and Development of Software

  Audio Processing Technology Ltd

  12

  114

  441

  GB

  Belfast

  Establishment of a Facility for a Music Coding System

  The Prudential Assurance Co Ltd

  36

  227

  812

  GB

  Belfast

  Transfer and Processing of Life Assurance Claims

  Royal Mail

  300

  none

  not known

  GB

  Belfast

  19

  Inward Investment Projects: 1990 to 1995

  Company Name Country of Ownership Location in NI Product

  New Jobs

  Assistance (£000)

  Investment (£000)

  Customs and Excise

  40

  none

  not known

  GB

  Londonderry and Enniskillen

  Chambernet

  3

  none

  not known

  GB

  Belfast

  Mari Group

  7

  none

  not known

  GB

  Belfast

  1992–93

  Fulcrum Communications Ltd

  60

  821

  2,107

  GB

  Antrim

  Maintenance and Repair of Telecom Equipment

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing Co Ltd

  409

  9,895

  38,000

  USA

  Londonderry

  Textile Products

  CFM Group Ltd

  150

  3,018

  7,533

  GB

  Establishment of a Data Centre and Software Centre

  Daesung Circuits Ltd

  120

  2,020

  4,954

  Republic of S Korea

  Ballymena

  Printed Circuit Boards

  Pan European Textiles Ltd

  500

  14,085

  51,109

  Indonesia

  Antrim

  Manufacture of Micro Denier Fabrics

  Polystar (Ireland) Ltd

  25

  200

  577

  ROI

  Omagh

  Phenolic and Polyurethane Insulation Products

  McKechnie (UK) Ltd

  21

  303

  896

  GB

  Newtownard

  Fuel Line Components

  AVM Telecom Ltd

  19

  139

  531

  GB

  Londonderry

  Customised Software

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  506

  20,003

  60,852

  USA

  Londonderry

  Magnetic Recording Components

  20

  Inward Investment Projects: 1990 to 1995

  Company Name Country of Ownership Location in NI Product

  New Jobs

  Assistance (£000)

  Investment (£000)

  Norfil

  100

  none

  not known

  Indonesia

  Antrim

  Micro Denier Filament Yarn

  1993–94

  CCA Electronic Ltd.

  257

  4,360

  9,460

  Republic of South Korea

  Dungannon

  In Car Entertainment Systems

  The Training & Business Group (Overseas) Ltd.

  29

  150

  312

  GB

  Newry

  Training and Employment Service

  BCO Technologies (Northern Ireland) Ltd.

  347

  6,581

  15,139

  USA

  West Belfast

  Silicon Wafer Products and Services

  CFM Group Ltd.

  70

  1,198

  5,820

  GB

  Belfast and Whiteabbey

  Data and Software Operations

  Charles Bell (1963) Ltd.

  10

  130

  425

  ROI

  Belfast

  Window Blinds

  Valence Technology BVIO

  660

  25,625

  147,200

  USA

  Mallusk

  Batteries

  MKF (United Kingdom) Ltd.

  100

  2,815

  10,440

  Germany

  Newry

  PVC Film

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  46

  1,581

  3,514

  USA

  Londonderry

  Magnetic recording components

  Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd.

  314

  10,440

  36,600

  Hong Kong

  Limavady

  CD jewel boxes

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd.

  250

  5,960

  17,000

  Republic of Korea

  Antrim

  Deck mechanisms

  21

  Inward Investment Projects: 1990 to 1995

  Company Name Country of Ownership Location in NI Product

  New Jobs

  Assistance (£000)

  Investment (£000)

  CIS Data Ltd.

  212

  4,739

  12,954

  Taiwan

  Belfast

  Floppy Discs

  1994–95

  Transtec Foundries Ltd.

  181

  4,518

  14,946

  GB

  Campsie

  Die Casting for the automotive industry

  ABC Laboratories (Europe) Ltd.

  60

  1,085

  2,937

  USA

  Coleraine

  Contract Laboratory Services

  Daehwa Metal (UK) Ltd

  240

  2,928

  7,004

  South Korea

  Antrim

  Metal Parts for Electronics Industry

  Real Software (NI) Ltd

  9

  138

  310

  Belgium

  Antrim

  Software Design and Support

  Daewoo Electro Components UK Ltd.

  255

  3,816

  9,218

  South Korea

  Carrickfergus

  Electronic Tuners

  Radix Telecom Ltd.

  509

  4,676

  19,084

  South Korea

  Craigavon

  Satellite Video Receivers

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  300

  11,200

  60,026

  USA

  Londonderry

  Magnetic Recording Components

  Irish Sea (Conservation)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the implications of the proposals in respect of the designation of special areas of conservation in the fishing grounds of the Irish sea. [25925]

  Mr. Ancram
  Two sites on the Irish sea have been proposed as qualifying for designation as special areas of conservation under the EU habitats directive, at Murlough and Strangford lough.

  There will be no practical implications for fishing interests arising from the designation of Murlough.

  Strangford lough has been selected because of its internationally important marine life. The Department is content that the proposed designation of Strangford lough
  22
  will not have any implications for the fishing industry apart from those imposed through the regulation of fishing and fish farming by the Department of Agriculture, and those arising from the proposed designation of the lough as a marine nature reserve.

  Local Government Wards
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the 55 electoral wards which have now been designated. [25933]

  Mr. Ancram
  Northern Ireland has a total of 582 local government wards. These were last designated following a review of local government ward boundaries in 1992. It is not clear which of these designated wards comprise the 55 to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following the report prepared by Gray and Heenan of the University of Ulster in relation to the system of public appointments in Northern Ireland, what action he will take to make the system more open, accessible and accountable; and if he will make a statement. [25943]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The system of appointments to public bodies in Northern Ireland is already open and accessible in that any member of the public can apply to have his or her name included on the central database which is maintained to assist Departments identify suitable people for appointments. The Government plan to make publicly available in the near future their guidelines to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments on public appointments procedures.

  Public bodies are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are answerable to Parliament for the degree of independence, the usefulness, effectiveness and efficiency of non-departmental public bodies. With regard to financial accountability of public bodies, the Government are accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for their expenditure on these bodies, and they for their part are required to submit to proper audit.

  Sinn Fein (Benefits)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the representatives of Sinn Fein who are currently engaged in talks with Her Majesty's Government are currently in receipt of state financial benefits. [26509]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. David Wilshire, dated 24 May 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question about members of Sinn Fein.
  I should first explain that information on a person's entitlement to social security benefits, including whether or not they are claiming or getting benefit, is confidential. I am therefore unable to comment on individual cases. However, I can assure you that all claims to benefit are assessed and regularly reviewed by independent adjudication officers, strictly in accordance with social security law and payment is made only where there is valid entitlement.
  I hope this letter sets out the position for you.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what external legal advice has been received in respect of parliamentary approval for the payment of practice management expenses by GP fundholders. [27017]

  Mr. Moss
  No external legal advice has been received. My Department's legal advisers are at present considering what, if any, action needs to be taken on this matter in Northern Ireland. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the position has been clarified.

  Metal-framed Windows
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Housing Executive's recent plan to replace metal window frames with wooden frames on a needs only basis has cost; how much it is anticipated the full replacement course will cost; and for what reasons the scheme was upgraded from needs only to a full replacement programme. [27359]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the Executive adopted a policy to replace all metal-framed windows with wooden frames over a five-year period, in April 1994. Prior to this, metal-framed windows were replaced on a needs only basis, but information about how much the Housing Executive expended in this connection is not available. It is estimated that the full replacement course will cost £30 million over the five-year period. The reasons for the change in policy were the age and condition of the metal framed windows and the concerns expressed by tenants.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis there are in Northern Ireland; and what proposals there are to provide a specialist clinic for ME patients. [27360]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of people in Northern Ireland currently diagnosed as having myalgic encephalomyelitis, a condition being increasingly referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome, is not known. There are no proposals at present to establish a ME clinic in Northern Ireland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Translation Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what facilities are available for translating proceedings of the House in Committee Rooms and in the Chamber from English into other languages.

  Mr. Waller
  Equipment, including interpreter booths, which enable simultaneous translation from English into other languages, can be provided for use in committee rooms. The Chamber is equipped with a single-channel system which enables simultaneous translation from English to one other language to be provided for up to 24 visitors in the Galleries.

PRIME MINISTER

  VJ Day
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will re-define VJ day as VP day, victory in the Pacific; and if he will make a statement. [26157]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister on which occasions the Churchill papers were offered for sale to the Government. [26843]

  The Prime Minister
  I cannot answer for previous Administrations. A formal offer of sale was made by the current trustees in 1991.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the national heritage fund to put the Churchill papers up for public tender without reservation. [26846]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The papers which constitute the Churchill archive are now the property of the Sir Winston Churchill archive trust, a charitable trust set up for the purpose of preserving the archive intact for the nation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave when deciding whether the Official Secrets Acts covered the Churchill papers in the case of Peter Wright; and if he will make a statement. [26862]

  The Prime Minister
  The case to which the hon. Member refers has little or no relevance to the question of the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to the Churchill papers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the national heritage fund is free to sell private papers acquired from the Churchill family; and what evidence he has as to their current market value, taking into account the copyright provisions. [26861]

  The Prime Minister
  The private papers sold by the Churchill family were bought on behalf of the specially constituted Sir Winston Churchill archive trust through the money allocated from the heritage lottery fund by the national heritage memorial fund. The only way the trust could dispose of the papers would be with the consent of the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund. As trustees of a charitable trust, they may not, in any case, dispose of the permanent endowment of the trust without the consent of the Charity Commissioners or of the courts. The independent advice on the value of the papers which the national heritage memorial fund received took into account the intended arrangements as to copyright ownership.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will take impartial professional advice as to the open market value, subject to the existing restrictions on copyright, of the private papers purchased by the national heritage fund from the Churchill family; [26867]

  (2) what account was taken of the value of the copyright when estimating the amount which might have been paid by purchasers of the Churchill memoirs. [27340]

  The Prime Minister
  The independent advice on the value of the papers which the national heritage memorial fund received took into account the intended arrangements as to copyright ownership.

  Ministers's Official Broadcasts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if drafts of Ministers' official broadcasts are classified as official papers. [26844]

  The Prime Minister
  If such drafts are created or acquired by Ministers by virtue of their office, they would be official papers.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of the state funding improvements in individuals living standards in old age. [26901]

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy on pensions remains unchanged. We will maintain the value of the basic state pension by increasing it in line with prices, encourage personal responsibility for additional pension provision through occupational and personal pensions and target extra resources on those with low incomes.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Prime Minister what provisions his Department has made to ensure that accommodation designed to provide care and support for vulnerable residents and those at risk, is fully covered under the proposed changes to housing benefit. [26537]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has recently received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation on the proposed changes to housing benefit. He will be considering carefully the position of sheltered and supported housing under the changes as part of the response to the report.

  Ministerial Documents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what classes of document relating directly or indirectly to the performance by Ministers and officials of their duties are still regarded as state papers which cannot be sold for personal gain by Ministers and officials. [26532]

  The Prime Minister
  Papers which are created or acquired by Ministers or officials, or other Crown servants, by virtue of the office they hold under, or in their service to, the Crown, are regarded as state papers which should not be sold for personal gain.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 4 May 1995, Official Report, columns 281–82 in respect of the convention relating to papers taken away by Prime Ministers on leaving office.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 April, Official Report, column 65, where in the current edition of "Social Trends" can be found the information that education authorities employ two administrators for every three teachers; and if he will make a statement. [26897]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), on 27 April, Official Report, column 613.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) agencies for which the FCO is responsible (i) took early retirement, (ii) took voluntary redundancy, (iii) took compulsory redundancy and (iv) were retired on medical grounds in (1) 1993–94 and (2) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25481]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Early retirement

  Voluntary redundancy

  Compulsory

  Medical redundancy retirement

  1993–94

  63

  30

  0

  13

  1994–95

  134

  52

  0

  14

  1995–96

  69

  7

  140

  1

  1 Of these 40 redundancies it is not possible at this stage to state whether they will be voluntary or compulsory.

  Overseas Development Administration and the Natural Resources Institute

  Early retirement

  Voluntary redundancy

  Compulsory redundancy

  Medical retirement

  1993–94

  5

  0

  0

  5

  1994–95

  2

  0

  49

  4

  1995–96

  3

  1186

  0

  2

  1 This includes 130 targeted voluntary redundancies from the Natural Resources Institute.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for security arising out of privatising individual services at GCHQ. [26454]

  Mr. Hurd
  GCHQ has used outside contractors on sensitive work in the past and the plan to contract certain logistic and engineering services to outside companies does not introduce any new security dimension. The procedures for security vetting announced in the House by the Prime Minister on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 764–66, will be applied by GCHQ as in Government generally so that we can be assured of the reliability of the personnel of the successful tendering company.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 1981 would apply to employees transferred under programmes of privatisation at GCHQ. [26456]

  Mr. Hurd
  If the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 1981 are deemed to apply, any employees transferred to a contractor would retain their existing contracts of employment. Any subsequent change to the contracts would be a matter for negotiation between the contractor and employees concerned. If there is no transfer of undertakings in accordance with these regulations, any employees leaving GCHQ as a result of outsourcing would have their existing contracts terminated on redundancy grounds, with payment of appropriate compensation. It would be for the contractor
  27
  to decide whether to recruit any ex-GCHQ staff and what their terms of employment should be.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what proposals he has for the privatisation of individual services at GCHQ; [26453]

  (2) to what extent privatisation of individual services at GCHQ will include contracts for employees providing (a) greater and (b) reduced employment rights relative to those enjoyed by existing GCHQ directly employed staff. [26455]

  Mr. Hurd
  None. In accordance with Government White Papers concerning the Government sector providing value for money, on 23 March 1995 the director of GCHQ announced proposals to outsource GCHQ's logistics and engineering services. There are no plans for further outsourcing at the moment.

  Government of Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the Government of Sudan have breached the ceasefire negotiated in that country by President Carter; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of these breaches. [27327]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Despite violations by all sides, the two-month ceasefire agreed on 28 March helped to reduce military activity in southern Sudan, and to facilitate the Carter Centre Guinea Worm campaign. We welcome the decision of the Sudanese Government, and at least one southern faction, to extend the ceasefire to late July.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994 to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), Official Report, column 172, what were the reasons for the two Jakarta embassy staff visits to East Timor in May 1993; and why it was necessary to make two separate visits in that month. [27347]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The visits were made to attend sessions of the trial of the fretilin leader, Xanana Gusmao.

HEALTH

  NHS Staff Breaks
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that NHS staff receive statutory breaks. [25930]

  Mr. Malone
  Staff management matters, such as the observance of statutory breaks in the working day, are the responsibility of employing authorities and national health service trusts as autonomous employers. Like other employers, they are expected to observe any statutory requirements.

  GP Referrals
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on the extent of the referral of patients to accident and emergency departments by(a) fundholding practices and (b) non-fundholding practices; and what differences there are between (a) and (b) [26283]
  28
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by each NHS trust in England. [26071]

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of contracts for clinical services awarded after competitive tender by national health service trusts in England from 1 April 1993, as notified to the NHS executive's market-testing database, will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service trusts have formed commercial companies; how many trusts have set up joint businesses with private companies; what guidelines regulate such activity; and if she will make a statement. [25314]

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance to national health service trusts on the setting up of companies limited by share or guarantee is given in TEL (93)4, copies of which are available in the Library, and in the NHS trusts finance manual. We are aware that Hillingdon NHS trust has been involved in setting up a private limited company. Guidance on joint venture arrangements is given in FDL(93)3, FDL (93)33 and FDL (93)61, copies of which are available in the Library. Information on NHS trusts which have entered into joint venture arrangements is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she gives to NHS trusts concerning the advisability of purchasing without prior planning permission, property proposed to be used for medical purposes including out-patient treatment. [26954]

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance to national health service trusts about land and property matters was given in the Estatecode series, in a document entitled "Property Transactions-a Management Guide for NHS Trusts". This was distributed with EPL (94)36, and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the notional value she has assigned to the capital assets of the Newham Healthcare NHS Trust for each year since its inception, together with the related 6 per cent., or less, payment she has received; what reduction in asset value she would expect from the sale of St. Andrews hospital, Bromley-by-Bow; and what is the likely reduction such a sale would make in the annual payments mentioned above. [26383]

  Mr. Sackville
  The NHS executive has received no proposals for the sale of St. Andrews hospital, Bromley-by-Bow. The actual value of the net relevant assets which comprise the originating capital debt of the Newham Healthcare national health service trust at 1 April 1994 is given in Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 407 dated 20 February 1995 and is £37,777,298. Information on the current value of individual trust assets is not held centrally. One of the core financial duties of a trust is to make a 6 per cent. return on the average value of its net relevant assets in any year, but this is not paid to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The actual return achieved by the trust in 1994–95 will be reported in its
  29
  annual accounts for the year which will be available following audit no later than 30 September 1995.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been struck off the registers of(a) fundholding general practitioners and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners in the latest year for which figures are available. [26118]

  Mr. Malone
  Information held centrally on patients removed from general practitioner lists does not identify the fundholding status of the general practitioner.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been struck off the registers of general practitioners in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [26119]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is available centrally only for 1992–93. The number of patients removed from registers at the request of general practitioners in 1992–93 was 78,993.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were struck off general practitioners' lists in each regional health authority during the last year for which figures are available. [26107]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is available for 1992–93 and is shown in the table.

  Region

  Patients removed from GP list at request of GP

  Northern

  3,318

  Yorkshire

  7,108

  Trent

  5,608

  East Anglia

  1,827

  North West Thames

  10,508

  North East Thames

  13,916

  South East Thames

  5,689

  South West Thames

  3,463

  Wessex

  1,392

  Oxford

  2,547

  South West

  2,186

  West Midlands

  10,798

  Mersey

  4,556

  North West

  6,077

  England

  78,993

  Note:

  Patients who die, emigrate, opt to register with another GP or are transferred on resignation or death of GP are not included in the above figures.

  Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out into the effect of offering identical staff differing rates of pay, both within the same organisation and between differing organisations. [26198]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken by her Department into the effect of widening the gap between the pay of NHS managers and the pay of clinicians; what are the principal conclusions of the studies; and if she will make a statement. [26209]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Pay needs to be set at levels sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of appropriate calibre, with the right skills, and within resources available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has, within the last year, published an operational definition of serious mental illness to offer guidance to purchasers and providers on patients who should be prioritised for mental health services. [26074]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not published a prescriptive definition of severe mental illness.

  We issued for consultation in October 1994 a "Draft Guide to Arrangements for Inter-agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally Ill People". The draft guide contains a framework definition of severe mental illness on which local services can base their own more detailed operational definitions. Copies of the draft are available in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally ill people having come before a court with an offence punishable by imprisonment have been subject to a section 37 hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for each year since 1989. [26645]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of admissions to hospital under section 37 is published in the statistical bulletin "In-Patients Formally Detained in Hospitals Under The Mental Health Act 1983 and Other Legislation, England: 1987–88 to 1992–93", ISBN 1 85839 380 9. Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made as to the number of mentally ill people who are currently homeless. [26650]

  Mr. Bowis
  Homelessness legislation and criteria for rehousing are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her Department's projects aimed at promoting healthy eating indicating the cost of each project her Department. [26299]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's nutrition task force published "Eat Well!", its programme of action for achieving the diet and nutrition targets of "The Health of the Nation", in March 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. Project teams are now taking forward the priorities of the programme and responsibility for the secretariat is shared by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  The programme involves a wide range of interests—Government Departments, food producers, caterers, retailers, educators, the Health Education Authority, the national health service, health professionals' and, consumers—whose costs cannot be identified separately and not all of which fall on the Government. Direct costs to the Government are small and are not identifiable.
  The Department of Health has contributed from the section 64 general scheme to the funding of the following projects to promote healthy eating in line with the diet and nutrition targets:
  *"Get Cooking!"—£60,000 over 1992–93 and 1993–94 to the National Food Alliance—which aims to encourage children to learn basic cooking skills;
  *"Shopping for A Healthy Diet on A Low Income"—£15,000 in 1993–94 to the National Food Alliance—which produced a resource for people working with low-income families;

  31
  *"The Nutrition of Older People"—£10,000 in 1993–94 to the Caroline Walker Trust—which is aimed at producing nutritional guidelines for those providing food for older people.

  This is complemented and underpinned by the Health Education Authority's nutrition programme-£500,000 in 1995–96.

  Emergency Calls and Admissions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) emergency calls to ambulance service, (b) admissions were made to casualty departments and (c) admissions were made to hospital from casualty in total and in each region in each of the last five years. [26316]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of emergency calls to ambulance services is published annually in a booklet entitled "Patient Transport Services, Summary information from form KA34", copies of which are available in the Library. Since 1992–93, this has been recorded as the total number of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of an incident, that is, discounting abortive calls.

  Information on the number of finished consultant episodes in the speciality of accident and emergency medicine is published annually in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the estimated number of finished consultant episodes, emergency admissions from accident and emergency departments, England 1989–90 to 199394 is shown in the table:

  Regional Health Authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  101,159

  100,733

  103,912

  110,392

  113,116

  Yorkshire

  126,076

  129,280

  128,297

  143,564

  153,771

  Trent

  117,932

  126,296

  127,196

  141,947

  147,826

  East Anglian

  47,244

  43,806

  40,635

  41,665

  45,691

  North West Thames

  143,858

  139,284

  145,579

  153,433

  144,304

  North East Thames

  226,545

  224,045

  221,837

  237,882

  243,064

  South East Thames

  163,144

  161,494

  164,113

  163,048

  167,180

  South West Thames

  121,935

  124,283

  131,916

  129,729

  143,344

  Wessex

  73,248

  73,927

  65,654

  72,626

  80,244

  Oxford

  67,044

  61,184

  62,543

  61,041

  65,419

  South Western

  81,995

  85,592

  85,843

  87,596

  92,172

  West Midlands

  144,125

  150,689

  150,981

  163,616

  183,665

  Mersey

  112,182

  115,335

  141,349

  146,929

  163,780

  North Western

  183,880

  185,278

  197,107

  195,442

  203,107

  SHAs

  19,504

  14,085

  15,402

  14,189

  16,679

  England

  1,729,873

  1,735,311

  1,782,366

  1,863,100

  1,963,361

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics—estimate from 25 per cent. sample.

  Health and Social Services Care Programme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were subject to a health and social services care programme for each regional health authority for each year since 1991. [26646]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ebola Virus
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions are being held with the World Health Organisation on the subject of controlling the spread of the Ebola virus; and if she will make a statement. [26677]

  Mr. Malone
  My officials met officials from the World Health Organisation on 10 May 1995 following the first report earlier that day of the outbreak of viral haemorrhagic fever due to Ebola virus in Zaire, to obtain information about the outbreak and its extent, and the measures being taken to identify the cause and control the spread of infection. They have been in regular contact since then. The outbreak was confirmed by WHO on 11 May.

  On 11 May, the chief medical officer informed all directors of public health about the outbreak and provided extensive advice, copied to consultants in communicable disease, about Ebola virus infection and the measures required to manage any suspected cases and control the spread of infection. Information and advice was sent by the public health laboratory service on the same day to consultants in communicable disease control, regional epidemiologists and its laboratory directors.

  On 12 May, updated information and advice was sent to consultants in communicable disease and copied to port health authority medical officers and directors of public health.

  Further information and advice were distributed on 18 and 19 May. The distribution list was extended to include sea and airport authorities and infectious disease physicians. Directors of public health were asked to cascade the information to general practitioners, accident and emergency departments and nurses working in the community.

  There has been no case of Ebola virus infection in the United Kingdom since the outbreak in Zaire was reported.

  Dental Amalgam
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to dentists in the handling and use of mercury amalgam; and if this guidance has changed since 1979. [26674]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on the handling and use of dental amalgam is primarily a professional matter for dentists. Guidance on the handling and use of mercury has been given by the British Dental Association in 1989, taking account of guidance note EH 17 "Mercury and Safety Precautions", 1977, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. The COSSH document is available in the Library, and copies of guidance note EH 17 will be placed in the Library.

  Private Medical Services (Advertising)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to NHS trust managers concerning the advertisement of private hospitals and private health insurance within NHS establishments. [26678]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Professor Hudson
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who authorised the dismissal of Professor Hudson from the board of St. Bartholomew's hospital; and under what powers; [26984]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the reasons for the dismissal of Professor Hudson from the board of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [26983]

  Mr. Malone
  Professor Hudson has never been a member of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust board and therefore was not dismissed. He has attended board meetings, on an ex-officio basis, as chairman of the St. Bartholomew's medical council.

  Hospital Building Projects
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the major hospital building projects in Buckinghamshire completed since 1978–79 or now under construction or planned giving, in each case, the completion date and the amount of public money spent, expressed both in cash terms and in terms of today's prices. [26968]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Completed Schemes

  Project/scheme

  Completion date

  Cash £

  At May 1995 prices £

  Amersham—Dermatology Unit

  21st January 1994

  2,581,694

  3,013,872

  Amersham Operating Theatres

  24th June 1983

  1,333,653

  1,767,090

  Amersham Phase 1

  22nd July 1991

  6,193,487

  6,896,109

  Buckingham—Phase 1

  16th February 1990

  1,263,502

  1,488,125

  Milton Keynes DGH —End Unit

  24th September 1992

  1,202,638

  1,350,420

  Milton Keynes DgH Ml Unit

  24th November 1988

  2,495,264

  3,005,659

  Milton Keynes DGH—OPD

  13th November 1989

  3,578,463

  4,035,288

  Milton Keynes DGH —Phase 1

  12th September 1983

  15,638,544

  18,837,337

  Milton Keynes DGH—.Phase 2

  21st August 1991

  17,810,043

  20,083,666

  St. Johns EMI

  1lth March 1991

  1,816,779

  1,738,074

  Stoke Mandeville—Maternity Unit

  5th May 1991

  6,030,648

  5,769,392

  Stoke Mandeville—OPD/Hospice

  18th July 1989

  1,598,049

  1,841,230

  Stoke Mandeville—Pathology

  5th May 1989

  1,545,574

  1,820,343

  Stoke Mandeville X-ray

  10th July 1987

  1,287,006

  1,593,722

  Tindal MI Development

  7th May 1991

  3,831,237

  3,275,090

  Tweed Drive—Nursing Home

  17th November 1989

  1,224,958

  1,143,007

  Wycombe Pathology

  5th July 1985

  1,314,300

  1,698,973

  Wycombe—X-Ray Extensions and Alterations

  16th September 1994

  2,074,436

  2,400,548

  Milton Keynes—Secure Unit Phase 2

  14th February 1995

  1,918,847

  2,101,217

  Totals

  74,739,122

  83,859,162

  DGH—District General Hospital EMI—Elderly Mentally Infirm

  OPD—Out Patients Department

  MI—Mental Illness
  34

  Scheme under construction

  Project/scheme

  Forecast completion date

  Estimated public expenditure1 £

  Aylesbury Manor House Rehabilitation Unit

  30 June 1995

  1,300,000

  Planned scheme

  Project/scheme

  Forecast completion date

  Estimated public expenditure1

  Stoke Mandeville Redevelopment

  1 February 1999

  £23,560,000

  This scheme has received full business case approval and is planned to start from 2 December 1995.

  Note:

  Information is not available for schemes before 1980.

  1Includes construction costs, fees and equipment. Information is not available centrally on total costs for schemes. For example, VAT and land purchase costs are excluded.

  Secure Residential Care
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will add the police to the list of those persons the local authority must notify before a child is placed in secure residential care under the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, regulation 5. [26903]

  Mr. Bowis
  I remain to be convinced that this would be right, given that many children in secure accommodation are not offenders.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now respond to the letter of 17 March from Roger and Michelle Gould regarding the medical treatment of their son Jo, their letters of 5 April and 17 April or the letter of 3 May from the hon. Member for Lewisham, East. [26910]

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied on 24 May.

  Stillbirths and Deaths (Inquiry)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mattresses were examined in compiling the CESDI report; and how many of them had been used before. [26946]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the results of the study, undertaken on behalf of the confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy and reported recently in The Lancet, are still being analysed and the researchers do not wish to release further information until the analysis is complete.

  British Fluoridation Society
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money from public funds the British Fluoridation Society has received in each year since it was established. [26904]

  Mr. Malone
  The table gives details of public funds allocated to the British Fluoridation Society by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority since 1974. Additional funding has been provided by the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland
  35
  DHSS. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  British Fluoridation Society: Amount of public funding for the period from 1973 to 1995

  Year

  DOH £

  HEA £

  1973–74

  nil

  15,356

  1974–75

  nil

  nil

  1975–76

  4,500

  nil

  1976–77

  5,500

  nil

  1977–78

  5,500

  500

  1978–79

  5,500

  nil

  1979–80

  5,500

  nil

  1980–81

  11,000

  nil

  1981–82

  14,000

  nil

  1982–83

  15,000

  nil

  1983–84

  15,000

  nil

  1984–85

  15,000

  5,500

  1985–86

  30,000

  10,000

  1986–87

  20,000

  15,000

  1987–88

  20,000

  13,000

  1988–89

  30,000

  20,977

  1989–90

  31,000

  11,574

  1990–91

  45,784

  3,284

  1991–92

  51,491

  nil

  1992–93

  56,000

  nil

  1993–94

  62,247

  nil

  1994–95

  63,000

  nil

  Source:

  British Fluoridation Society

  DOH—Department of Health

  HEA—Health Education Authority

  Note:

  In 1987 the Health Education Council changed its name to the Health Education Authority.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which her Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing her Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if she will make a statement. [26324]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally as decisions of this kind are managed at local level.

  Health authorities follow Government procedures for the disposal of surplus land—DAO(GEN)13/92—which advise in appropriate circumstances a clawback provision allowing the authority to obtain a share of any increase in value arising from the grant of planning permission in the future.

  Health Authority Resources
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the reasons for changes she proposes in the system of weighted capitation of expenditure on purchase of health care, or treatment, by district health authorities for the year 1996–97; what options for additional sums to be paid to them have been considered; from where they will come; and by what date representations should be received concerning her proposals. [26384]
  36
  Mr. Sackville
  The principle of resource allocation to health authorities is weighted capitation and a modified formula was announced in October 1994 following a major review. The modified formula will be used as the basis of allocations to health authorities, subject to the enactment of the Health Authorities Bill, in 1996–97.

  The formula is kept under continuous review in the light of comments from health authorities and others and some possible refinements are currently under consideration. Changes to the formula are self-financing: they increase the weighted population share of some health authorities and reduce that of others.

  Staff and Patient Ratios
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average staffing ratio for patients with hospital orders for manslaughter. [26094]

  Mr. Bowls
  The information is not available centrally, but the ratio will depend on each individual unit's operational policy and may vary with the number and mix of patients in the unit.

  Fostering Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library full copies of all the responses received to the local authority social services letter (95)4. [26632]

  Mr. Bowls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 2 May, column 181. I expect to receive a summary shortly.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 22 May,Official Report, column 409 (1) if she will specify the total number of practice managers employed by general practitioner fundholders in each year between 1 April 1991 and 1995; and what was the total number of managers' support staff; [27141]

  (2) if she will give the aggregate level of general practitioner fundholders' practice managers' salaries costs which are deemed to have been unlawful between 1 April 1991 and 1995. [27142]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the annual cost of abolishing NHS charges presently made for eye and dental checks.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 March 1995, c. 49]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply.

  The annual cost at 1993–94 prices for dental examinations, assuming that the removal of the charge led to no increase in the number of dental examinations, should read approximately £60 million and not £70 million as previously quoted.

TRANSPORT

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which his Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [26323]

  Mr. Watts
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Land which has potential for development will normally be sold with the benefit of planning permission. However, there will be cases where, in the light of professional advice it is decided that there are good reasons to dispose of surplus land or property with development potential without first obtaining appropriate planning permission, for example because it would take unusually long to establish the planning position. In such cases, in accordance with Treasury guidance, my Department considers the possibility of including in the terms of conveyance a clawback clause allowing it to share in any future development gain.

  Catamaran Passenger Craft
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the evacuation times of all high-speed catamaran passenger craft operating from United Kingdom ports. [26429]

  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. Paul Flynn, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the evacuation times of all high speed catamaran passenger craft operating from United Kingdom ports.
  Evacuation times range from 9 to 16 minutes and are therefore within the maximum allowable time of 17 minutes 40 seconds as required by the Code of Safety for High Speed Craft.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led him not to publish the evacuation trials on high-speed catamaran passenger craft. [26431]

  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. Paul Flynn, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your further Question about publishing evacuation trials on high speed catamaran passenger craft.
  As part of its comprehensive approval, survey and inspection procedures, the Agency conducts or oversees a number of tests and trials to ensure that seagoing crafts of all types meet national and international safety standards, including evacuation requirements. There are no plans to publish the results of particular tests or trials, other than in the context of serious deficiencies where a ship is detained.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by the Highways Agency in reviewing the options for the Newbury bypass; what reports, including draft and preliminary reports, have been submitted by the Highways Agency to him; and when he will publish the contents of these reports. [26937]
  38
  Mr. Watts
  Substantial progress has been made by the Highways Agency in its review of this scheme. The Secretary of State has received preliminary findings on certain aspects of the review. Further work by the agency is required before its final report is submitted. For this reason, it is not appropriate to publish the preliminary papers.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research he has commissioned into the effects of converting road transport to burn biodiesel from crops; and if he will make a statement; [27091]

  (2) what research he has commissioned into the impact on atmospheric pollution of converting road vehicles to burn biodiesel from crops; and if he will make a statement. [27092]

  Mr. Norris
  In 1993, a bus run on biodiesel by Reading Buses was emissions tested by the Transport Research Laboratory. The conclusion of this work was announced in the answer by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 21 October 1993, Official Report, column 298. Biodiesel is included in the current collaborative programme of trials of a range of alternative fuels announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 March 1994, Official Report, column 9.

  Railway Equipment Breakdowns
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many breakdowns of(a) rail track, (b) signalling equipment, (c) overhead lines and (d) other equipment and infrastructure occurred of (i) a major and (ii) a minor nature on the rail network in each year since 1970. [27152]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack advises me that this information is not held centrally and that it would involve a disproportionate cost to attempt to collect it.

  Integrated Public Transport
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of expenditure on integrated public transport and road schemes in the current year, indicating its percentage of the total transport budget; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the last 10 years. [27156]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no generally accepted definition of an integrated public transport and road scheme. It is not therefore possible to provide this information in the form requested.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the level of railway investment in each EU country in the last year for which figures are available, calculated in sterling at current exchange rates; and what are those levels of railway investment per kilometre of rail track; [27155]

  (2) what was the level of railways investment per head of the population in each EU country calculated in sterling at current exchange rates, in each of the last 20 years; and if he will list these levels of investment expressed as an index where the United Kingdom rail investment equals 100. [27154]
  39
  Mr. Watts
  The information available is published in "Statistical Trends in Transport 1965–1989", prepared by the European conference of Ministers of Transport. Copies will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Pedestrian Casualties
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he will publish the Transport Research Laboratory's report on pedestrian casualty rates among children. [26763]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 1 May 1995, Official Report, column 61.

  Gliders
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of glider flights on grazing animals. [26938]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Transport Supplementary Grants
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to extend transport supplementary grant bids to expenditure on transport packages; [27193]

  (2) what progress he has made in implementing recommendation 42 of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's 18th report on transport and the environment. [27194]

  Mr. Norris
  Section 88(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 restricts the payment of transport supplementary grant in England to expenditure in connection with highways or the regulation of traffic. In order to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to switch resources between different types of expenditure, it was agreed with the local authority associations that works costing less than £2 million within transport package bids would be funded through supplementary credit approvals. The borrowing costs associated with the use of SCAs are reflected in the calculation of local authorities' entitlement to revenue support grant.

  We are still considering whether any change to the existing legislative framework, as suggested by the royal commission, is needed.

  Vehicle Owner Details
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to ensure that the tracing facility relating to the disclosure of names and addresses of vehicle owners to organisations showing good cause for disclosure is not abused; what percentage of requests for disclosure have been refused over the last year; if he will list the tracing agencies using Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data for tracing purposes; and if he will make a statement. [26410]

  Mr. Norris
  Individual written requests for personal details of vehicle keepers from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle record are vetted prior to processing. One and a half million were received during the last 12 months. Two per cent. were rejected.

  Five million requests from the police, local authorities and other approved organisations using a bulk inquiry facility were processed during the same period. These organisations, with the exception of the police, are bound
  40
  by agreements with DVLA to provide facilities to enable the agency to check that only bona fide requests are made.

  A list of organisations submitting written inquiries is not available. Arrangements have been made for a complete list of bulk inquiries to be lodged in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many disclosures of names and addresses of vehicle owners there were from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency vehicle owner indexes over the last 12 months; how many of these were made to(a) the police, (b) local authorities and (c) organisations showing good cause for disclosure; and if he will make a statement. [26409]

  Mr. Norris
  Approximately 6.5 million requests for the names and addresses of vehicle keepers were processed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency during the period April 1994 to March 1995. The majority originated from the police and local authorities. Detailed statistics are not available.

  Aircraft Emergency Medical Equipment
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the emergency medical equipment that has to be carried on all scheduled flights by British-registered aircraft. [26508]

  Mr. Norris
  The Air Navigation Order 1995 requires all UK registered aircraft to carry first aid equipment of good quality, sufficient in quantity, having regard to the number of persons on board the aircraft, and including the following:Roller bandages, triangular bandages, adhesive plaster, absorbent gauze, cotton wool (or wound dressings in place of the absorbent gauze and cotton wool), burn dressings, safety pins;
  Haemostatic bandages or tourniquets, scissors;
  Antiseptic, analgesic and stimulant drugs;
  Splints, in the case of aeroplanes the maximum total weight authorised of which exceeds 5,700 kg;
  A handbook on first aid.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the membership of the tender adjudication steering group that considered the bids for the construction of the channel rail link. [26574]

  Mr. Watts
  The steering group comprises officials from the Department of Transport and the other Government Departments concerned, together with senior representatives from the companies providing advice to the Department on the project.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the subsidy from public funds that will be required to ensure the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. [26451]

  Mr. Watts
  The precise amount of public sector support which the Government will make available for this project will depend on the outcome of the competition currently under way to select a private sector promoter. We anticipate that the contribution will be substantial.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the name of the successful bidder for the channel rail link construction contract. [26575]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government intend to make an announcement towards the end of this year.

  Motorways
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sections of motorways in each county currently have traffic levels which exceed on average 75,000 vehicles per day; and which sections of motorways in each county are expected to have such traffic levels by the year 2000. [26311]

  Mr. Watts
  The table lists the motorway sections in each county which, in 1994, has an estimated annual average daily traffic level—for both directions in total— of more than 75,000 vehicles. This information is derived from the national traffic census.

  Forecasts of traffic flows on individual sections of motorway are not made as a matter of routine.

  Motorway links with average daily traffic levels of more than 75,000 vehicles in 1994

  County1

  Road

  Start junction

  End junction

  Greater London

  M1

  4

  A411

  M25

  29

  30

  M4

  1

  4B

  A102M

  A102

  A2

  A40M

  M41

  A404

  Greater Manchester

  M6

  24

  25

  M6

  26

  27

  M62

  12

  14

  M62

  15

  M61(1)

  M62

  15

  21

  M63

  3

  4

  M63

  6

  9

  M63

  10

  A560

  M63

  12

  13

  M63

  A560

  A5145

  M56

  3

  6

  M61

  1

  2

  South Yorkshire

  M1

  31

  35A

  West Midlands

  M5

  M6(8)

  1

  M5

  1

  2

  M6

  4A

  9

  M6

  10

  10A

  A38M

  A4400

  M6(6)

  M42

  6

  7

  West Yorkshire

  M62

  25

  27

  M62

  27

  A62

  M62

  30

  31

  M621

  M62

  A62

  A58M

  A660

  A66

  Tyne and Wear

  A167M

  A186

  A187

  Avon

  M4

  19

  20

  M5

  17

  19

  M32

  1

  2

  Bedfordshire

  M1

  10

  13

  Berkshire

  M4

  4B

  6

  M4

  7

  11

  Buckinghamshire

  M1

  13

  15

  M25

  15

  17

  M40

  1A

  4

  42

  Motorway links with average daily traffic levels of more than 75,000 vehicles in 1994

  County1

  Road

  Start junction

  End junction

  Cheshire

  M6

  16

  23

  M6

  M56(9)

  20

  M62

  10

  12

  M56

  6

  7

  M56

  9

  10

  Derbyshire

  M1

  24

  26

  M1

  27

  29

  M1

  30

  31

  Essex

  M25

  25

  29

  Hampshire

  M27

  3

  4

  M27

  5

  8

  M27

  11

  12

  M27

  M275

  A27

  M3

  5

  6

  Hereford and Worchester

  M5

  4

  M42(4A)

  M5

  M42(4A)

  5

  M42

  2

  3

  Hertfordshire

  M1

  A411

  5

  M1

  9

  10

  M25

  17

  25

  Kent

  M20

  5

  6

  M25

  2

  5

  Lancashire

  M6

  30

  32

  Northamptonshire

  M1

  15

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  M1

  26

  27

  Oxfordshire

  M40

  9

  10

  Staffordshire

  M6

  10A

  16

  Surrey

  M25

  5

  15

  M23

  7

  9

  M23

  9

  10

  M3

  2

  3

  M3

  3

  4

  Warwickshire

  M6

  2

  4

  M42

  3

  3A

  M42

  5

  6

  1 Where motorway links cross county boundaries the link has been assigned to the county in which the traffic count was carried out.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons his Department will not consider installing acoustic fencing on motorways that have been completed. [26361]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 6 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for what reasons his Department will not consider installing acoustic fencing on motorways that have been completed.

  43
  As I explained in answer to your earlier question, presented in the Official Report dated 9 May, column 351, it is not the Agency's policy to apply mitigation to existing roads. The statutory duty to provide noise reduction measures applies only to those new roads or improved roads opened since 17 October 1969. Owners of residential properties in the vicinity of these trunk roads and motorways will have had the opportunity of being considered for noise insulation and of claiming compensation for consequential loss of value of their property under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  Any compensation provided under the Land Compensation Act 1973 will have taken account of the noise levels at affected properties, allowing where appropriate for the contribution of noise mitigation measures included as part of the scheme. We do not provide any further noise mitigation once compensation has been settled since this would incur double counting.
  I trust this explains the reason for it not being possible to consider installing acoustic fencing on motorways that have been completed.

  Lead Monitoring
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what continuous monitoring of blood lead levels in children is carried out by his Department; and if he will publish the reports for the last three years for which information is available. [26605]

  Mr. Norris
  Monitoring of levels of lead in children is a matter for the Department of Health. However, I understand that monitoring programmes have shown a continuing fall in blood lead levels. This is in part due to the Government's successful policy of encouraging the use of unleaded petrol.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what policy and procedure exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when his Department last updated its policy; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow—up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint; [26214]

  (2) what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in (a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26230]

  Mr. Norris
  In June 1994 the Department launched the "Serving the Public" initiative, developed in response to the citizens charter and designed to improve its service to the public when answering letters, taking telephone calls and handling complaints. Departmental standards and procedures are contained in a leaflet "Serving the Public".

  There is a target of 15 working days for responding to letters and complaints from the public. A correspondence monitoring system has been put in place across the Central Transport Group to measure performance. Results for the first quarter of 1995 show that 91.5 per cent. were answered within the 15—day target.

  The Department is also currently working on methods of monitoring telephone performance across the whole central transport group. Performance figures for 1994 show that 95 per cent. of all calls to the Department's public inquiry unit were answered within 15 seconds.
  44
  The Department has recently reviewed its complaints handling procedures and is currently finalising details to provide for independent arbitration where complainants are not satisfied with the departmental response.

  Local Road Safety Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the allocation of funding for local road safety schemes in real and constant terms for(a) 1995–96, (b)1996–97 and 1997–98. [26172]

  Mr. Norris
  Some £50 million is allocated to local safety schemes in 1995–96. This is programmed to rise to £55 million in 1996–97 and £60 million in 1997–98. Based on the latest estimate of the GDP deflator, the figures—in 1995–96 prices—amount to £50 million in 1995–96, £53.66 million in 1996–97 and £57.25 million in 1997–98.

  Angel Junction
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to release or dispose of the properties owned by his Department at 353–359 Goswell road, London EC 1. [25964]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency will shortly be commissioning a study of the Angel junction to consider modest improvements, recognising the importance of striking an appropriate balance between safety, the environment and the needs of all road users, including pedestrians.

  The results of the study will be known in about six months and a decision about the release or disposal of 353–359 Goswell road will be taken shortly afterwards. Meanwhile, steps are being taken to ensure the properties are weathertight and secure.

  Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers are available to traffic commissioners to restrict the routes and number of vehicles operating on local bus routes. [25908]

  Mr. Norris
  Powers are available to traffic commissioners under section 7 of the Transport Act 1985 whereby they may determine traffic regulation conditions to regulate, inter alia, the routes of services and to limit the number of vehicles which may be used in the provision of a local service.

  Commissioners may determine traffic regulation conditions only at the request of a traffic authority and only if satisfied that such conditions are required in order to prevent danger to road users or reduce severe traffic congestion.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the number of staff employed specifically on bus monitoring and the number of hours spent on this task for each of the last 12 months. [25909]

  Mr. Norris
  The only staff employed specifically by traffic area offices on this task are casual—often retired staff—working part time. These are used to varying degrees depending on local arrangements. Precise staff numbers and the breakdown of hours spent per month are not easily available, but the total annual number of hours by all staff, including permanent traffic area office and vehicle inspectorate staff, in 1994–95 is given.
  45

  Annual number of hours worked on bus monitoring by each traffic area

  Traffic area office

  Total number of hours 1994–95

  North Eastern (Leeds)

  740

  North Western (Manchester

  525

  West Midland (Birmingham)

  900

  Eastern (Cambridge)

  257

  South Wales (Cardiff)

  840

  Western (Bristol)

  398

  South Eastern & Metropolitan (Eastbourne)

  0

  Scottish (Edinburgh)

  936

  Total

  4,596

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action(a) his Department and (b) the north-eastern traffic commissioner have taken in respect of predatory behaviour by bus companies in Darlington. [25910]

  Mr. Norris
  It is not for the Department to take action in respect of predatory behaviour by bus companies. Anti-competitive conduct is a matter for the competition authorities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the penalties available to traffic commissioners for dealing with public service vehicle operators who fail to operate local bus services in a proper manner. [25913]

  Mr. Norris
  The penalties are set out in sections 26 and 111 of the Transport Act 1985. In summary, they are as follows:A traffic commissioner may attach to the operator's licence a condition prohibiting the operator from using vehicles under the licence to provide any local service of a description specified in the condition or one prohibiting him from so using vehicles to provide local services of any description.
  A traffic commissioner may make a determination that an operator has failed to operate a local service as registered and notify the Secretary of State accordingly. The Secretary of State will then reduce by 20 per cent. any fuel duty rebate payable to the operator for the previous 3 months in respect of all his local service operations.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area for each of the last five years the number of staff employed in sections dealing with the registration of local bus services and public service vehicle operator licensing. [25914]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of staff years in each of the last five years were:

  Traffic Area Office: Staff working in PSV and bus registration sections

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North Eastern (Newcastle)

  1.20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Eastern (Leeds)

  7.90

  8.36

  9.74

  9.71

  8.20

  North Western (Manchester)

  8.50

  9.78

  11.14

  10.54

  10.80

  West Midlands (Birmingham)

  5.20

  5.21

  5.79

  5.38

  4.68

  Eastern (Nottingham)

  3.60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern (Cambridge)

  4.10

  6.80

  5.99

  4.58

  4.86

  South Wales (Cardiff)

  3.60

  3.82

  4.82

  4.63

  3.61

  Western (Bristol)

  5.50

  7.84

  8.19

  7.30

  7.01

  Metropolitan (London)

  4.90

  0.31

  —

  —

  —

  46

  Traffic Area Office: Staff working in PSV and bus registration sections

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  South Eastern and Metropolitan (Eastbourne)

  3.40

  6.11

  5.56

  5.93

  5.71

  Scottish (Edinburgh)

  7.50

  8.39

  9.15

  9.04

  8.52

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent by his Department publicising the fact that members of the public can complain to traffic commissioners regarding the operation of local bus services. [25915]

  Mr. Norris
  No specific funds are allocated for this purpose.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra resources have been provided in the traffic area offices to deal with the new regulations relating to the registration of local bus services; and what assessment he has made of the additional resources required. [25917]

  Mr. Norris
  No additional resources have been provided to traffic area offices. The Department's assessment is that the resources currently available will be sufficient to deal with enforcement of the new regulations.

  Traffic Regulation Conditions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office for each of the last five years the traffic regulation conditions imposed by traffic commissioners indicating the reasons for their imposition. [25916]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Traffic regulation conditions imposed since 1990

  Traffic area

  Locality

  Reasons

  1990

  NWTA

  Oldham Severe roads in Shaw

  Danger to the public

  1991

  NWTA

  Traffod Ayres Road and Henrietta St Restricted size of vehicle to no more than 7.04 m in length and 2.21 m in width

  Severe congestion and danger to the public

  1992

  NWTA

  Bolton Glengarth Drive

  Severe congestion and danger to the public

  NETA

  Sheffield Various central streets and part of Ecclesall Rd

  Severe congestion

  NETA

  Barnsley Kendray St and Pontefract Rd

  Severe congestion

  1993

  SCOTTA

  Edinburgh St. Andrew's, Sq, South St. Davids St and York Place Waiting times at bus stops controlled

  Severe congestion

  47

  Traffic regulation conditions imposed since 1990

  Traffic area

  Locality

  Reasons

  NWTA

  Liverpool Sir Thomas St (part), Victoria St (part)Whitechapel, Crosshall St, Hood St, Roe St Brythen St, Dawson St ie area known locally as the Gyratory

  Danger to the public and severe congestion

  1994

  NETA

  Sheffield Church St and part of High Street No new registrations will be accepted on this route

  severe congestion

  WMTA

  Birmingham Priory Queensway, Corporation St, Lower New St, St. Martins Circus, Hill St, Paradise St, Dale End, Upper Bull Street Waiting times at bus stops controlled

  severe congestion

  1995

  NWTA

  Manchester Wilmslow Road between Willowbank and Old Hall Lane, Fallowfield Waiting times at bus stops controlled and use of bus stops restricted to buses on specified services

  severe congestion

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what changes there have been in the number of staff employed by grade in(a) his Department and (b) each agency for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96; [25556]

  (2) what changes there have been in the number staff in employment by grade in (a) his Department and (b) each agency for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25631]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of staff—permanent and casual—employed by my Department, and each of its executive agencies, in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many posts were lost in(a) the Department of Transport and (b) agencies for which the Department of Transport is responsible, listing the total lost posts by agency in (i) 1993–94 (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected posts lost for 1995–96. [25070]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not keep a central record of posts. The number of staff employed by my Department and each of its executive agencies in 1993–94, the projected outturn for 1994ߝ95 and the plan for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the evacuation exercise conducted by Sally Line in Ramsgate seven years ago; and what lessons may be drawn from that exercise for plans for evacuation of ferries operating from United Kingdom ports. [24921]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]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. Paul Flynn dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the evacuation exercise conducted by Sally Line in Ramsgate seven years ago.
  A ferry exercise "FEREX '86" was carried out from the Sally Line ferry, "THE VIKING", one mile off Broadstairs in January 1986. The exercise was arranged by the RNLI in co-operation with the Sally-Line, the Director of Naval Operations and Trade, Royal Marines Deal, RAF Manston and HMCG Dover. All agreed that FEREX '86 proved to be a most useful exercise. As a result of this operation, which was the first of its kind in UK waters, similar exercises have been conducted since, whenever the opportunity has arisen.

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25650]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Department

  Agencies

  1993–94

  23,016,700

  11,200,800

  1994–95

  20,956,100

  18,093,100

  1995–962

  20,000,000

  10,000,000

  1 The Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency and Coastguard agency were formed 1 April 1994. Figures for these three agencies move from the Departmental figure to the agencies figure in the year 1994–95. The totals exclude expenditure by the Highways Agency on road schemes.

  2 Estimated.

  Bilateral Air Service Agreements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will undertake to impose a veto on any attempt by the European Commission to extend its authority in the field of civil aviation to include negotiations with the United States and other countries on landing rights or any other matter which is now dealt with by him direct with the countries concerned. [25380]

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Government's policy that member states should remain free to negotiate bilateral air service agreements, except in those cases, for example with Switzerland, where a mandate has been agreed in the Council of Ministers.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to check that the engine capacity registered for fishing vessels is accurate; whether torque meters are used to check reported capacity; and what checks are made with the engine manufacturers. [25386]
  49
  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. Austin Mitchell, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the steps taken to check that the engine capacity of fishing vessels is recorded accurately. In view of the reference to torque meters I have assumed that the Question refers to engine power rather than capacity.
  Vessels to be placed on the United Kingdom Register are subject to survey by a Marine Safety Agency Surveyor, or a Surveyor of one of the Classification Societies acting on behalf of the MSA. He must ensure that the information being recorded accurately reflects that vessel, since the information will subsequently be forwarded to the Registry.
  The power of the engine is normally furnished by the shipbuilder who should be in possession of the engine test-bed specification as provided by the engine manufacturer. Where there are serious grounds for concern that the recorded details of engine power may no longer be accurate, then a further survey will be required to ascertain that the details are indeed correct.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of houses owned by his Department that have been empty for(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months; and what action his Department is taking to reduce the numbers. [25858]

  Mr. Watts
  As at the end of April 1995, my Department held 324 dwellings which had been standing empty for more than six months and a further 504 had been standing empty for more than 12 months.

  Regular monitoring of the situation on empty dwellings takes place to try and ensure that tenants are found as quickly as possible for those dwellings which are vacant but lettable. We also constantly monitor all the properties in our portfolio so as to identify at the earliest possible opportunity those which are required for road schemes and therefore need to be demolished and those which can be declared surplus and sold. As at the end of April, of the 828 dwellings identified above, 250 were vacant because they were either awaiting sale or demolition.

  M4
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the September 1993 plans for M4 improvements to junction 4B-8/9 were most recently updated; and if he will place copies of the updated plans in the Library. [25995]

  Mr. Norris
  The Highways Agency held public consultation in October 1993 about proposals for increasing capacity in this corridor. The responses to the consultation are still being considered in preparation for a decision by the Secretary of State on the preferred option. There has been no revision of the proposals since consultation.

  Railways Investment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the levels of investment in the rail network, excluding channel tunnel and European passenger services, for each year since 1970, expressed at constant 1995 prices. [27153]
  50
  Mr. Watts
  The information, expressed in 1994–95 prices, is as follows:

  Year

  Investment £million

  1970

  702

  1971

  746

  1972

  775

  1973

  777

  1974

  839

  1975

  969

  1976

  946

  1977

  937

  1978

  941

  1979

  967

  1980

  951

  1981

  810

  1982

  695

  1983

  767

  1984–851

  786

  1985–86

  855

  1986–87

  819

  1987–88

  993

  1988–89

  970

  1989–90

  1,085

  1990–91

  1,009

  1991–92

  1,059

  1992–93

  1,004

  1993–94

  663

  1 15-month year due to an accounting change from calendar years to financial years.

  M66
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 2, if the M66 has lighting along its entire length. [26370]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 6 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May, Official Report, column 2, if the M66 has lighting along its entire length.
  The M66 is a dual 2 lane (and in places dual 3 lane) motorway and 14 of its 16 miles are lit.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the recently acquired Churchill papers are insured against fire or other loss. [26366]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Sir Winston Churchill archive trust, the new owners of the papers which are housed at Churchill college, Cambridge. I understand the trustees will be meeting shortly to consider, among other things, arrangements for insurance of the papers.
  51
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 647, on the cataloguing of the Churchill archive, if he will estimate the number of items and the percentage of the collection that are state papers. [26965]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The state papers in the Churchill archive are, in the main, those listed in the classes shown as "Official" in the outline catalogue which is available at Churchill college, Cambridge and at the national register of archives, Chancery lane. When the detailed catalogue, to which I referred in my rely to the hon. Member on 24 May is available it will be possible to say precisely how many items these classes comprise.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who initiated the negotiations for the sale of Winston Churchill's private papers to the national heritage memorial fund. [26866]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Cambridge university and Churchill college, Cambridge submitted a lottery application to fund the purchase of the non-state papers. The papers are now the property of the Sir Winston Churchill archive trust, which was specially constituted for the purpose.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which his Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [26320]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since its inception in 1992, neither my Department nor its agencies have been involved in the sale of any surplus land or property.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria will be used to allocate the additional channels which will become available in 1997 with the introduction of digital terrestrial television. [26576]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are considering their policy for the introduction of digital broadcasting, including licensing and ownership questions, and will later this summer be issuing a policy document setting out their proposals.

  West Midlands Arts Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funding the west midlands arts council has received in each of the last five years. [25254]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Central Government funding for the regional arts boards is delivered through three non-departmental public bodies: the Arts Council of England, the British Film Institute, and the Crafts Council. The funding from each of these bodies for the West Midlands arts board in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Ace

  BFI

  Craft Council

  1990–91

  2,811,908

  109,250

  49,000

  1991–92

  3,161,366

  127,444

  55,500

  52

  Ace

  BFI

  Crafts Council

  1992–93

  13,644,064

  130,970

  64,900

  1993–94

  3,878,697

  112,292

  67,200

  1994–95

  25,588,887

  130,970

  73,000

  1This figure includes £95,000 as a result of the delegation of funding responsibility to West Midlands Arts Board for clients from the Arts Council.

  2 This figure includes £1.6 million as a result of the delegation of funding responsibility to West Midlands Arts Board for four theatres in the region from the Arts Council.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's current expenditure devoted to the preservation of archaeological sites. [25251]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Setting aside expenditure on properties which are the direct responsibility of my Department and its sponsored bodies, and which will include sites of archaeological importance, my Department's resources for the preservation of archaeological sites are channelled primarily through English Heritage. In 1994–95, English Heritage spent £2.6 million on grants to owners for the preservation, maintenance and management of ancient monuments and £8 million on archaeological investigations, including excavation and preservation by record.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many archaeological sites known to his Department have been(a) listed and (b) not listed by his Department. [25250]

  Mr. Dorrell
  At the end of April 1995, there were 15,489 entries on the schedule of ancient monuments, representing some 22,250 individual sites. There are about 500,000 archaeological sites in England, but of these less than 10 per cent. are likely to be of national importance and therefore eligible for consideration for scheduling.

  Theatre Admissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with theatre production promoters to encourage admission for people on low incomes. [25252]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This subject comes up regularly in discussions with a wide variety of interlocutors. My Department, the Arts Council and regional arts boards attach a high priority to encouraging the widest possible access to the arts. To that end, the council and RABs pay particular attention to the access policies, including seat pricing arrangements, of the performing arts organisations which they support.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, how Channel 4 can use or dispose of Channel 4 surpluses. [26445]

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for Channel 4 to determine how it uses or disposes of its surpluses, within the terms of its remit set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its licence conditions established by the Independent Television Commission.
  53
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if Channel 3 bidders indicated the expected levels of money transfers to or from Channel 4. [26443]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The business plans of the Channel 3 bidders are confidential to the Independent Television Commission, which was responsible for awarding the Channel 3 licences.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if Channel 4 is treated by his Department as a nationalised business. [26446]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Channel 4 became a self-governing statutory corporation on 1 January 1993, under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Community Television
  Mr. Barry Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to assist the development of local community television services. [26536]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 increased the scope for broadcasting in the UK, including opportunities for local television services delivered by cable. The introduction of digital terrestrial television services may open up further prospects. The Government intend to publish proposals for digital broadcasting this summer.

  Television Productions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was earned in exports of television productions in the last year for which figures are available. [25257]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data published by the Central Statistical Office for 1993, the latest year for which figures are available, show the overseas earnings of UK television companies as totalling £113 million. Total earnings will have been higher than this, because some of the record £236 million overseas earnings of the UK film industry for transmission rights, royalties and sales will have been generated by their television productions, but this component is not separately identifiable.

  BBC
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage by what mechanisms the BBC is accountable to Government in relation to the economy and efficiency of its expenditure. [25256]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for ensuring economy and efficiency falls ultimately on the BBC's governors, who are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The BBC is required by its royal charter to lay its annual report and accounts before Parliament.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received relating to reductions in the BBC's output. [25255]

  Mr. Dorrell
  We regularly receive representations about the changes to the BBC's programmes and services.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement concerning 54
  the distribution of national lottery funds to voluntary organisations in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland. [23344]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: The following voluntary organisations have received awards from national lottery proceeds in Strathclyde:

  Voluntary organizations

  £

  Strathclyde

  Tobermory Centre, Island of Mull

  85,000

  Hopscotch Theatre Company, Glasgow

  20,358

  Four Acres Charitable Trust, Glasgow

  9,500

  The Arts is Magic, Glasgow

  7,000

  Bellshill and Mossend YMCA, Bellshill

  37,000

  Ardrossan Academicals Rugby Football Club, Ardrossan

  24,000

  Scotland

  Grampian Arts Hospital Trust, Elgin

  14,200

  The Saltire Society, Edinburgh

  12,095

  Plockton Village Hall, Kyle of Lochalsh

  62,435

  Melvin Hall Management Committee, Tarves

  7,965

  Haddo Arts Trust, Aberdeen

  28,955

  Orkney Camarata, Orkney

  6,000

  Pitlochry Festival Theatre, Pitlochry

  7,500

  MacRobert Arts Centre, Stirling

  9,000

  Dance Base Ltd., Edinburgh

  3,875

  Deeside Gliding Club, Aboyne

  49,800

  Loch Ness and Highland Horizons, Inverness

  760,000

  Northern Sports Development Trust, Shetland

  45,000

  Priestfield Tennis and Sports Association, Edinburgh

  24,700

  Jed Forest Rugby Football Club, Jedburgh

  37,700

  Cononbridge and Maryburgh Bowling Club, Ross and Cromarty

  28,300

  Highland Gliding Club, Elgin

  22,000

  Deeside All Weather Training Area, Banchory

  40,000

  Findhorn Bowling and Tennis Club, Morayshire

  10,700

  Stewarty Unit 558 Sea Cadet Corps, Kirkcudbright

  4,500

  West Linton Tennis Club, West Lothian

  29,900

  Corstorphine Lawn Tennis Club, Edinburgh

  27,800

  Hawick Bowling Club, Hawick

  26,600

  Loch Tay Racing Club, Kenmore

  16,000

  West Calder Bowling Club, West Lothian

  9,606

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Contingency Budget
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the size of the Overseas Development Administration's contingency budget for each of the last five years. [25733]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  1991–92: £70 million

  1992–93: £70 million

  1993–94: £70 million

  1994–95: £75 million

  1995–96: £68 million

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the ODA's contingency budget was drawn on in 1994–95; and for what purpose. [25737]

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA's contingency budget was drawn on 29 times in 1994–95. It was used for the following purposes:
  55

  Aid Programme Contingency Reserve Allocations: 1994–95

  Approved claims

  Amount £000

  European Investment Bank (EIB) loan defaults: 7 claims

  829

  Food Aid

  Rwanda

  1,250

  Malawi

  1,440

  Rwanda: (4 claims)

  20,000

  Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC): to cover cost of interest payments pending an amendment to the CDC Act permitting the waiving of interest charges

  5,860

  Financial support for the newly formed Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF)

  30

  Mozambique-Matola Jetties

  2,250

  Turks and Caicos Islands: environmental and infrastructure improvements

  250

  Further work on Economic and Social Research

  300

  Macedonia balance of payments support

  2,000

  Commonwealth of Learning

  300

  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): UK contribution to Capacity 21

  647

  United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA): further support for population projects

  1,500

  Skillshare Africa

  65

  Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC): increased contribution due to progress on reforms

  400

  Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD): finance participation of indigenous people in CSD meetings

  20

  British Council: to cover in-year Overseas Price Movements (OPM)

  733

  Bosnia

  20,000

  Evaluation

  150

  Total approved

  58,024

  Disaster Relief: funds earmarked at start of FY

  12,000

  Balance of Contingency Reserve at end of FY

  4,976

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all projects to be visited by the Minister for Overseas Development in Indonesia. [26789]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited the following projects:

  Active Learning and Professional Support project

  Kampung Improvement project

  Flight simulator project

  Samarinda Combined Cycle Power Plant project

  Tropical Forestry Management project

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development will be visiting Indonesia; what plans the Minister has to sign a concessional loan agreement and for what amount; what projects are to be funded by it; and which British-funded aid projects the Minister will visit. [26764]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited Indonesia from 22 to 26 May. She visited the following British funded aid projects:

  Active Learning and Professional Support project

  Flight Simulator project

  Samarinda Combined Cycle Power Plant project

  Tropical Forestry Management project

  56
  My right hon. and noble Friend signed a new concessional loan arrangement for £80 million. Projects to be funded under this arrangement are to be identified.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 289–94, if he will list ATP agreements with Indonesia, concluded in 1993 and 1994, in each case specifying the same detail as in his answer and details of the Indonesian Government Departments or other Indonesian body responsible for overseeing each project. [26776]

  Mr. Baldry
  Concessional lending arrangements for £65 million and £80 million were signed in April 1993 and April 1994 respectively. There were no specific ATP project agreements concluded with the Government of Indonesia in 1993 and 1994.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 289, if he will list in respect of each ATP project in Indonesia since 1980 the Indonesian Government Department or other Indonesian body responsible for overseeing the project. [26775]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives the Indonesia Government Department or the Indonesian body responsible for each project listed in my answer of 8 February.

  Project

  Department or body responsible

  Mrica Hydro Project

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Jambu Aye Dam Study

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Ombilin Coal Mine

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  AIS Submarine Cable

  Ministry of Tourism Post and Telecomms

  Education Equipment Study

  Directorate General of Higher Education

  Jabatobek Railway Study

  Ministry of Communication

  Bengkulu Oil Palm Study

  Ministry of Agriculture

  Isolated Diesels

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Bukit Asam Rail Bridges

  Ministry of Communications

  Offshore Supply Vessels

  Ministry of Communications

  Ombilin Coal Mine Training

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Jabatobed Feasibility Study

  Ministry of Communications

  Railway Track Turnouts

  Ministry of Communications

  Steel Bridging

  Ministry of Public Works (Bina Marga)

  Navigational Aids

  Directorate General of Sea Communications

  Coal Fired Power Station Training

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Marine Diesel Engines

  Ministry of Communications

  Batam Island Power Develop. Study

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Bandung TV Studios

  Directorate General of Radio, TV and Film

  Radio Studios Rehab (ATP/TC)

  Ministry of Information (DEPPEN)

  Cigading Port

  Pt Krakatau Steel

  Radio Studios (ATP/TC)

  Ministry of Information (DEPPEN)

  Satellite Remote Sensing

  Ministry of Tourism, Posts and Telecomms

  Scattered Diesels

  PLN (Indonesian Electricity Authority)

  Ombilin Coal Mine I

  Ministry of Mines and Energy

  Citayam/Cibinong Railway

  Indonesian State Railway

  Cigading/Serpong Railway

  Indonesian State Railways

  Forestry Radios

  Ministry of Forestry

  Radio Studios Rehabilitation

  Ministry of Information (DEPPEN)

  57

  Project

  Department or body responsible

  Shortwave radio Transmitters

  Ministry of Information (DEPPEN)

  Flight Simulator Consultancy

  MERPATI Airlines via Directorate General of Air Communications

  Western Universities Equipment

  Directorate General of Higher Education

  Bali/Medan Airport Security

  Directorate General of Air Communications

  Jambi Power Station

  PLN (Indonesian Electricity Authority)

  Flight Simulator

  MERPATI Airlines—via Direcorate General of Air Communications

  Steel Bridging II

  Ministry of Public Works (Bina Marga)

  Toll Road (ATPITC)

  Pt Jas Marga—the Toll Road Authority of the Government of Indonesia

  Automotive Industry Study

  Ministry of Industry

  Western Universities Training

  Directorate General of Higher

  Centre

  Education

  Flight Simulator Consultancy

  MERPATI Airlines—via Directorate General of Air Communications

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 545, whether the consultancy unit established by the Indonesian national police with the help of the Overseas Development Administration's police management training project is available to advise and assist the East Timorese police authorities if required. [26777]

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, in respect of the Cikampek-Padalarang toll road project agreed with Indonesia in 1991, what was the purpose of the project, the nature of the work involved in it and the equipment supplied under the project; which Indonesian companies were involved in the project; what proportion of the funding for the project related to technical co-operation; what was the nature of that technical co-operation; and who will operate the completed toll road and receive the tolls. [27353]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have agreed to provide a total of £16.85 million towards the cost of designing and constructing a toll road from Cikampek to Padalarang in Indonesia. Of this, £4.7 million has been provided from technical co-operation funds. It was spent on surveys, detailed design and geological investigations. The remainder will be provided as a mixed credit towards the cost of construction. Road construction is expected to start later this year. The Indonesian companies involved are PT Jasa Marga—the Indonesian Highways Corporation—and PT Citra Lamtoro Gung Persada. The toll road will be operated by a joint venture comprising these two companies and Trafalgar House Construction Ltd. to be known as PT Citra Granesha Marga Nusantara. This company will receive the tolls.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, what was the nature of the equipment supplied under the Bali and Medan airport security aid and trade provision project
  58
  concluded with Indonesia in 1991; to whom the equipment was supplied and what security function it fulfils. [27351]

  Mr. Baldry
  This project provided the directorate general of air communications with security and communications equipment and an associated training programme.

  The purpose of the project was to reduce security risks to civil aviation in Indonesia, and so to help promote the tourist industry.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, what is the nature of the equipment supplied under the navigational aids aid and trade provision project concluded with Indonesia in 1987; what are the functions of the equipment; to whom it was supplied; and for what purpose it is being used. [27349]

  Mr. Baldry
  Equipment funded under this project was supplied to the directorate general of communications. It consisted of lighthouses, lightbeacons and lightbuoys to improve safety for shipping through the islands of Indonesia as well as to extend the number of routes which could be used safely.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, what is the nature of the equipment supplied under the satellite remote sensing aid and trade provision project concluded with Indonesia in 1989; what are the functions of the equipment; to whom it was supplied; and for what purpose it is being used. [27352]

  Mr. Baldry
  These funds part financed a seminar describing the applications of satellite remote sensing technology relevant to the requirements of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry. The technology was being considered for use in the detection and monitoring of forest hazards.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid the Government expect to pledge to Indonesia at the forthcoming consultative group on Indonesia meeting in July; and if the Government will raise with the representatives of the Government of Indonesia at that meeting the issue of human rights and of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. [27348]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently considering the size of the aid pledge we will announce at the consultative group in mid-July. It is expected to be about the same level as in 1994.

  Human rights and East Timor are not on the agenda for the consultative group, but we shall continue to raise these issues in our frequent bilateral contacts with the Indonesian Government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, what was the nature of the equipment supplied under the isolated diesels and scattered diesels aid and trade provision projects concluded with Indonesia in (a) 1985 and (b) 1989; what were the functions of the equipment; to whom it was supplied; and for what purpose it is being used. [27350]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1985 isolated diesel project consisted of the supply of 45 diesel generating sets each with a
  59
  capacity of between 5 and 6 mW. These were used to expand the generating capacity at 14 sites serving small urban centres in Indonesia.

  The 1989 scattered diesels project supplied six 2.5 mW diesel generating sets to increase capacity at three sites. Both projects were implemented by the Indonesian State Electricity Authority.

  Desertification
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take to combat desertification in third world countries; and if he will allocate funds as part of the Overseas Development Administration's budget to such countries. [26642]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are providing significant resources through the aid programme to assist developing countries affected by desertification. We have signed the desertification convention and shall ratify it in due course.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what total funds from the Government have been(a) pledged and (b) disbursed to the 1995 United Nations consolidated inter-agency appeal for Angola; and if he will make a statement. [26772]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have pledged £5 million in response to the 1995 appeal, of which some £2.5 million has been disbursed. We are supporting UN agencies and NGOs with assistance for seeds and tools, demining, primary health, relief supplies and logistics.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds the Government have(a) pledged and (b) disbursed in support of demining in Angola in each of the last three years. [26774]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Pledged£

  Disbursed£

  1993–94

  0

  0

  1994–95

  1,955,068

  1,851,498

  1995–96

  0

  0

  World Bank
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom has contributed bilaterally and within the European Union to the World bank debt reduction facility for each year since it was first implemented. [26869]

  Mr. Baldry
  The IDA debt reduction facility was established in 1989, with funding from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development's net income, to assist low-income countries in reducing or restructuring their commercial debts. To date, the United Kingdom has supported only one operation bilaterally, Sierra Leone, with a contribution of £3 million earlier this year. The EC contributed £4 million to the Uganda operation completed in February 1993; and is planning a contribution towards the Sierra Leone operation.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of British jobs in the United Kingdom and abroad, which have been secured as a result of ODA-funded projects in the most recent period for which figures are available. [23925]

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 May, c. 397]: The reply should have read:
  "An indirect benefit of aid and the economic development that this promotes is indeed that jobs can be created in this country and abroad but there is no ready means of assessing how many or at what cost."

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accounting Procedures
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to simplify companies' statutory accounting procedures. [27003]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As part of the deregulation initiative we have looked hard at the accounting requirements in the Companies Act 1985. We have been helped by all the suggestions that we have received from business and others about areas where compliance is particularly difficult or expensive.

  We published a consultative document on 31 May seeking views on what needs to be changed. The document contains:
  50 proposals for simplification of specific Companies Act accounting disclosure requirements.
  A proposal to increase by up to 50 per cent. the financial ceilings which govern whether companies are small or medium-sized for accounting purposes.
  An invitation to contribute views on the level of accounting disclosure required for small companies. In particular:

  (i) could the amount of information in small companies' accounts be reduced further while still satisfying the needs of users?

  (ii) should shareholders in certain companies be allowed to opt out of receiving copies of statutory accounts?

  (iii) should the level of detail in published accounts (the ones sent to Companies House) be changed?

  (iv) should accounts have to be published?

  (v) should there be further concessions for accounts of dormant companies?

  (vi) is the volume of accounting concessions confusing?

  (vii) should there be a standard format in which to give accounting information to Companies House and the Inland Revenue?

  (viii) what should such a standard format be?

  (ix) comments on the costs of preparing statutory accounts and on any potential cost savings;

  (x) any other suggestions for reform.

  This consultation provides an opportunity to influence the Government's thinking on how best to minimise the burden of accounting disclosure on companies, while at the same time ensuring that the information provided meets the reasonable needs of users of accounts, such as shareholders, banks, the Inland Revenue, creditors and others dealing with the company.

  The consultative document has been placed in the Library of the Houses. Replies are invited by 4 September.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Patent Office executive agency for 1995–96. [27004]

  Mr. Heseltine
  In the light of the announcement I made on 14 December 1994,Official Report, column 305, on the outcome of the review into the future options for my Department's Patent Office, I have set it the targets listed below for 1995–96. These are designed to encourage the Patent Office to contract out activities wherever this is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money as a means of continuing to improve efficiency and quality of service to its users.

  Efficiency

  To increase output in relation to total staff numbers by 2 per cent.

  To increase output in relation to total staff costs by 2 per cent.

  To increase output in relation to current expenditure by 2 per cent.

  Quality of Service

  To issue patent search reports within 12 weeks of receipt of a request in the Patent Office.

  To issue patent examination reports within 18 months of publication.

  To confirm payment of patent renewal fees within 7 working days of receipt in the Patent Office.

  To issue initial search and examination reports on design application within 12 weeks of receipt of request.

  To confirm payment of design registration renewal fees within 7 working days of receipt in the Patent Office.

  To issue trade mark examination reports within 2 months of data capture in the Patent Office.

  To advertise within 7 months of examination trade mark applications which attract no substantive objection at the examination stage.

  To register within 4 months of advertisement trade mark applications which are not formally opposed.

  The Patent Office's steering board will monitor performance against these targets and, in relation to those dealing with quality of service, will establish performance indicators aimed at incremental improvement on current standards.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the Patent Office to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Power Generation Schemes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those applications for power generation schemes under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 that were considered by a public inquiry, the date his Department referred them to an inquiry and the date on which his Department announced its decision. [27319]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Public inquiries under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

  Station

  Referred

  Decision

  Hinkley Point C

  21 March 1988

  6 September 1990

  Didcot B

  6 September 1991

  23 September 1993

  Ryedale

  13 September 1991

  25 March 1993

  Staythorpe C

  29 October 1991

  26 May 1993

  Belvedere

  30 June 1992

  12 April 1994

  Attack Helicopters
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the benefits to British industry for those British firms winning contracts to supply attack helicopters to the British Army. [26298]

  Mr. Eggar
  The assessment of the criteria for the British Army attack helicopter competition, of which proposals for United Kingdom industrial participation is one, is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, which is running the competition. However, my Department has received briefings from the UK prime contractors bidding for the contract, as well as from the Ministry of Defence. My Department is studying this information and is contributing to the decision-making process.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which his Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [26322]

  Mr. Heseltine
  None, because it has not, so far, been appropriate. My Department does keep the possibility in mind.

  Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy and procedure exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when his Department last updated its policy; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26215]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  All DTI executive agencies and management units which have significant contact with members of the public and businesses have published charter standard statements which underpin their service delivery. Charter standard statements, which include details of the complaints procedures in place and the steps which should be taken in pursing a complaint, have been produced by the following:

  Companies House

  The Insolvency Service

  Patent Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Overseas Trade Services

  In addition, certain DTI agencies and management units are signatories to the code for enforcement agencies which brings together both deregulation and citizen's charter principles. Under the code the following have established complaints procedures in line with the charter.

  Engineering Inspectorate

  Export Control Organisation

  Gas Examiners, Gas Meter Examiners

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Details of the complaints procedures contained in the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Steel Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of employment in the steel industry in each of the last three years. [26391]
  63
  Mr. Eggar
  The level of employment in the steel industry in each of the last three years was:

  Thousand

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of employees

  41.2

  39.7

  38.1

  Source:

  ISSB

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on the levels of overtime currently being worked in the special steel industry at the present time. [26393]

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Newsagents' Carriage Charges
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the principle of newsagents' carriage charges to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement. [26512]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading who, under the competition legislation, is responsible for keeping markets under review, and has independent powers to make a reference to the MMC.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last visited Yorkshire to discuss defence diversification; and if he will make a statement. [25099]

  Mr. Eggar
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have visited Yorkshire for the purpose of discussing defence diversification. It is a matter for companies to decide whether, and into which markets, they should diversify. However, my Department monitors how the defence industry is responding to the defence downturn and has produced a manual, "Changing Tack: New Perspectives for Defence Suppliers", which provides guidance and advice on diversification. It is also participating in a NATO advanced studies institute on defence diversification which will be held in Scotland this July and has contributed £5,662 in support of costs. Some companies are eligible for assistance to help them adjust to changing markets, through non-sector specific UK schemes and some projects may qualify for European Community funding through the KONVER scheme.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were in(a) Lancashire and (b) England in 1994 and at the current date. [26730]

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of Crown post offices in(a) Lancashire and (b) England as at 1 April 1994 and 1995 is as follows:

  Lancashire

  England

  1 April 1994

  13

  677

  1 April 1995

  11

  592

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number, grade and destination of civil servants in his Department who have been seconded to manufacturing industry in each year since 1992. [26573]

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of DTI staff who were on long-term secondment to business organisations, including manufacturing industry, in each calendar year since 1992 is as follows:

  1993: 54

  1994: 53

  1995: 41 (to date)

  Additional details on each of these secondments cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Council
  Llewellyn Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were discussed, what matters were decided, and what votes were taken at the Energy Council meeting on 1 June. [26698]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council considered several issues and received reports from the Commission on matters of interest. I represented the United Kingdom. Progress was made in a number of areas. In particular, the Council reached a common position on both the guidelines and the favourable context decisions in respect of trans-European energy networks.

  I expressed concern at the lack of progress made on the proposals to liberalise the electricity market, which had been under discussion for over two years. I also stressed the UK's commitment to opening up the energy markets and emphasised the importance of access to networks and of allowing distributors, as well as large industrial users, to choose suppliers. Satisfactory conclusions were agreed which noted the result of the Commission study, produced at the request of the November 1994 Energy Council, which sets the conditions to be met by the single buyer approach before it could be regarded as being equivalent to negotiated third party access. The conclusions acknowledged that agreement had been reached on a number of these conditions, notably on the need for authorisation of independent power producers outside the tendering procedure, but a number of issues remained to be discussed, including the definition of independent power producers and the definition of consumers eligible to seek alternative supplies. The conclusions also set the agenda for the continuing work on this dossier during the Spanish presidency with the aim of reaching a common position by the end of the year.

  The Council also reached agreement on a resolution on the Green Paper on energy policy, which is intended to help steer the Commission in its preparation of a White Paper expected later in the year. The resolution identified observations and principles to be taken into account in the consideration of energy policy including competitiveness, security of supply and the environment. I stressed the need for completion of the internal energy market as the most important aspect of energy policy at European level.

  The Council held a discussion on THERMIE II programme on the basis of a presidency compromise proposal. I expressed strong misgivings the UK had about the proposal, but offered to consider a programme limited to dissemination. Discussion will continue in the working group.
  65
  The Commission gave an oral report on the progress of the proposed directive on energy efficiency requirements for fridges and freezers, which aims to improve the average efficiency of domestic electrical appliances by removing the most inefficient appliances from the market.

  The Commission also gave an oral report on its review of Community legislation in the energy sector, which was in the course of preparation in response to a request by last November's Energy Council. The Council urged the Commission to produce its report as soon as possible.

  In addition, progress reports were received on the establishment of the energy charter treaty secretariat and the energy dimension of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean conference to be held in November.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council.

  Brent Spar Platform
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which body will be responsible for any pollution arising from the removal of the wreck of the Shell Brent Spar platform; and to what extent liability will reflect the polluter pays principle. [26692]

  Mr. Eggar
  The owners—Shell UK Ltd. and Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd.—will be responsible. Any residual liabilities will remain with the owners in perpetuity.

  Courage Ltd.
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to be able to announce his decision on the proposed take over of Courage Ltd. by Scottish and Newcastle plc. [26507]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading at the Office of Fair Trading is currently considering this proposed takeover and he will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Brian Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those aspects of the proposed privatisation of Nuclear Electric which will require parliamentary approval. [27260]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK", Cm 2860, stated in paragraph 7.30 that no primary legislation is required to privatise the nuclear generators.

  Nuclear Holding Company
  Mr. Brian Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what process the chairman of the proposed new nuclear holding company was appointed; and if he will list those bodies or individuals which were consulted about his suitability for the position. [27251]

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Robb was appointed as chairman designate of the proposed new nuclear holding company following consultation with the relevant Government 66
  Departments including the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a comparison between the consumer price of electricity and the retail prices index in the periods before and after privatisation on annual and other relevant bases. [25758]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 May 19951: The information expressed as index numbers with 1990 = 100, is set out in the table:

  Year

  RPI (all items)

  RPI (excluding fuels)

  Domestic electricity index

  1985

  75.0

  74.0

  80.5

  1986

  77.6

  77.2

  82.2

  1987

  80.8

  80.6

  81.8

  1988

  84.8

  84.8

  86.2

  1989

  91.4

  93.9

  92.5

  1990

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1991

  105.9

  105.7

  110.1

  1992

  109.8

  109.7

  115.8

  1993

  111.6

  111.6

  115.4

  1994

  114.3

  114.0

  1112.5

  Notes:

  1Excluding VAT payable at 8 per cent. from 1 April 1994.

  Source:

  Table 28 of Energy Trends and Table 56 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 1994. Data for these tables are obtained from the Central Statistical Office.

  Heysham 2
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funds were provided by the European Commission for the building of Heysham 2 nuclear power station; and what terms were applied to the provision of the funds. [25492]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: Governmental approval was given to the CEGB in January 1978 and capital sanctions for Heysham 2 were approved by the CEGB in 1981. Checks made by Nuclear Electric, CEGB's successor company, have revealed no record of European Commission funding for this project.

  Gas Licences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply of 22 May,Official Report, column 418, if he will give the dates and the parties involved in the later stages of consultation over the draft licences following the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market. [26287]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 May 19951: As part of the preparation for public consultation, my Department and the Office of Gas Supply held a meeting on 9 March to discuss the draft conditions with Alliance Gas Ltd., Bell Gas Ltd., Eastern Electricity plc, Mobil Gas Marketing Ltd., National Power PLC, and Vector Gas Ltd. My Department sent some earlier draft material to Amerada Hess Gas Ltd. on 27 January. Draft conditions were also discussed on various occasions with British Gas plc.
  67
  Information gained in these discussions helped in preparing the technical aspects of the drafts which were issued for public consultation on 20 and 27 March. My Department is considering the responses to the draft licences.

  Long-stay Tourists (Italy)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will send a mission to Italy to examine the reasons for the level of long-stay tourist arrivals. [26540]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  My proposals for action by the Government, the statutory tourist boards and the industry to improve the competitive performance of UK tourism were published in March. The work programme I then announced was based on a careful analysis of the UK tourism industry and the opportunities and threats it faces.

  While the experience of other countries such as Italy is of interest, the lessons are not always easy to transfer to the domestic context, where very different conditions apply. I have therefore no plans to send a mission to Italy.

WALES

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Clwyd, (b) Gwynedd and (c) Powys travelled to England for heart surgery in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [25161]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of completed consultant episodes for residents of Clwyd, Gwynedd and Powys for heart surgery, as reported by hospitals in England to the Mersey clearing house service, are given in the table:

  1991–92

  1992–95

  Clwyd

  326

  304

  Gwynedd

  131

  193

  Powys

  47

  61

  Note:

  Reliable information for 1990–91 and 1993–94 is not available. Figures may understate the true position in that no all hospitals supply complete medical details. Figures include all operative procedures on the heart as defined in Chapter K of the OPCS Classification of Surgical Procedures with the exception of Angioplasties (K49, K50, K51 and K63).

  Baglan Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the financing of the new Baglan hospital, Port Talbot; and when he expects the first main contracts for construction to be awarded. [25405]

  Mr. Richards
  The Glan-y-mor NHS trust expects to be able to submit its outline business case for the new Baglan hospital by June 1995. It will include the costs of a public sector option and detail how the trust intends to explore sources of finance from the private sector. In 68
  order to meet the planned completion date of financial year 1998–99, the trust aims to award main contracts by about the end of 1996.

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25545]

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure on management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office was £1,454,000 in 1993–94 and £805,000 in 1994–95. Contracts for 1995–96 have not yet been finalised, but I have asked that expenditure should not exceed the reduced level recorded in 1994–95.

  Information for non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent on management consultants in(a) his Department and (b) NHS organisations in Wales in the current year and for each of the last 10 years. [26201]

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of expenditure on management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office is as follows:

  £000

  1985–86

  243

  1986–87

  308

  1987–88

  345

  1988–89

  479

  1989–90

  342

  1990–91

  229

  1991–92

  1,109

  1992–93

  1,416

  1993–94

  1,454

  1994–95

  805

  Information for NHS organisations in Wales is not held centrally.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy concerning measures to halt drug abuse in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25672]

  Mr. Richards
  I hope to publish a Welsh drug and alcohol strategy for consultation in the next few weeks.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of land(a) are eligible to be entered into each environmentally sensitive area in Wales and (b) have been entered into each tier of each environmentally sensitive area in Wales. [25797]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:
  69

  Original schemes: Table 1

  (a)

  (b)

  Environmentally sensitive area

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  Cambrian Mountains (Original)

  54,244

  20,853

  105

  278

  13

  16

  Cambrian Mountains (Extension)

  64,536

  20,393

  162

  92

  2

  2

  (i) Semi-natural rough grazing;

  (ii) Hay Meadows;

  (iii) Broad-leaved woodland;

  (iv) Archaeological features;

  (v) Lakes, ponds and streams.

  Original schemes: Table 2

  (a)

  (b)

  Tier 1

  Tier 2(1)

  Tier 2(2)

  Lleyn Peninsula

  41,304

  28,048

  3,589

  54

  Tier 1: All land;

  Tier 2(1): Roughland;

  Tier 2(2): Haymeadows.

  Revised schemes: Table 3

  (a)

  (b)

  Tier 1A

  Tier 1B

  Tier 1C

  Tier 2A

  Cambrian mountains

  Original (revised)

  54,244

  16,532

  38

  215

  3,060

  Tier 1A: Semi-natural rough grazing; Tier 1B: Haymeadows;

  Tier 1C: Broad-leaved woodland;

  Tier 2A: Heather management.

  Revised schemes: Table 4

  (a)

  (b)

  Tier 1

  Tier 1A

  Tier 2A

  Tier 2B

  Cambrian Mountains extension (revised)

  64,536

  3,382

  2,169

  856

  6

  Lleyn Peninsula (revised)

  41,304

  775

  323

  130

  0

  Tier 1: All land;

  Tier 1A: Habitat management;

  Tier 2A: Habitat management (voluntary);

  Tier 2B: Reversion tier.

  New schemes: Table 5

  (a)

  (b)

  Tier 1

  Tier 1A

  Tier2A

  Tier2B

  Clwydian Range

  25,724

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preseli

  113,878

  2,320

  538

  403

  8

  Radnor

  91,770

  12,606

  5,082

  479

  63

  Ynys Mon

  66,063

  6,599

  1,215

  346

  38

  Tier 1: All land;

  Tier 1A: Habitat management;

  Tier 2A: Habitat management (voluntary);

  Tier 2B: Reversion tier.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms(a) are eligible to have land entered into each environmentally sensitive area in Wales and (b) have had land entered into each environmentally sensitive area in Wales. [25798]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Environmentally sensitive area

  (a)

  (b)

  Cambrian Mountains Original

  450

  184

  Cambrian Mountains Original (Revised)

  450

  95

  Cambrian Mountains Extension

  660

  258

  Cambrian Mountains Extension (Revised)

  660

  24

  Clwydian Range

  619

  0

  Lleyn Peninsula

  960

  588

  70

  Environmentally sensitive area

  (a)

  (b)

  Lleyn Peninsula (Revised)

  960

  23

  Preseli

  2,300

  42

  Radnor

  1,035

  152

  Ynys Mon

  1,576

  147

  Welsh European Centre
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates when he has visited the Welsh European Centre in Brussels; and if he will make a statement. [25929]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not visited the Welsh European Centre.

  Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people in Wales aged over 64 years live in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) national health service nursing homes; and of these, how many have the cost of their care paid wholly or partly by (i) their local authority, (ii) their health authority and (iii) the Department of Social Security; and how many pay for their care wholly from private resources. [25975]

  Means of Support

  Accommodation

  Number of residents aged 65 and over at 31 March 19941

  Local authority1

  Health authority

  Department of Social Security

  Private means

  Private residential homes

  6,672

  1,047

  —

  2,859

  1,980

  Private nursing homes

  10,047

  2,086

  28

  4,714

  1,790

  Local authority residential homes

  4,902

  4,902

  —

  —

  —

  1. There are no NHS nursing homes in Wales.

  1The total number of residents includes residents whose means of support is not known.

  2Includes those reported as partly funded by the Department of Social Security and partly financed by the local authority.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce an order requiring the privatised utilities to develop comprehensive bilingual policies in Wales as empowered by the Welsh Language Act 1993; and if he will make a statement. [25946]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 May,Official Report, column 556, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

  Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when his Department last updated its policy; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26213]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office is committed to handling any complaints promptly and fairly. Specific procedures for dealing with complaints under the code of access to Government information were set up, and published, in April 1994. These make clear that a review should normally be conducted by the line manager of the official who dealt with the case. The official considering the complaint must not have been involved in the original decision. A decision on an appeal should be given in writing within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. Complainants are advised that they may ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, through a Member of Parliament, to investigate their complaint.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the
  72
  (2) how many people in Wales aged over 64 years live in (a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) NHS nursing homes; and of these, how many have the cost of their care paid wholly or partly by (i) their local authority, (ii) their health authority and (iii) the Department of Social Security; and how many pay for their care wholly from private resources. [25980]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the numbers of people aged 65 and over living in residential accommodation at 31 March 1994 and their means of support is shown in the table.

  public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26229]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office aims to(a) reply within 15 working days to letters from members of the public; and (b) answer calls through the main switchboard in 12 seconds. Line managers monitor the handling of correspondence; records are not held centrally. The latest figures indicate that over 90 per cent. of calls are answered in the target time.

  Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales aged over 64 years living in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) national health service nursing homes have a spouse living elsewhere. [25976]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the secretary of state for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust concerning the first-year deficit of the trust; what representations he has received from the trust concerning(a) short-term and (b) long-term loans; and if he will make a statement. [26600]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. But I expect the trust to meet its targets by 31 March 1996. One short-term loan has been made and repaid. No requests for long-term loans have been received.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures he undertook to establish the financial viability of the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust before its final approval as a trust with effect from 1 April 1995. [26598]
  73
  Mr. Redwood
  All trust applications are subjected to financial scrutiny including an assessment by independent external assessors.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which consultations were appointed to carry out the appraisal of the business plan for the formation of the University Hospital of Wales NHS trust; and on what date the consultants commenced and completed their work; if they were appointed by competitive tender; and how much they were paid. [26599]

  Mr. Redwood
  Secta Consultation Ltd. was appointed on 26 September 1994, under competitive tender arrangements, to undertake the financial appraisal of five applications for NHS trust status received during 1994–95, including that from the University Hospital of Wales. It was paid a total of £17,625 for 23 days' work, which concluded in December 1994.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Health to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 22 May,Official Report, column 409, if special provision will be made to cover retrospective management allowance payments by GP fundholders via the authorisation of extra-statutory payment; and what will be the level of payments for each relevant financial year. [26594]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. member to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend, the member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts) on 22 May,Official Report, column 460.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his Department's projects aimed at promoting healthy eating indicating the cost of each project to his Department. [26300]

  Mr. Richards
  Projects aimed at promoting healthy eating are carried out in Wales by a variety of health and other organisations, and details are not held centrally. National projects such as the "Healthy Shopping Basket", "A Handbook for School Governors" and the "Heartbeat Awards", as well as the provision of advice, guidance and information are provided by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. In 1994–95 its budget for this service was some £150,000.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26418]

  (2) if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 expressed in absolute and percentage terms. [26403]

  (3) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour/service
  74
  organisations in Wales for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26420]

  (4) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) school and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure maintenance, delivered by local authorities; direct labour/service organisations in Wales under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988. [26419]

  (5) if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 expressed in absolute and percentage terms. [26402]

  (6) if he will list for each authority the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for (a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work, delivered by local authorities' direct labour/service organisations in Wales under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. [26417]

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by authority and service area the number of full time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; [26405]

  (2) if he will list by authority and service area the number of full time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26406]

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many and what proportion of local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94; [26401]

  (2) how many and what proportion of local authority direct labour/service organisations in Wales operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26400]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department received a total of 285 reports in respect of work carried out by local authority direct labour/service organisations for the financial year 1992–93 under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. The required rate of return was achieved in respect of 241–84.56 per cent.—of the reports received.
  75
  My Department has not yet completed its analysis of the reports submitted by local authorities in respect of the financial year 1993–94. Consequently the information requested by the hon. Member is not yet available.

  Special Education Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to improve the opportunities for children with special needs. [26352]

  Mr. Richards
  The Education Act 1993 introduced a range of measures designed to improve provision for children with special needs, including a code of practice containing guidance and criteria for the identification, assessment and other arrangements for such pupils.

  Local Government
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many councillors in Wales have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government Act 1988; [26422]

  (2) how many councillors in Wales have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. [26421]

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by service area the local authorities in Wales that have been challenged by his Department under regulations issued under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits. [26404]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many complaints his Department received in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Wales under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980; and, as a result, how many local authorities where subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction; [26407]

  (2) how many complaints his Department received in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Wales under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and, as a result, how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction. [26408]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department received the following number of complaints alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Wales under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and Local Government Act 1988:

  1990–91: 6

  1991–92: 8

  1992–93: 19

  1993–94: 11

  Seven notices were served under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 and one notice under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Four directions were given under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 and one direction was given under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Premature Retirements
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers took early retirement in the school years 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [26356]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of teachers taking premature retirement was 723 in 1993–94 and 742 in 1994–95. The definition of premature retirement excludes retirement on health grounds and also excludes all teachers aged under 50. The data are provided by the Teachers' Pension Agency.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have been given assisted places at private schools in Wales in each of the years since the assisted places scheme was inaugurated. [26358]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  Assisted places scheme: Total number of new pupils each academic year since 1981–82

  Academic year

  Number of new pupils

  1981–82

  114

  1982–83

  113

  1983–84

  120

  1984–85

  118

  1985–86

  115

  1986–87

  123

  1987–88

  115

  1988–89

  126

  1989–90

  104

  1990–91

  123

  1991–92

  130

  1992–93

  131

  1993–94

  127

  1994–95

  1130

  1Provisional.

  GP Patients
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many patients have been struck off the registers of(a) fundholding general practitioners and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners in the last year for which figures are available; [26424]

  (2) how many patients have been struck off the registers of general practitioners in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [26423]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected routinely for Wales. However, information supplied by family health services authorities indicates that in 1993–94 just over 3,500 patients were transferred at the request of general medical practitioners or removed from GP lists because of an act or threat of violence. Separate details for fundholding and non-fundholding GPs are not available.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available extra cash for further education colleges in Wales. [26354]

  Mr. Richards
  Since they became autonomous on 1 April 1993 we have provided substantial additional
  77
  resources for further education colleges in Wales. The 1995–96 provision is 57 per cent. greater in cash terms than in 1992–93. Funding for the further education sector in the current financial year and planned funding for the next two years is as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Recurrent

  154.612

  158.947

  162.547

  Capital

  15.971

  19.833

  18.733

  Less FEFCW running costs

  (2.558)

  (2.558)

  (2.558)

  Total available to FE sector

  168.025

  176.222

  178.722

  The figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are for planning purposes and will be reviewed in the next public expenditure survey.

  Employment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's estimate of the percentage of people in rural Wales who have problems finding permanent employment, and what statistics his Department published on these data. [26499]

  Mr. Redwood
  Most of those who become unemployed leave the register within six months. Latest available figures for those remaining on the register in rural Wales for more than a year are shown in the following table:

  Long term unemployment in rural Wales1

  Travel to work

  Persons

  Rate

  Aberystwyth

  177

  1.2

  Brecon

  214

  1.9

  Cardigan

  249

  2.1

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  173

  2.7

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  198

  2.1

  Llandrindod Wells

  218

  1.6

  Machynlleth

  114

  1.9

  Newtown

  89

  0.7

  Portmadoc and Ffestiniog

  253

  2.9

  Welshpool

  129

  1.1

  Wales

  37,414

  2.9

  1Rural Wales is defined as those travel to work areas with at least 5 per cent. of their population within the Development Board for Rural Wales boundary.

  In each of the travel-to-work areas long-term unemployment rates are at or below the Welsh average.

  The labour force survey also provides estimates at an all-Wales level of the number of temporary workers. In the period September to November 1994 4.9 per cent. of the work force described themselves as having temporary jobs, of whom about half were seeking permanent employment. No estimates are available at a more local level.

  "Lifestyles in Rural Wales"
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the document, "Lifestyles in Rural Wales", commissioned by his Department. [26491]

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. I have arranged to do so.
  78
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the date of the(a) submission and (b) publication of the report "Lifestyles in Rural Wales", and if he will list the costs of (i) providing and (ii) publishing the report; and if he will make a statement on its contents and. [26501]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the report, "Lifestyles in Rural Wales". [26497]

  Mr. Redwood
  The final version of the document "Lifestyles in Rural Wales: A study of four areas" was submitted to the Welsh Office on 8 April 1994. My Department disagreed with the methodology in a number of respects, and wrote to the authors on

  9 November 1994 expressing its disappointment and informing them that the Welsh Office had no objection to their publishing the document. The report cost approximately £65,000, with some £51,000 provided by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, and the balance by the Welsh Office.

  The report was based largely on a questionnaire exercise in four areas of rural Wales. My Department was not satisfied that the evidence supported some of the report's conclusions.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grant-maintained schools in Clwyd. [26353]

  Mr. Richards
  There are six grant-maintained schools in Clwyd and these are as follows:

  Derwen Primary School, Higher Kinnerton

  Ysogol Pen-y-Bryn, Colwyn Bay

  Eirias High School, Colwyn Bay

  Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan, Abergele

  The Maelor School, Wrexham

  Ysgol Bryn Elian, Colwyn Bay

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grant maintained schools in each unitary authority indicating the percentage of schools that are grant maintained and the percentage of pupils attending them. [26511]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Unitary authority

  School

  Anglesey

  Ysgol Gynradd Caergeiliog

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  Ysgol Pen Y Bryn

  Ysgol Emrys Ap IwanEirias

  High School

  Ysgol Bryn Elian

  Flintshire

  Ysgol Derwen

  Wrexham

  The Maelor School

  Powys

  Llanerfyl G M School

  Swansea

  Bishop Vaughan R C School

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Stanwell Comprehensive

  St Cyres Comprehensive School

  Caerphilly

  Cwmcarn G M School

  Blaenau Gwent

  Brynmawr Comprehensive

  Torfaen

  St Alan's R C Comprehensive School

  Monmouthshire

  Our Lady and St Michael's School

  Cardiff

  Mary Immaculate R C High School

  79

  Unitary authority

  1Number of grant maintained schools as a percentage of all maintained schools

  2Percentage of pupils attending grant maintained schools

  Anglesey

  1.8

  2.3

  Caemarfonshire and Merionethshire

  —

  —

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  5.4

  22.2

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  Flintshire

  1.1

  0.8

  Wrexham

  1.2

  2.6

  Powys

  0.8

  0.1

  Cardiganshire

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  Swansea

  0.9

  2.5

  Neath and Port Talbot

  —

  —

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3.3

  12.5

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  Caerphilly

  0.9

  1.2

  Blaenau Gwent

  2.2

  4.5

  Torfaen

  2.0

  3.5

  Monmouthshire

  2.0

  1.8

  Newport

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  0.8

  1.2

  Wales

  0.8

  2.1

  1The percentage of schools that are grant maintained as at January 1995.

  2Based on January 1994 pupil numbers from the Schools Census.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of three to five-year-olds attend nursery schools in Wales(a) full time and (b) part time. [26355]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of three to five-year-olds1 who were:

  At maintained

  Full-time pupils

  Part-time pupils

  Total

  Nursery schools

  0.8

  1.9

  2.7

  Primary Schools:

  Nursery classes

  3.9

  14.4

  18.3

  Ordinary classes

  66.9

  1.0

  67.8

  Total in primary schools

  70.8

  15.4

  2 86.2

  Total in nursery and primary schools

  71.6

  17.3

  88.9

  Notes:

  1Ages at 31 August 1993.

  2The slight discrepancy between the sum of constituent items and total shown is due to rounding.

  Source:

  January 1994 Schools Census.

  Nu-Kote International, Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to persuade NK International, on Deeside Park, to remain in production; and if he will make a statement. [26359]
  80
  Mr. Redwood
  I regret the decision by Nu-Kote International to cease production on Deeside. This is, however, a commercial decision for the company.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the implications of(a) the recently issued and (b) the previously applicable urban development guidelines in relation to the frustration of third party private sector urban redevelopment; and if he will make a statement. [26597]

  Mr. Redwood
  The urban development guidelines, issued in March this year, include specific provisions covering situations where the agency's support for one development may lead to the frustration of another. The guidelines were discussed in draft by my officials and staff of the agency.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 461, if he will place a copy in the Library of the site options study for the new £5.8 million bird reserve on the Gwent Levels to be paid for by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. [26593]

  Mr. Redwood
  As I made clear in my reply to the hon. Member on 22 May more detailed investigations are now being undertaken to determine which sites considered in the study present the best options. When these detailed investigations have been completed an announcement will be made and I will make arrangements for a copy of the final report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on the complexity of integrated administration and control system forms; what plans he has to simplify their form, and if he will make a statement. [26551]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Several. This year's forms have again been kept as straightforward as is consistent with the need to gather detailed information from farmers. Further help has been provided for farmers this year; the majority received a print out showing the key details from their 1994 returns. This enabled them to update last year's information, rather than have to complete fresh forms. The explanatory booklet was also improved this year with further clarification to the text and greater use of cross-references.

  Suggestions for further improvement are welcomed. Every participating farmer has been invited to comment on the scheme literature to assist in the preparation of the documentation from 1996. However, the extent to which the forms and literature can be simplified further is constrained by the need to meet the requirements for the collection of detailed information. These requirements are prescribed in the governing regulations and are necessary in order to enable the system to achieve its overall objective and to ensure that the substantial payments which farmers receive are made on a proper basis.
  81

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) of 22 May, column 460, relating to GP fundholders' practice management expenses, what departmental provision he proposes to assist him in making his calculations; and what work will be (a) deferred and (b) not done within his Department, consequent on such provision. [27013]

  Mr. Redwood
  No calculations are required in relation to the payments which have been made to GP fundholder practices in respect of management expenses.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what considerations underlie his decision on whether to link questions for oral answers; and how many questions he assumes will be answered in the period allocated for reply by him.

  Mr. Alison
  Questions are linked if they relate to the same subject area. The commissioners are allotted five minutes for oral questions every six weeks when the House is in Session. On average, the first two or three questions are reached. More may be reached if all the questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which follow immediately after ours, are answered in less than the allotted time, in which case the House reverts to Church Commissioner's questions.

TREASURY

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he has made for the debt write-off in rail privatisation. [19973]

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1992–93

  Taxpayers liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Lancashire

  428

  72.3

  27

  4.6

  United Kingdom

  19,500

  76.0

  1,720

  6.7

  1 Of total number of taxpayers including those liable only to the lower rate of tax.

  Manufacturing Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will bring up to date the table in the answer of 7 July 1980,Official Report, column 71, showing the undistributed income of companies after depreciation and stock appreciation; and if he will add figures for manufacturing companies; [25680]

  (2) if he will bring up to date the table in the answer of 29 January 1982, Official Report, column 447, concerning saving, depreciation and related matters; and if he will now add figures for manufacturing. [25682]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on corporate savings, depreciation, and stock appreciation is published in tables
  82
  Sir George Young
  No decisions have yet been taken about the form of Railtrack's capital structure on sale and accordingly it is not yet possible to forecast the impact of rail privatisation on the structure of debt in the industry.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) 1995–96 and (b) for a full year, the revenue cost/yield of altering the top rate of income tax and the top rate of capital gains tax from 40 per cent. to (a) 30 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. on gross income and capital gains over (i) £30,000, (ii) £70,000, (iii) £80,000 and (iv) £100,000, assuming that (1) where the new top rate is lower than 40 per cent. the 40 per cent. band is abolished and (2) where it is higher, the 40 per cent. band remains in place; [25012]

  (2) if he will estimate or (a) 1995–96 and (b) for a full year, the revenue/cost yield of altering the top rate of income tax from 40 per cent. to (a) 30 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. on gross income over (i) £30,000, (ii) £70,000, (iii) £80,000 and (iv) £100,000 assuming that (1) where the new top rate is lower than 40 per cent. the 40 per cent. band is abolished, and (2) where it is higher, the 40 per cent. band remains in place. [25013]

  Sir George Young
  Estimates covering this range of options were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 25 May 1995,Official Report, columns 713–14. Separate figures on capital gains tax were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 11 May 1995, Official Report, column 259.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the number and percentage of basic rate and higher rate tax payers in(a) Lancashire and (b) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available. [26569]

  Sir George Young
  The table provides estimates for 1992–93, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  3.6, 5.6 and 5.9 of the Central Statistical Office Blue Book 1994 edition, United Kingdom national accounts, which is available in the Library of the House. The corresponding data for manufacturing are not available, other than depreciation which is published in table 14.1 of the CSO Blue Book. More up-to-date information, including that for 1994, will be published in the 1995 edition of Blue Book, on 3 August 199.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the table in the answer dated 31 July 1981,Official Report, column 600, showing the net rate of return at current replacement cost of manufacturing companies. [25685]
  83
  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 12 January 1995,Official Report, column 191. The data have not been updated since. More up to date information will be published in the CSO's "First Release", "Profitability of UK companies", which will next be issued on 11 July 1995.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date his answer of 19 July 1983,Official Report, column 81, showing the net rate of return at historic cost of manufacturing companies. [25616]

  Mr. Nelson
  The data are not yet available at historic cost under the new definition of manufacturing. For rates of return at current replacement cost, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 12 January 1995,Official Report, column 191.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the table in the answer of 11 February 1980,Official Report, columns 436–38, concerning profits of large manufacturing companies and the money supply. [25681]

  All companies

  Manufacturing

  Financial institutions

  Number of companies 000

  Losses £ million

  Number of companies 000

  Losses £ million

  Number of companies 000

  Losses £ million

  1985

  120

  8,800

  25

  2,500

  10

  1,600

  1986

  120

  10,100

  25

  3,000

  10

  2,000

  1987

  120

  12,700

  25

  3,100

  10

  4,200

  1988

  130

  13,700

  25

  2,900

  10

  2,500

  1989

  140

  20,000

  25

  3,900

  10

  5,600

  1990

  160

  23,700

  30

  4,800

  10

  9,200

  1991

  160

  29,500

  30

  5,400

  10

  9,200

  1992

  160

  26,200

  30

  4,700

  10

  8,400

  Losses are "Gross Case I" losses, i.e. after deducting short-term interest and before deducting depreciation.

  Bank Profits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increase in the profitability before exceptionals of the retail banks in 1993 and 1994. [25477]

  Mr. Nelson
  A comprehensive estimate embracing all retail banks could be provided only at disproportionate cost. But part III of the Bank of England's Banking Act report for 1994–95, laid before the House on 24 May, includes a table showing the operating profits before bad debts; together with the pre and post-tax profits, of the larger United Kingdom banks for each year from 1990 to 1994.

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) the Treasury and (b) agencies for which the Treasury is responsible for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25647]

  Mr. Nelson
  The level of expenditure for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95 and the estimate for 1995–96 for the Treasury are given in the table. The Treasury is not responsible for any agencies.

  Expenditure on consultancy

  £ million—ex VAT

  1993–94

  5.9

  1994–95

  1.0

  1995–961

  1.0

  1 Estimate.

  84
  Mr. Nelson
  The manufacturing industry figures shown in the table are no longer available. The production of the data that were published in the CSO's "Business Monitor," MA3: "Company Finance", has since been discontinued. Issue 23, the final issue, was published in, 1992 and contains data on large companies for 1988, 1989 and 1990. This publication is available from the Library of the House.

  Deflated money supply figures are not published. Money supply figures are published in tables 3.1C and 3.1D of the CSO's "Financial Statistics".

  Trading Losses
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date his answer date 7 March 1983,Official Report, column 286, on trading losses. [25618]

  Sir George Young
  Available information is as follows. Data for years before 1985 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All figures are estimates and subject to error.

  Retail Sales Index
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are used to obtain the retail sales index; what representations he has received concerning the retail sales index in the last year; and what plans he has to reform it. [25918]

  Mr. Nelson
  The monthly retail index is based on a statutory inquiry which collects figures of retail sales from a sample of 5,000 retailers. All types of retailer are included in the sample. Detailed price indicators from the retail price index are used to convert the sales index to constant 1990 prices and the X11 seasonal adjustment routine, widely used within government and by statistical offices in other countries, applied to remove normal seasonal variations.

  During 1994, representations were received from the then Minister for Industry concerning the format of the Central Statistical Office's "First Release." It has also been the subject of one parliamentary question and one Minister's case.

  The inquiry has recently been reviewed as a result of the Prime Minister's instructions on the control of statistical surveys. Copies of the report of the review of the short period retailing inquiries are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what range in size of companies is used for the formulation of the retail sales index. [25919]
  85
  Mr. Nelson
  The size of the businesses used in the formulation of the retail sales index extends from the VAT threshold of £58,000 turnover per annum upwards.

  Industrial and Commercial Borrowing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date his answer dated 15 March 1983,Official Report, column 96, concerning bank advances to industry. [25617]

  Mr. Nelson
  The company accounts analysis, which was the basis of the previous reply, is no longer conducted. Alternatively, information from the national accounts is given in the table; data for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis and there is no separate information for manufacturing companies. The source series are published in table 10.6c of "Financial Statistics".

  Industrial and commercial companies' borrowing

  £ million

  Borrowing from UK banks1

  Net borrowing requirement (NBR)2

  Borrowing from UK bank as per cent. Of NBR

  1984

  7,082

  3,044

  233

  1985

  7,454

  10,620

  70

  1986

  9,084

  12,538

  72

  1987

  12,224

  27,033

  45

  1988

  32,032

  49,743

  64

  1989

  33,816

  54,683

  62

  1990

  19756

  37,275

  53

  1991

  -822

  25,851

  -3

  1992

  -1,794

  27,187

  -7

  1993

  -11,371

  15,285

  -74

  1994

  -5,289

  8,348

  -63

  1 Comprises bank lending and the Bank of England's issue department's transactions in bills. A positive sign means an increase in net borrowing; a negative sign means net repayment of borrowing.

  2 In addition to borrowing from UK banks, includes capital issues of shares and bonds, borrowing from overseas, and transactions in liquid and other financial assets.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work has been contracted out(a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25648]

  Mr. Nelson
  The following table shows the work contracted out by the Treasury, under the "Competing for Quality" initiative, and the year it was contracted or is likely to be contracted out.

  Contract

  Year

  Library Services

  1993–94

  Internal Audit Services (2 Contracts)

  1993–94

  Security Guarding Services

  1994–95

  Computer Support Services (under construction)

  1995–96

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future location of(a) management functions and (b) operational functions of the Customs and Excise currently located in
  86
  Newcastle upon Tyne; and if he will make a statement on the future for the Customs and Excise Newcastle headquarters and the employment impact of the proposed reorganisation. [26210]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  One of the outcomes of the fundamental expenditure review of Customs and Excise was a reduction in the number of regional offices, collections, from 21 to 14. The former Northern England, which had its headquarters in Newcastle, and Leeds collections were merged with effect from 1 April 1995 to form a new collection retaining the title of Northern England. The new collection will be managed from Leeds.

  The headquarters support functions will be split between Newcastle and Leeds so that staff reductions are shared. In the short term the Newcastle headquarters building will be retained, but the longer-term position has not yet been decided.

  There will continue to be Customs staff in the Tyne and Tees areas. The VAT and Excise functions in the Newcastle area will be combined in offices in Newcastle, Washington and Middlesbrough.

  Collection staff levels will reduce overall by about 16 per cent. as a result of the FER with the majority of the reductions spread over a four year period. Specific figures for the impact on Newcastle are not available yet. However, it is intended that, as far as is practicable and reasonable, the impact of the cuts will be spread evenly across the new collection. The Department has a clearly stated policy to avoid compulsory redundancy wherever possible.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy and procedures exists for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the pubic; when the policy was last updated; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedures exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26226]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has a complaints procedure in line with the "Open Government" code of practice on government information.

  Any complaint against the Treasury by a member of the public would be given very careful consideration, up to the most senior levels if necessary. If the member of the public was dissatisfied with how the complaint had been dealt with, he or she could ask a Member of Parliament to submit his or her complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measures against the target set. [26237]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has performance targets for replying to letters from the public but not for answering telephone calls. Wherever possible, information requested over the telephone is given at the time of the call.

  The Treasury's targets for Ministerial replies to letters from the public forwarded by Members of Parliament are

  87
  15 working days for those matters solely relating to the Treasury; 18 working days for those matters relating to the Chancellor's other departments and 23 working days for those requiring a report from a local office. The targets are monitored by the Treasury's ministerial correspondence unit and published in the Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In 1994, 14,901 replies were sent, 54 per cent. of which were within the targets set.

  The targets for replies from officials on behalf of Ministers are 10 to 15 working days.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between international competitiveness and purchasing power parities. [26543]

  Mr. Nelson
  Improving price competitiveness tends to be associated with appreciating purchasing power parity exchange rates for any given nominal market exchange rate. In general, the concept of competitiveness embraces much more than relative prices. Among other factors, relative costs, product quality, marketing and after-sales service are also important.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he accords to the need for British goods to compete on price at home and abroad in evaluating advice he receives on monetary policy from the Governor of the Bank of England. [27018]

  Mr. Nelson
  Economies function most effectively in conditions of low and stabled inflation. Low inflation also helps to keep British goods and services competitive. Interest rates are set to deliver low inflation. Underlying inflation has now been below 3 per cent. for 19 consecutive months, the longest such period since 1961.

  Imported Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the items in table 18.2 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" which have risen in price as a result of the increase in the price of imported manufactures since 1992; and if he will make a statement on the relationship between falling exchange rates and inflation. [26542]

  Mr. Nelson
  Changes in the prices of imported manufactures and the exchange rate are two of many factors which influence the prices of different categories of goods and services.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 907 (1) concerning import penetration, if he will list the data he holds at the available level of desegregation, giving details of significant changes of coverage during the period specified; [26558]

  (2) relating to manufacturing output, if he will list the levels of disaggregation in any available form. [27073]

  Mr. Nelson
  The data published in table 15.10 of the April "Monthly Digest of Statistics" are based on the classification used in the standard industrial classification 1980. Output data on the same basis are available for 1979 and 1994 and can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. Comparable data for 1973 are not available.

  The CSO has recently reinstated the import penetration series. The data appear in table 15.10 of the April 1995
  88
  "Monthly Digest of Statistics" and are based on the classifications used in SIC 1992. Output data on the same basis for 1973, 1979 and 1994 are available and can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  The output data covering periods 1983 to 1993 are also published in table 2.5 of the publication United Kingdom national accounts—the CSO Blue Book, 1994 edition. Data for the periods 1984 to 1994 will be published in the 1995 issue later this year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to reduce the import share of the United Kingdom market for manufactures. [26557]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government aim to help British industry compete successfully both at home and abroad by providing a stable macro-economic climate and promoting structural policies to improve the long-term performance of the economy, including manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if detailed figures on import penetration will be available to hon. Members after the contracting out of data collection and analysis to the private sector. [26547]

  Mr. Nelson
  In the event of contracting out of data collection and analysis to the private sector, detailed figures on import penetration would continue to be available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the rate of import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures since the third quarter of 1994. [27074]

  Mr. Nelson
  Import penetration depends on a variety of factors, including international specialisation, price and non-price competitiveness, domestic demand, and domestic capacity.

  Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the amounts invested in increased capacity by United Kingdom firms(a) overseas and (b) in the United Kingdom. [26544]

  Mr. Nelson
  An assessment of the main factors influencing recent developments and prospects for domestic investment was published in the November 1994 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Alcohol Excise Duty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue collected from(a) beer, (b) wine and (c) spirits for each year since 1985. [26494]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is given in the table. The receipts cover excise duty and VAT, calculated from Central Statistical Office figures for consumers' expenditure:

  £ million

  Total receipts Beer

  Total receipts Wine

  Total receipts Spirits

  1985–86

  3,050

  1,050

  2,000

  1986–87

  3,150

  1,100

  2,000

  1987–88

  3,250

  1,150

  2,100

  1988–89

  3,400

  1,250

  2,150

  1989–90

  3,450

  1,250

  2,100

  89

  £ million

  Total receipts Beer

  Total receipts Wine

  Total receipts Spirits

  1990–91

  3,750

  1,350

  2,350

  1991–92

  4,250

  1,600

  2,550

  1992–93

  4,350

  1,650

  2,450

  1993–94

  14,300

  1,800

  2,550

  1994–95 provisional

  4,550

  1,950

  2,600

  Figures rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  1 Beer duty receipts were reduced by some £200 million in 1993–94 due to the change in duty point.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue collected per pint of beer for each year since 1985. [26492]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Revenue per pint (pence)

  1985–86

  28.1

  1986–87

  28.7

  1987–88

  28.7

  1988–89

  29.9

  1989–90

  30.5

  1990–91

  33.1

  1991–92

  38.3

  1992–93

  40.8

  1993–94

  44.0

  1994–95 (provisional)

  43.8

  Self-employment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways the criteria applied by the Inland Revenue in deciding whether a person is employed or self-employed differ from those applied by the Contributions Agency. [26390]

  Sir George Young
  The criteria applied by the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency in deciding whether a person is employed or self-employed are based on the same body of general case law. They are set out in the Inland Revenue leaflet IR56/N139. An updated version of this leaflet is to be published shortly. There are a very limited number of groups of workers where statutory provisions may result in different tax and national insurance treatment.

  Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which increases in prices since September 1992 of the categories listed in table 18.2 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" he assesses to be inflationary. [26530]

  Mr. Nelson
  Any price increase adds to the 12-month inflation rate for 12 months.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underline the relative rates of increases in the price of(a) services and (b) goods since 1979; and what effect the Government's exchange rate policy has had on such price increases. [26545]

  Mr. Nelson
  The relative rates of increase in the prices of goods and services depend on a number of factors such as the relative changes in costs, competitive pressures and the exchange rate.
  90

  Bank of England
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instigate an inquiry into briefings given to journalists by Bank of England personnel within the period 15 May to 22 May on the recommendations on monetary policy actions which will be made by the Governor of the Bank of England at the next monthly monetary policy meeting; and if he will make a statement. [26452]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no reason to believe that the Bank has given briefings to journalists on the advice it intends to give at the next monthly monetary policy meeting; or indeed that the Bank would have formulated its advice so far in advance of the next meeting. The Bank has made it clear, as has the Chancellor, that such advice is confidential until released in the published minutes.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the trade surplus or deficit on tourism in each year since 1970 at 1994 prices; and what assessment he has made of the contributions to the variations made by the monetary and exchange rate policies of successive Governments. [26541]

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the balance of trade in tourism are available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  The balance of trade in tourism is influenced by many factors, and it is not possible to isolate with any confidence the effects stemming from monetary and exchange rate policies.

  Casinos
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been made regarding the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from casinos as a result of the 48-hour rule on admission; and if he will make a statement. [26586]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such estimates have been made. The 48-hour rule is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the proposed rates of new vehicle excise duty for(a) tower waggons, (b) street cleansing vehicles and (c) vehicles used in the construction industry. [26495]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  From 1 July 1995 tower wagons and street cleansing vehicles will pay the full rates of vehicle excise duty as set out in paragraphs 6 and 14 of schedule 4 of the Finance Act 1995. These can vary from £125 to £5,000 per annum, depending on weight and other considerations such as axle configuration. Copies of the Finance Act 1995 are held in the House of Commons Library. All vehicles used in the construction industry that weigh less than 3,500 kg will pay £135 VED per annum. Mobile cranes, works trucks, digging machines and road rollers that weigh more than 3,500 kg will pay £150. Other construction industry vehicles will pay the full rates of VED set out in the Finance Act 1995.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated new revenue arising from the changes in vehicle excise duty; and if he will make a statement on their impact on costs to industry. [26493]
  91
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Finance Act 1995 introduced a number of changes to vehicle excise duties that produced new revenue:

  £ Million

  Increase in excise duty on cars

  55

  Changes to the exemptions and concessions from VED

  25

  Changes to the definition of goods vehicles

  5

  Other changes

  30

  The freezing of duty on lorries cost £10 million in revenue.

  The projected costs to industry of complying with the changes to vehicle excise duty can be found in the compliance cost assessment prepared and published by the Department of Transport.

  Extra-statutory Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total level of extra-statutory payments authorised by all spending departments in each financial year since 1983–84. [26601]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not held centrally.

  Fuel Excise Duty
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what are the current duty rates per tonne for(a) coal, (b) orimulsion and (c) heavy duty fuel oil. [26780]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The current excise duty rates are as follows:

  Rate

  Coal:

  nil

  Orimulsion:

  nil

  Heavy fuel oil:

  £16.70 per tonne

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to change his target for underlying inflation from the RPIX to the RPIY measure, [26704]

  (2) whether the policy indicated by his predecessor to the Treasury Select Committee to keep RPIX inflation below 2 per cent. remains Government policy; and what is his target for underlying inflation beyond the end of the current Parliament. [26703]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's aim is to keep underlying inflation in the range 1 to 4 per cent., and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. I have no plans to change the objective for that period.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals are outstanding in(a) Pendle, (b) the north-west and England in respect of the valuation of properties for council tax.
  92
  Mr. Nelson
  The number of council tax appeals outstanding as at 3 April 1995 is:

  (a) Pendle: 189

  (b) North-west: 12,701

  (c) England: 143,712

  VAT-registered Businesses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses registered and deregistered for VAT in(a) Pendle and (b) the north-west for each year since 1991. [26728]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs does not have information concerning the number of businesses registered and deregistered in the Pendle constituency. The local VAT office at Blackburn covers, in addition to Blackburn, the towns of Bolton, Burnley, Accrington and Clitheroe. Figures for the north-west cover Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The numbers of registrations and deregistrations for VAT since 1991 are as follows:

  Year

  Registration at Blackburn Office

  Deregistration at Blackburn Office

  Registration in the North-west

  Deregistration in the North-west

  1991

  2,298

  2,911

  18,644

  21,484

  1992

  2,114

  2,369

  17,326

  21,370

  1993

  2,099

  2,523

  16,412

  20,752

  1994

  1,904

  2,339

  15,174

  18,600

  19951

  395

  561

  3,776

  4,352

  1 To end March.

  Central Statistical Office
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he took of the proposed merger between the Central Statistical Office and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys announced in his answer of 25 April to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks),Official Report, columns 407–08, of the responsibilities for the preparation and analysis of data about absolute and overall poverty agreed at the world summit for social development in March 1995, with particular reference to articles 18 to 41. [26770]

  Mr. Nelson
  The purpose of the proposed merger between the Central Statistical Office and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is to meet a widely perceived need for greater coherence and compatibility in Government statistics, for improved presentation and for easier public access. In making his announcement about the proposed merger by right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor took no specific account of the responsibilities for the preparation and analysis of data about absolute and overall poverty agreed at the world summit for social development in March 1995. The CSO and OPCS are, however, contributing to development of the statistical response to the social summit in the context of the merger proposals.

  European Community Budget
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the words "by command of Her Majesty" did not appear on the front cover of this year's statement on the European Community budget, Cm 2824. [27076]
  93
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested was given in the House of Lords in the reply Lord Henley gave to Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 23 May,Official Report, House of Lords, column 52.

  Biodiesel Fuel
  Mr Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations he has carried out into the effect of not announcing the rate of excise duty on biodiesel produced from crops on the development of those fuels under section 11 of the Finance Act 1993. [27089]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such investigations have been instituted since those few businesses involved in the production of biofuels have had regular meetings and correspondence with officials in Customs and Excise and are fully aware of the Government's intentions.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed commencement order for excise duty on biodiesel fuels. [26658]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The House will be aware of our obligation to impose excise duty on mineral oil substitutes, such as DERV substitutes from rape methyl ester, which arises from the mineral oil structures directive 92/81/EEC.

  A draft of the necessary Treasury order to implement the charge to duty will be set to the interested parties before the House rises for the summer recess. Subject to comments received in response to that draft, the Government's intention is to make the order effective from early autumn.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors contributed to changes in the balance of trade with(a) France and (b) Germany since 1991. [26873]

  Mr. Nelson
  The balance of trade with France and Germany is affected by a variety of factors, including price and non-price competitiveness, domestic demand, and overseas demand.

  Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Governor of the Bank of England has provided to him in the last year in respect of(a) a shortage of productive capacity and (b) overheating in any of the import-competing and export industries. [27079]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor meets regularly with the Governor to discuss the prospects for inflation and the current state of the economy. The Governor's views are reported in the published minutes of the monthly monetary meetings. The Bank also publishes its views in its quarterly inflation report.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the current capacity working of each of the principal importing-competing and export industries. [27084]

  Mr. Nelson
  Direct quantitative measures of capacity output by industry are not available. However, business survey indicators, for example from the CBI, suggest that capacity utilisation has been rising. This is to be 94
  welcomed, provided companies are able to invest when they need to expand capacity.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value was placed on Sir Winston Churchill's papers at the time of his death; and if duty was paid thereon. [26863]

  Sir George Young
  As with any such matter, the normal rules concerning taxpayer confidentiality prevent me from giving details of the tax affairs of a particular individual.

EMPLOYMENT

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the United Kingdom's annual subscription to the International Labour Organisation. [26849]

  Mr. Portillo
  The UK's contribution to the ILO for 1994 amounted to £7,921,651.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the International Labour Organisation's annual meeting will cost(a) the International Labour Organisation and (b) the United Kingdom. [26851]

  Mr. Portillo
  The ILO has made provision in its budget of ․5.4 million to cover the costs of this year's international labour conference in Geneva. The UK contributes to those costs through its subscription to the ILO. The cost of sending UK delegation to the conference is estimated to be about £58,000.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost to public funds of trade unions' attendance at the International Labour Organisation annual meeting. [26852]

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost to public funds is estimated to be £18,000.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the benefits to the United Kingdom of membership of the International Labour Organisation. [26853]

  Mr. Portillo
  In recent years, the ILO's purchase of goods and services for its technical co-operation programmes has provided consultants and others in the United Kingdom with financial benefits of about £2.25 million per annum.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total budget of the International Labour Organisation. [26854]

  Mr. Portillo
  The ILO's total budget for 1995 is 334,214,933 Swiss francs, which represents about £176.8 million at current exchange rates.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the United Kingdom's membership of the International Labour Organisation on the rate of United Kingdom unemployment. [26859]

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom's membership of the ILO has no impact on the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
  95
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the format and purpose of the International Labour Organisation's annual meeting. [26860]

  Mr. Portillo
  The ILO's annual conference takes place every June and lasts for three weeks. National delegations consist of trade union, employer and Government representations. All the costs are met by Governments. Each year, the conference aims to adopt new conventions which, if ratified, apply to labour markets throughout the world.

  International Labour Organisation
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the steps the Government have taken to denounce convention 101 of the International Labour Organisation; if he will set out the date on which the Government took each step to denounce convention 101; and if he will list all remaining steps that have to be taken in order for convention 101 to be fully denounced by the United Kingdom Government; [27164]

  (2) if he will list the steps the Government has taken to denounce convention 99 of the International Labour Organisation; if he will set out the date on which the Government took each step to denounce convention 99; and if he will list all remaining steps that have to be taken in order for convention 99 to be fully denounced by the United Kingdom Government. [27163]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The opportunity to denounce ILO conventions arises only once in every 10 years. There is a 12-month period during which each convention can be denounced. In the case of convention 99, that period began on 23 August 1993. In accordance with the procedure provided under ILO convention 144, the Government wrote to the CBI and TUC to seek their views on 1 July 1993. The Government announced their decision to denounce the convention on 20 July 1994 and formally notified the ILO on 16 August 1994. The denunciation was registered by the ILO on 16 August 1994 and will take effect on 16 August 1995, one year after registration.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many posts were lost in(a) the Employment Department and (b) agencies for which the Employment Department is responsible, listing the total lost posts agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and how many posts are proposed to be lost in 1995–96. [25083]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures for the Employment Department group's overall staff numbers are contained in the Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Fair Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Council of Europe's policy on fair pay. [25000]
  96
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Council of Europe's social charter includes provisions calling for "fair remuneration". The Council of Europe's Committee of Experts is responsible for interpreting the social charter. However, the experts' view of what constitutes fair remuneration has never been endorsed by any member state within the Council of Europe, and the experts are currently reviewing their policy on this matter.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) males and (b) females were employed part time in each year since 1987; and what percentage of total employment this represents. [26282]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Part-time employment1 in Great Britain at spring of each year

  Thousand

  Year

  Males

  Per cent. of total employment2

  Females

  Per cent. of total employment

  1987

  643

  2.6

  4,587

  18.8

  1988

  710

  2.8

  4,689

  18.6

  1989

  719

  2.8

  4,823

  18.5

  1990

  772

  2.9

  4,834

  18.4

  1991

  784

  3.1

  4,842

  18.8

  1992

  978

  3.9

  4,920

  19.5

  1993

  1,004

  4.0

  4,967

  19.9

  1994

  1,081

  4.3

  5,036

  20.0

  1 This comprises of employees, self-employed, participants on Government employment and training programmes and unpaid family workers.

  2 Male and female employment.

  All figures are adjusted for seasonal variation.

  Source:

  Labour force survey.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each piece of work subject to a building process under the auspices of(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible (i) who the successful bidders were where work was contracted out and (ii) which contracts were won by in-house bidders in (1) 1993–94, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1995–96. [25543]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table provides details of completed market tests undertaken by the Department and its agency, the Employment Service, as part of the Government's "Competing for Quality" programme for 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96.

  1993–94 competing for quality programme

  Activity

  Outcomes

  Employment Department

  Office Services: Records Management

  Contracted out (Rockall Data Services)

  Design Studio

  Retained in-house

  Journals and three facility houses

  Retained in-house

  Information Systems Services

  Retained in-house

  97

  1993–94 competing for quality programme

  Activity

  Outcomes

  Employment Department cont.

  Office Services: Post and Messengers

  Retained in-house

  Management Services

  Retained in-house

  Library Services

  Retained in-house

  Training and Development (London)

  Retained in-house

  Training and Development (Sheffield)

  Retained in-house

  Employment Service

  Field Staff Training: First Aid

  Contracted out (British Red Cross)

  Buildings Maintenance and New Works

  Contracted out (Simons Facilities Management PLC Graham and Stibbald Peter, Fall Cowie Associate HSB Partners Drivers, Jonas WS Atkins Procord Ltd Watts and Partners)

  Field Staff Training: Procedural Training

  Retained in-house

  Internal Audit

  Retained in-house

  Recruitment (London and South East Region)

  Retained in-house

  Management Services

  Retained in-house

  IT Small Systems

  Retained in-house

  Field Staff Training: Management and People Development

  7 regions—retained in-house 2 regions—contracted out (Manchester College of Art and Technology)

  Regional Office Support Services

  6 regions—retained in-house 3 regions—contracted out (Burns International)

  Health and Safety Executive

  Library and Information Services

  Retained in-house

  1994–95

  Health and Safety Executive

  Field Support, Norwich

  Contracted out (Manpower PLC)

  1995–96

  Tests not yet completed

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) of 9 May,Official Report, columns 437–38, on training and employment, if he will break down the information by region.
  98
  Mr. Paice
  Regional information on graduate unemployment, on the ILO definition, is given in the following table. Information on the proportion of trainees on government training programmes who move from their training into related areas of employment is not available at regional level.

  ILO Unemployed Graduates of working age by region

  Autumn 1994 (Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain: 185,000

  North: N/A

  Yorks and Humber: 19,000

  East Midlands: 12,000

  East Anglia: N/A

  South East: 73,000

  South West: 14,000

  West Midlands: 10,000

  North West: 17,000

  Wales: N/A

  Scotland: 17,0000

  Source: Labour force survey.

  N/A—not available, estimate below 10,000.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26239]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Performance commitments for responses to inquiries from the public are included in statements of service standards issued by the main providers of services to the public within the Employment Department group. These commitments and the methods of monitoring performance against them vary according to the nature of the service provided. Particular commitments, and the latest available figures for achievement against those commitments, are as follows:

  Employment Service

  Commitment: responses to letters within five working days

  Achievement: achieved in 98.7 per cent. of cases

  Commitment: telephone calls answered within 30 seconds

  Achievement: achieved in 99.4 per cent. of cases—in sample survey

  Health and Safety Executive

  Commitment: responses to all enquiries or complaints within 10 working days

  Achievement: achieved in 96 per cent. of cases

  Redundancy Payments Service

  Commitment: responses to letters within five working days

  Achievement: achieved in 100 per cent. of cases.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in(a) manufacturing and (b) service industries in each year since 1987. [26197]
  99
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Employees in United Kingdom: December of each year (thousands1)

  Year

  Manufacturing Industries

  Service Industries

  1987

  5,191

  14,904

  1988

  5,224

  15,423

  1989

  5,190

  15,819

  1990

  4,976

  15,948

  1991

  4,607

  15,723

  1992

  4,366

  15,608

  1993

  4,353

  15,795

  1994

  4,369

  15,906

  1 Seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  Workforce in Employment series.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and proportion of (i) men and (ii) women in each region who were unemployed or economically inactive aged(a) 16 to 19, (b) 20 to 24, (c) 25 to 34 and (d) 35 to 49 years; and if he will also give the figures for (i) women between 30 and 59, (ii) men between 50 and 64, (iii) women over 60 and (iv) men over 65 years in each year since 1979. [26086]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 May 2995]: For years 1984 onwards, this information is available from the labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people receive from full-time work(a) £30,000 to £35,000, (b) £35,000 to £50,000,

  Service

  Title of statement

  Last Updated

  Follow-up Procedure

  Employment Service

  Jobseeker's Charter

  June 1994

  Write to Chief Executive

  Health and Safety Executive

  HSE and You

  January 1994

  Write to Director General

  HSE—Working for Employers

  January 1994

  Write to Director General

  Redundancy Payments Service

  Redundancy Payments Service Charter

  February 1994

  Write to manager of relevant office

  Responses to complaints are dealt with according to the time scales applying to other forms of inquiry from members of the public, as described in my reply to the hon. Member today.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers currently holding Investor in People status employ(a) people with disabilities, (b) members of ethnic minorities and (c) women, indicating if each category forms (i) zero to 25 per cent., (ii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iii) 51 to 75 per cent. and (iv) 76 to 100 per cent. of the workforce (1) for each of his Department's regions and (2) nationally. [26506]

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

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers, and of what size, currently hold Investor in People status; and what these constitute as a percentage of all employers of that size in 100
  (c) £50,000 to £75,000, (d) £75,000 to £100,000 and (e) over £100,000 a year; and what are (a) to (e) as a percentage of the employed population. [26148]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: Estimated numbers of full-time employees are given in the following table:

  £

  Estimated Number Full-time Employees

  Per Cent. of Full-time Employed Population

  30,000 to 35,000

  452,000

  3.0

  35,000 to 50,000

  460,000

  3.0

  50,000 to 75,000

  145,000

  0.7

  75,000 to 100,000

  29,000

  0.2

  over 100,000

  19,000

  0.1

  Source:

  New earnings survey April 1994 and employees in employment March 1994.

  Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when the policy was last updated; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26223]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Complaints procedures are set out in individual statements of service standards published by organisations with the Employment Department group which provide services to the public. The main such statements, the date at which they were last updated and the nature of the follow-up procedures where complainants are not satisfied are as follows:

  the area (a) for each of his Department's regions and (b) nationally. [26502]

  Mr. Paice
  At 26 March 1995, over 1,453 employers in England were recognised as Investors in People. Of these, 446 were companies with over 200 employees; 1,007 with under 200 employees. In excess of 16,000 further employers are committed to achieving IiP status.

  The percentage of organisations with over 200 employees in England recognised as IiP is 6 per cent. of the target groups agreed with training and enterprise councils. The regional breakdown is shown in the following table:

  Region

  Per cent.

  Eastern

  5

  East Midlands

  7

  London

  2

  Merseyside

  7

  North East

  8

  North West

  6

  Employment Service Barnoldswick
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what facilities are available at the local library in Barnoldswick for persons wishing to use the services of the Employment Service and which have been added or withdrawn since the closure of the town's jobcentre. [26564]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question regarding the provision and withdrawal of services provided by the Employment Service (ES) at Barnoldswick library.
  Since the closure of the town's Jobcentre, the ES has provided a vacancy display facility and a Freephone service connected to Come Jobcentre at the local library. The facility was initially staffed on a part-time basis between 9.30 am and 11.30 am on Mondays and Wednesdays. This was reduced to Wednesdays some two years ago.
  The facility has not been used to any significant extent and the decision was recently taken to withdraw the part-time staff presence from the library, with effect from 10 May.
  The vacancy display which is updated twice a week and Freephone service are still available to people using the library. The Freephone number is available for use by the public outside the library's opening hours.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Sheep dipping
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Executive will recommend appropriate personal protective equipment for sheep farmers to give full protection against organophosphate chemicals. [26490]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's guidance in its free "Sheep Dipping" leaflet recommends both what personal protective equipment is appropriate for farmers when dipping sheep with organophosphate products and the steps for its proper use.

  Wearing personal protective equipment is, of course, only one of the measures to protect farmers and others against exposure to hazardous substances. Those include only dipping when necessary; and, where dips have to be used, planning carefully the design and siting of the facilities, using appropriate engineering controls; and, where protective clothing becomes heavily contaminated, washing and putting on clean clothes.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library copies of all improvement or prohibition notices served by the Health and Safety Executive on the atomic weapons establishments at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness; and if he will continue to ensure that all future notices serviced on these establishments are placed in the Library as and when they are served. [26371]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Entries for all the notices served by the Health and Safety Executive on the atomic weapons establishments are in the public register at HSE's south 102
  area office at Basingstoke. Exceptionally I have asked HSE to forward copies of these entries to the Library. The public register entries consist of a copy of the notice. Some material has been removed for reasons of national security. Information about further notices will be available at that office.

  Pathfinder Careers Services
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish the findings, referred to on page 6, paragraph 107 of the "Impact of New Management Arrangements in New Pathfinder Careers Services" report, of his investigation into the management of the contractual relationship between his Department and the pathfinders; and if he will make a statement. [26503]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to publish the information referred to. The published report contains the main findings. Publication of findings concerning the contractual relationship between the Employment Department and the pathfinder careers services would be inappropriate.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the proposed commencement date of the 16 guided learning hours provision embraced in the Jobseekers Bill. [26610]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if employment service officials will have the power between 1 April 1996 and the implementation date of jobseeker's allowance to issue a jobseeker's direction to claimants. [26612]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No; but claimants will continue to be subject to sanction if they refuse or fail to carry out an official recommendation given with a view to assisting them find a particular type of employment.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if new claimants between 1 April 1996 and the implementation date of jobseeker's allowance will have to sign a jobseeker's agreement as a condition of benefit or if they will continue to be issued with the advisory back-to-work plan. [26611]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker's agreement will be introduced when jobseeker's allowance is implemented in October 1996. The voluntary back-to-work plan will continue to be used until then. Different versions and processes will be tested in a small number of offices on a voluntary basis within the existing legislation in order to help plan the smooth introduction of JSA.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what targets he has set for the rate of unemployment. [26533]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment and low inflation. However, I do not believe that it is sensible to set a particular rate of unemployment as a target for these policies.
  103
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs would have to be created in the absence of special Government measures to reduce unemployment to the same level as in the fourth quarter of 1973 on the same definition. [27025]

  Work-force in employment and claimant unemployment, United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted

  Workforce in employment

  Of which

  Claimant Unemployed1

  Unemployment rate

  Date

  000's

  Part time employees2 000's

  Work related govt training programmes3 000's

  000's

  Percentage

  June l9734

  25,209

  3,891

  1—

  534

  2.1

  June 19744

  25,280

  4,183

  1—

  513

  2.0

  December 1994

  25,604

  6,222

  304

  2,419

  8.6

  April 1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,328

  8.3

  Source: "Employment Gazette"

  n/a: not available

  Notes:

  1 Consistent with the current definition.

  2 There are also part-time self-employed workers but for the UK figures are available only for employees. Participants in work related government training programmes are all considered to be part-time members of the workforce in employment.

  3Includes participants on government training and employment programmes who receive some work experience on their placement but who do not have a contract of employment. Participants with a contract are included as employees.

  4 Figures that are comparable and consistent with the current coverage of the "Workforce in Employment" statistics are not available on a quarterly basis before 1978. Therefore, the figures for June 1973 and June 1974 are given to provide the most comprehensive information available for the last quarter of 1973.

  Industry Training Organisations
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to(a) increase and (b) reduce the number of (i) industry training organisations, (ii) lead bodies, (iii) awarding bodies and (iv) occupational standards councils; and if he will make a statement. [26505]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has no plans to change the numbers of industry training organisations, lead bodies, awarding bodies or occupational standards councils.

  It is for groups of employers to decide whether to apply to the Department for recognition as an ITO. Equally, it is for groups of employers or others to decide whether they wish to act as a lead body or to participate in an occupational standards council.

  The Department does not have powers to recognise awarding bodies. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications sets strict criteria for organisations wanting to award national vocational qualifications.

  Job Insecurity
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he will introduce to alleviate job insecurity among United Kingdom employees. [26360]

  Miss Widdecombe
  To alleviate job insecurity, businesses must be able to create jobs and individuals must be able to adapt to structural and technological change. The Government's economic policies provide the framework for sustained growth in jobs, and our employment and training measures help individuals find jobs and develop their skills and aptitudes. It is also important to remove unnecessary burdens on employers which deter them from creating new jobs as sales and
  104
  Mr. Oppenheim
  There is not a simple relationship between the number of jobs and the level of unemployment, because of changes in the population of working age and activity rates. The following table shows that claimant unemployment is higher than in 1973, but the number in employment is also larger.

  output rise. The Uk now has one of the most flexible and deregulated labour markets in Europe. It also has:
  a higher proportion of its adult population in work than in any other major European country;
  fewer people out of work and claiming benefits than any other major European country; and
  one of the lowest proportions of temporary workers in Europe.

  We shall continue to resist measures such as the social chapter, a national minimum wage and a compulsory training levy which would put jobs at risk and add unnecessarily to job insecurity.

  Sewer Maintenance
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure safe working practices for operatives engaged in sewer maintenance. [26718]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Primary responsibility for setting up and monitoring safe working practices for operatives engaged in sewer maintenance rests with the employers of operatives. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires all employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees. Health and Safety Executive inspectors enforce health and safety legislation in the water industry.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive last issued guidance for safe working practices for operatives engaged in sewer maintenance. [26717]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive issued updated guidance in August 1994 on safe working practices in all confined spaces, including sewers and enclosed drains. A guidance package on occupational health risks for sewage is in preparation.
  105
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections were made last year by health and safety inspectors of contractors working on sewer maintenance. [26719]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, provisional figures indicate that inspectors made some 104 visits to sewage disposal activities in 1994–95.

  Disabled People
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional steps to enlarge opportunities for persons with disability are needed to conform with the declaration and action programme agreed at the Copenhagen world summit for social development in March, with particular reference to article 62. [26760]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The preambles to both the declaration and the programme of action make clear that the implementation of the summit recommendations at national level is subject to national legislation and priorities. United Kingdom policies and programmes to enlarge employment opportunities for people with disabilities are already kept under review to ensure that they respond quickly and effectively to changing national needs and circumstances.

  The Department has a wide range of employment and training services, programmes—including supported employment—and initiatives, which help enhance the employment opportunities for people with disabilities and assist disabled people to obtain and retain employment.

  The Disability Discrimination Bill introduced by the Government, will, when enacted, make it unlawful for employers, with 20 or more employees to discriminate against disabled people in any area of employment. Employers will also be under a duty to make a reasonable adjustment to working conditions or to the workplace where a disabled person would otherwise be at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people.

  Worker Co-operatives
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs that have been created in worker co-operatives in the UK since the passing of the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976; and what research he has conducted on the survival rate of new start worker co-operatives and on comparisons with the survival rates of traditional forms of small new start business. [26924]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I regret that this information is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) the Department of the Environment and (b) agencies for which the Department is responsible for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96. [25525]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Expenditure on consultancies by my Department and its agencies, excluding IT consultancies, is £10.394 million in 1993–94, £10.882 106
  million in 1994–95, and is forecast to be £13.875 million in 1995–96.

  Departmental Performance
  Mr Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26328]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has a target of replying to all letters from the public, including individuals, businesses and local authorities, within 15 working days of the letter being received by the department. Since April 1994, the Department has been developing procedures for monitoring performance against that target, which are overseen by the management board of the Department.

  The Department has no quantitative target for the answering of telephone calls by all departmental staff and performance data are not centrally monitored. The Department's public inquiry unit has targets for several aspects of their answering of telephone calls and their performance against these targets is monitored daily and reported on annually to senior management.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of business premises in England as a whole and in each local authority in England have qualified for transitional uniform business rate relief continuously, each year, since the 1987 business rates revaluation; [25967]

  (2) what was the percentage of business premises in England as a whole and in each local authority in England that qualified for transitional uniform business rate relief following the (a) 1987 and (b) 1992 revaluation; and if he will list the local authorities in order according to the percentage qualifying for transitional relief at each revaluation; [25970]

  (3) what was the average percentage increase in rateable values for business premises in England as a whole and in each local authority in England following the (a) 1987 and (b) 1993 revaluation; and if he will list the local authorities in order according to the average percentage increase at each revaluation. [25969]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There were no revaluations in 1987 or 1992. The 1990 revaluation of non-domestic property was based on rents in 1988. The 1995 revaluation, which came into force on 1 April, is based on rents in 1993. The tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library, show:the percentage of non-domestic properties moving to higher bills which have qualified for transitional relief continuously since 1990;
  the average percentage increase in rateable value of non-domestic properties following each of the revaluations; and,
  the percentage of non-domestic properties moving to higher bills which qualified for transitional relief in the first year after each of the revaluations.

  Underground Car Parks
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are to include benzene and particulates in the regulations concerning ventilation in underground car parks; and if he will make a statement. [26173]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 1 July this year, new building regulations for the ventilation of non-domestic buildings including underground car parks come into force. Guidance is contained in the 1995 edition of the approved document for part F of the Building Regulations. The provisions are based on the amount of ventilation needed to reduce the level of pollutants generally, rather than setting specific limits for individual pollutants such as benzene or particulates. The guidance is kept under review and research is being undertaken to monitor the effectiveness of the provisions in reducing such pollutants.

  Occupational exposure limits for benzene and other constituents of vehicle exhaust emissions are controlled by the Health and Safety Commission. The current occupational exposure limits are considered adequate to control the risk of ill health to employees in underground car parks. If appropriate measures are taken to control employees' exposure to the main constituents of vehicle exhaust emissions below the relevant occupational exposure limits, their exposure to other substances hazardous to health in the emissions are also likely to be controlled to levels below which there is unlikely to be any risk to their health.

  Air quality is one of the Government's environmental priorities. In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", which sets out the Government's strategic policies for air quality management, including a pledge to set air quality standards for nine major pollutants, among which are benzene and particulates.

  Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy and procedures exists for dealing which complaints against his Department by members of the public; when the policy was last updated; what time limit and target for dealing which such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26222]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's complaints handling procedures were revised in April 1994. A departmental service commitment explains what steps are open to members of the public to wish to make a complaint. These steps include the opportunity to refer a complaint to the departmental complaints unit.

  The Department's target for responding to letters of complaint is, as for all letters from the public, that a reply should be sent within 15 working days of the letter being received.

  Any member of the public who is dissatisfied with the way the Department has dealt with their complaint may ask a Member of Parliament to submit their complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.

  Inheritances
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average value of inheritance other than of surviving spouses and excluding all inheritances of under £1,000 in England since 1990. [26568]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to prevent damage to the green belt by intrusive agricultural development. [26535]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The visual amenities of the green belt should not be injured by proposals for development which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in green belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design. This is a material factor which local planning authorities should take into account in considering planning applications. For smaller agricultural buildings which do not require a planning application, local planning authorities have discretion to control siting, design and external appearance.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are available in circumstances where local authorities fail to provide adequate details of potential sites for development in urban areas when consideration is given to the use of green belt land for development purposes. [26672]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If a proposed development is inappropriate to a green belt, it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary for Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons used to decide whether to link questions for oral answer. [26427]

  Mr. Gummer
  Questions are usually linked when they are on closely related issues in very close proximity in the order paper, and the hon. Members concerned do not object.

  Sewerage Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it a requirement that sewerage undertakers publish and enforce guidance for safe working practices in their operations in their areas. [26720]

  Mr. Atkins
  Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires every employer of more than five employees to prepare and keep up to date a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and arrangements for carrying out that policy, and to bring that statement and any revision of it to the notice of all his employees.

  Mrs Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that where sewerage work is contracted out by the statutory undertakers the undertaker retains responsibility for enforcing safe working practices within their contract specifications. [26721]
  109
  Mr. Atkins
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires all employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in the water industry.

  Noise
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps his Department proposes to take to deal with the problem of noise nuisance by neighbours; and what plans he has to present legislation on the issue. [26771]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We continue to encourage informal resolution of neighbour noise problems, wherever possible, while recognising that in some cases formal enforcement action is necessary. The conclusions and recommendations of an interdepartmental working party on neighbour noise set up to review the effectiveness of controls under the current law were issued as a consultation paper at the end of March. The recommendations include proposals for a specific power of temporary confiscation of noise-making equipment and a new nighttime noise offence based on World Health Organisation guidelines. We will consider the comments on these proposals before deciding whether to proceed with legislation.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation for construction contracts; [26687]

  (2) what steps he will take to assist and protect construction industries prior to a legislative response to the Latham report. [26688]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 16 May 1995,Official Report, column 176.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the costs to construction industries arising out of late payment; and if he will make a statement on the implications this has for employment and training.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am not aware of any estimate by the construction industry of these costs.

  Proposed Development, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration was given to the complaints raised by Crigglestone parish council prior to the decision to remove green belt land designation for development purposes at junction 39, M1 motorway, in Wakefield. [26747]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The parish council's objections were considered at the public local inquiry into the Wakefield unitary development plan. The Secretary of State has no records of complaints being made prior to the adoption of the plan on 6 December 1994.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information was provided about alternative sites for proposed development in the case of land at junction 39, M1 motorway, in Wakefield. [26673]
  110
  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is a matter considered during the preparation of, and at the public local inquiry into, the Wakefield unitary plan. The Secretary of State has been fully consulted about the plan and has been satisfied with the information given.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the inspector's investigation into an application to remove land from the green belt for development at junction 39, M1 motorway, in Wakefield. [26651]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The cost of the public local inquiry into objections to the Wakefield unitary development plan is a matter for Wakefield metropolitan council and the Planning Inspectorate Agency. I have asked the agency's director to write separately to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Greenfield to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 2 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of the Inspector's report on objections to the removal of land from green belt for development at junction 39 of the M1 in Wakefield. This formed part of the public inquiry into objections to the Wakefield Unitary Development Plan, which closed on 27 January 1993 after 61 sitting days.
  Unfortunately, it is not possible to say what was the exact cost of the Inspector's consideration of these particular objections. I understand that approximately 1.5 inquiry days were occupied in hearing representations on this objection also, and additional time would have been spent in producing the Inspector's report. The fee charged per Inspector day was £285, plus some £85 per day in travel and subsistence costs where appropriate.
  On the basis of the then current Planning Inspectorate guideline of 3 reporting days per inquiry sitting/site visit day, the Inspector would have spent some 4 to 5 days reporting on the oral and written representations relating to the site. The total cost would thus have been some £1,800.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the information on potential development sites, outside of green belt, in urban areas, when consideration was given to development proposals at junction 39 of the M1 motorway in Wakefield. [26669]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The matter was considered at the public local inquiry into objections to the Wakefield unitary development plan. The Secretary of State has been fully consulted at every stage of the plan's preparation. He has scrutinised the proposals, having regard to national and regional policy advice, and was content with the plan at the time of adoption.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment if it will be necessary to hold elections for a shadow council for those unitary authorities whose boundaries are coterminous with the boundary of the existing district councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Where an authority gaining unitary status is coterminous with an existing county or district council, it will be a continuing authority and there will be no need for a shadow council. There is no statutory requirement for fresh elections to an authority in this position, other than as part of the normal electoral cycle, but it is our policy to require fresh elections to be held for the whole council in the year before reorganisation, to ensure that planning and implementation of unitary functions is done on the basis of a fresh mandate.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are served by more than one water authority. [26705]

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sefton Park Palm House
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the Sefton Park palm house, Liverpool; [26908]

  (2) what European regional development fund funding and English Heritage funding is available towards the restoration of the Sefton Park palm house.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The works carried out in 1993 under the urban programme funded rescue package—£254,000—secured the structure in the short term, allowing time for detailed proposals to be drawn up for future sustainable use as part of an overall tourism strategy.

  The Government office for Merseyside has received an application for ERDF grant assistance for a development study and business plan. This application is currently being appraised.

  I understand that English Heritage has made an offer of funding towards eligible works on the palm house.

  Local Investment Fund
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investment in small businesses has resulted since the launch of the local investment fund in 1994; what action has been taken to publicise the existance of the local investment fund; what steps the Government are taking to increase investment in the fund; and if he will make a statement. [26914]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is a matter for the management of the local investment fund. The local investment fund was established by means of a £1 million grant from the Department of the Environment matched by £2 million from the private sector in grants and loans. It is a registered charity operating independently of Government.

  North Sea
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend his commitments on protection of the North sea to all waters around the UK. [26870]

  Mr. Atkins
  It is long-standing Government policy to apply obligations under successive North sea conferences to all our waters. This commitment will apply equally to any steps agreed by the fourth North sea conference on 8 and 9 June, within the framework for implementing measures for the north-east Atlantic under the 1992 OSPAR convention.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what commitment he plans to make to protect the North sea beyond the 200-mile limit of territorial waters. [26871]

  Mr. Atkins
  All the North sea is within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of one or other of the North sea states: their jurisdictions over the area between the 12-mile limit to territorial waters and the 200-mile limit—which are recognised by international law—therefore provides a major underpinning for measures to protect the North sea 112
  agreed through the North sea conferences. We have also signed the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic which provides a comprehensive framework for protecting the seas north of 36°N, the latitude of the straits of Gibraltar, and east of 42°W, the longitude of the southern tip of Greenland, as far as the straits between Denmark and Sweden.

  Mr. Mackinley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to raise the issue of controlling pollution from ships at the forthcoming North sea ministerial conference; what policy proposals he has to suggest; and if he will make a statement. [26361]

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 24 May 1995]: Pollution from shipping is one of the issues which the conference will consider. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 16 May, Official Report, column 183, what we hope the conference will achieve in all of the areas it will cover, including shipping. A UK note on the conference was placed in the Library of the House.

  Proposed Theatre, Ilfracombe
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received urging him to call in the planning application for a new pavilion theatre and winter garden at Ilfracombe, North Devon; [26907]

  (2) if he will take into consideration the time scale pressure on funding opportunities for the construction of a new pavilion theatre and winter garden at Ilfracombe, North Devon, in deciding whether to call in the planning application for the development. [26906]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the representations received from English Heritage about the design and impact of the proposals for a new theatre and winter garden at Ilfracombe. He has decided to leave the planning decision to North Devon district council and appropriate notification was issued by the Government office for the south-west on 2 June.

  Direct Labour and Service Organisations
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1993–94. [27024]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 28 February this year, 38 statutory notices were served on 19 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations to meet the required financial objective in 1993–94.

  My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices, and has today given directions to Bradford city council, highways and sewers; Brent LBC, highways and sewers; Calderdale MBC, building maintenance; Charnwood borough council, building maintenance and grounds maintenance; Durham county council, grounds maintenance, other catering and building maintenance; Great Grimsby borough council, highways and sewers; Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, grounds maintenance, Lambeth LBC, building cleaning; Liverpool city council, highways and sewers, grounds maintenance and other cleaning; Newham LBC, grounds maintenance; North Devon district council, building maintenance;

  113
  South Northamptonshire district council, building maintenance, other cleaning and sports and leisure management; Southend-on-Sea borough council, highways and sewers; Waltham Forest LBC, building maintenance and grounds maintenance; and Wigan MBC, building maintenance.

  These directions take five different forms:

  preventing the authority from carrying out the work from 1 April 1996: Bradford city council, highways and sewers.

  Requiring an authority to retender all or part of the work, and to seek the Secretary of State's prior consent should they wish to award the work in-house. The work would need to be retendered or a new contract would need to have been awarded by specific dates: Calderdale, building maintenance; Durham, grounds maintenance and other catering; Hammersmith and Fulham, grounds maintenance; Lambeth, building cleaning; Newham, grounds maintenance; and South Northamptonshire, building maintenance and sports and leisure management.

  preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the required financial objective a specified financial year or years:

  1994–95: Brent, highways and sewers.

  1995–96: Charnwood, building maintenance; Waltham Forest, grounds maintenance, and Wigan, building maintenance.

  1995–96 and 1996–97: Liverpool, highways and sewers and grounds maintenance, and Waltham Forest, building maintenance.

  requiring an authority to retender the work if it fails to meet the required financial objective in a specified financial year, and to seek the Secretary of State's prior consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award the work in-house:

  1994–95: Charnwood, grounds maintenance and North Devon, building maintenance.

  1995–96: Durham, building maintenance; Grimsby, highways and sewers; South Northamptonshire, other cleaning, and Southend-on-Sea, highways and sewers.

  requiring an authority to submit quarterly monitoring reports up to March 1997: Liverpool, other cleaning.

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1993–94 by:
  Bournemouth, building maintenance, vehicle maintenance; Durham, new construction over £50,000; Grimsby, refuse collection/other cleaning; Havering, building cleaning; Hillingdon, building maintenance; Lambeth, grounds maintenance; Liverpool, other catering; Merton, sports and leisure management; North Devon, other cleaning; Southend-on-Sea, building maintenance, and Waltham Forest, building cleaning and other catering; Waltham Forest, sports and leisure management; and Brent, sports and leisure management.

  This is the first of four announcements that I shall be making between now and October about the action that is being taken against local authorities that failed to meet their financial objectives in 1993–94.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the dispersal of low-level radioactive waste at sites in(a) the Sherwood constituency and (b) Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [26876]

  Mr. Atkins
  At present no low-level radioactive waste is authorised for disposal at any landfill site in Nottinghamshire, and my Department has no knowledge of any future plans in this regard.

  The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 regulates the disposal of all radioactive waste. Before anyone disposes of this waste, other than under the terms of an exemption order, he must apply to Her Majesty's inspectorate of
  114
  pollution for authorisation under the Act, and the application is made public. HMIP will grant authorisation only if it is fully satisfied that the public is properly protected.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards the 15 per cent. energy saving target for the Government estate; and when he intends to publish the Government's latest review of progress on a Department-by-Department basis. [27158]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May 1995,Official Report, columns 260–62.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what target date he has set for the achievement of the 15 per cent. energy saving target for the Government estate. [27157]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The answer is 31 March 1996.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that asbestos-based products are not used in construction. [25865]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The use of products containing the most dangerous types of asbestos, brown and blue, and many construction products containing white asbestos is prohibited. The few remaining uses of white asbestos based products in construction are subject to the provisions of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, as amended in 1992. Those require employers to prevent exposure to asbestos, where it is practicable, by substituting products containing asbestos for less harmful products.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Home Visits
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the purpose of proposed home visits by Benefits Agency staff; [26249]

  (2) what instructions he has given to Benefits Agency staff regarding proposed home visits; [26247]

  (3) how many home visits by Benefits Agency staff are proposed in the current year. [26248]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The purposes of home visits by Benefits Agency staff are to clarify and verify details of benefit claims which cannot be easily, or satisfactorily confirmed by post, ensuring that benefit entitlement is expedited accurately and speedily.

  Long-standing advice exists for Benefits Agency staff on how to conduct business away from the office. This includes guidance on interview techniques and personal safety. All visiting staff attend specialised training courses, which include a session on how to deal with potentially aggressive situations. In addition, guidance is due to be issued advising how to select, perform and record, new and repeat and "review claim" visits.
  115
  There is no overall numerical target set for home visits. Details of the number of visits carried out last year, 1994–95, are set out in the table.

  Number of visits to customers in financial year ending March 1995

  Number

  New claims visits

  57,000

  Initial case check (follow up)

  32,500

  Subsequent case check

  64,000

  Specialist visits (e.g. by CSA staff)

  80,000

  Other (may include some fraud related visits)

  250,000

  Total

  483,500

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Great Britain aged over 64 years living in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) national health service nursing homes have a spouse living elsewhere. [25977]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in England aged over 64 years live in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) NHS nursing homes; and, of these, how many have the cost of their care paid wholly or partly by (i) their local authority, (ii) their health authority and (iii) the Department of Social Security; and how many pay for their care wholly from private resources. [25978]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Number of Income Support Cases in England where the recipient is aged over 64 in May 1994

  Residential Care

  76,000

  Nursing Homes

  71,000

  LA Residential Accommodation

  6,000

  Including Residential Allowance

  42,000

  Total Cases

  194,000

  Source: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry: May 1994.

  Notes:

  All figures rounded to nearest thousand.

  Residential care and nursing homes may be either private or voluntary homes.

  Cases under the community care scheme cannot be split between residential care and nursing homes.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines his Department plans to issue to local authorities concerning rent referrals to local rent officers under the proposed changes to housing benefit. [26538]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In March this year we issued to all local authorities a circular, HB/CTBA6/95, and a summary of our proposals to take effect from October. Following formal consultation, we are currently considering the report from the social security advisory 116
  committee, and the representations from local authority associations, before reaching final decisions. We will then issue further guidance to all local authorities and will keep the need for additional material under review, in line with our normal practice.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date the five consortia bidding to act as prime contractors for the automated benefit payment system must submit their proposals; when the Department of Social Security will make its decision; and when he expects the system to be operational. [26369]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The five consortia must submit their proposals by 8 June and the Department will make its decision around the end of the year. The first benefit payment cards are expected to be issued in 1996 and the whole implementation process is expected to take up to three years.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the automated benefit payment card statement of system requirement. [26368]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. The statement of service requirement is part of the contractual negotiations between the Department and potential service providers, and as such is commercially confidential.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many national insurance numbers are in existence; how many national insurance numbers relate to people now deceased; how many national insurance numbers have been issued in each of the past 10 years, other than automatically to 16-year-olds; what are the categories into which those applying for national insurance, other than automatic issue to 16-year-olds, are placed; how many national insurance numbers have been issued in each of those categories in each of the past 10 years; how many prosecutions have been made in each of the last 10 years for fraudulent claims for national insurance numbers; and how many national insurance numbers have been cancelled in each of the last 10 years. [26457]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are 65,329,198 national insurance numbers held on the departmental central index.

  Approximately 8.8 million records relate to people now deceased.

  It is possible to state only how many national insurance numbers have been issued in three of the past 10 years in cases other than automatically to 16-year-olds.

  1986: 142,964

  1987: 155,571

  1988: 174,902

  This information is not available from 1989 onwards because of changes to the way in which the Department's computer systems operate.

  In addition to those national insurance numbers issued automatically to 16-year-olds, applications may come from customers who have arrived from abroad and never been in the UK before or have not been included in the automatic registration process—for example, if child benefit has not been in payment.

  It is not possible to state how many national insurance number allocations fall into each category as current

  117
  processes do not provide for the collection of this information.

  Since records began in 1991 there have been approximately 500 to 550 prosecutions a year involving conspiracy to obtain benefit fraudulently from the Department by the misuse of identity details and national insurance numbers.

  The numbers of national insurance numbers cancelled in the past 10 years are as follows:

  1986: 7,576

  1987: 6,719

  1988: 13,763

  1989: 10,827

  1990: 11,924

  1991: 8,878

  1992: 13,230

  993: 13,458

  1994: 9,344

  1995: 5,163 (to date).

  Income Support
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if new claimants with a partner who satisfy the contribution conditions between 1 April 1996 and the implementation date of jobseeker's allowance will be eligible for the dependant's addition. [26614]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if claimants subject to benefit sanctions between 1 April 1996 and the implementation date of the jobseeker's allowance will be eligible for income support hardship payments including during the first two weeks of such a sanction. [26613]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The current rules will apply until jobseeker's allowance is introduced in October 1996.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if new claimants aged under 25 years and satisfying the contribution conditions between 1 April 1996 and the implementation date of jobseeker's allowance will be entitled to the same rate of benefit as those aged over 25 years. [26615]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the statement on page 71, paragraph 6.22 in the Government's White Paper, "Competitiveness—Forging Ahead", in respect of the state not funding improvements in the living standards of individuals in old age represents a change in Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [26902]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our policy on pensions remains unchanged. We will maintain the value of the basic state pension by increasing it in line with prices, encourage personal responsibility for additional pension provision through occupational and personal pensions and target extra resources on those with a low income.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland have been identified by the Child Support Agency as absent parents;118
  what is the average length of stay away from the family home; and how many of the above have (a) given no financial support to the family and (b) given amounts of money irregularly. [24602]

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

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 31 May 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 details of the absent parents in Scotland.
  From a one per cent sample of the Agency's cases, it is estimated that as at 11 March 1995, 42,200 people living in Scotland had been identified as absent parents (APs). Of these, 29,900 had been assessed to pay child maintenance, 24,200 agreeing to pay through the CSA collection service, and the remaining 5,700 arranging to pay direct to the parent with care (PaWC). In these last cases, the Agency assumes that unless the PaWC advises to the contrary, child maintenance is paid in full.
  Of those APs using the collection service, 1,300 had paid child maintenance in full; 2,400 had paid part of the maintenance due; and 12,800 had paid no child maintenance in the previous 13 weeks. Action on the collection accounts had not been completed in the remaining 7,700 cases.
  No information is available on the average length of time that an AP stays away from the family home.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23497]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer Tuesday 9 May]: The Department of Social Security recovers all costs when cloning is detected. The supplier VODAC Ltd. monitors and reports on instances of cloning and credits the DSS for any losses occurring from unauthorised usage.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Manslaughter Detainees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 554, on restricted patients with a hospital order sentenced for manslaughter, where each patient is or was detained. [26153]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on all the hospitals in which each patient was detained would involve disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 23 May 1995 at column 487, detailing the hospitals to which the patients convicted of manslaughter and given a hospital order were initially admitted. The following table shows the current whereabouts of those patients who were still detained in hospital in December 1994.
  119

  Patients detained in hospital in December 1994 under a hospital order with restrictions on discharge following a conviction for manslaughter in 1985–94 by hospital

  Number

  Broadmoor

  48

  Rampton

  48

  Ashworth1

  48

  Arnold Lodge

  3

  Bexley

  2

  Bracton Clinic

  1

  Brookwood

  1

  Calderstones

  1

  Camlet Lodge

  3

  Caswell Clinic

  4

  Doncaster Gate

  2

  East Glamorgan

  1

  Edenfield Centre

  1

  Fieldhead

  1

  Friern

  1

  Glanryhd

  1

  Hackney

  5

  Kneesworth

  3

  Knowle

  1

  Marlborough House

  2

  Middlewood

  1

  Moorgreen

  1

  Napsbury

  1

  Newton Lodge

  2

  North Wales Hospital

  1

  Northgate

  1

  Northwick Park

  1

  Parkside

  1

  Pastures

  1

  Rainhill

  1

  Reaside

  5

  Runwell

  1

  Scott Clinic

  2

  St. Bernard's, Ealing

  1

  St. James'

  1

  St. Augustine's

  1

  Stockton Hall

  1

  Three Bridges

  10

  Trevor Gibbens Unit

  1

  Whittingham

  1

  Winterton

  2

  Total

  214

  1 Moss Side and Park Lane merged to become Ashworth in February 1990.

  Prison Staff (Suicides)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many prison staff committed suicide in each of the last 15 years. [26091]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison staff suicides in each of the last 15 years.
  Staff suicides in the last five years were as follows:

  1990: 4

  1991: 2

  1992: 5

  1993: 4

  994: 11

  1995: 2 (to date)

  120
  Records of the cause of staff deaths before 1990 are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  The increased number of staff suicides in 1994 is a matter of great concern to the Prison Service. The causes of each suicide have been carefully examined, but in no case does the cause appear to be related to work in the Prison Service.

  Ebola Virus
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued to immigration officials dealing with persons entering the United Kingdom directly or indirectly, from Zaire, with particular reference to individuals who may have travelled through areas with Ebola virus cases. [26631]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information and advice about the Ebola virus issued by the Department of Health has been given to immigration officers who are instructed to refer to the port medical inspector any passenger seeking entry who appears to be unwell. The Immigration Service is closely monitoring the position as necessary with the Department of Health.

  Royal Life Saving Society
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support is currently being provided by his Department to the Royal Life Saving Society. [26748]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Royal Life Saving Society (UK) does not receive any financial support from my Department.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has with the Royal Life Saving Society relating to information required in responding to hon. Members questions concerning(a) coastal safety and (b) coastal lifeguard services. [26652]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My Department has no standing arrangements for obtaining information from the Royal Life Saving Society (UK) on coastal water safety issues. But we would, of course, be ready to seek information from the society if we had reason to believe that it might be able to assist the preparation of a reply to a question from an hon. Member.

  Mentally Ill Offenders
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many mentally ill people having come before a court with an offence punishable by imprisonment have been subject to a section 37 hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for each year since 1989. [26644]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information, which is published annually in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library, is given in the table. The figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Mentally disordered offenders made subject to section 37 Hospital Orders, England and Wales, 1989–1993

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Persons admitted to hospital under a hospital order (section 37) with a restriction order (section 41)

  170

  154

  156

  213

  218

  121

  Mentally disordered offenders made subject to section 37 Hospital Orders, England and Wales, 1989–1993

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Persons receiving a hospital order without a restriction order(1)

  756

  789

  730

  717

  670

  Total

  926

  943

  886

  930

  888

  1Source: sentencing statistics.

  Licensed Premises
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidelines on the number of people that any licensed premises that does not have a public entertainment licence can safely allow on the premises. [26694]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Home Department's "Guide to Fire Precautions in Existing Places of Entertainment and Like Premises", issued to fire authorities in 1990, included guidance on occupancy capacity for licensed premises. These guidelines are also applicable to premises which do not require a public entertainment licence. We have no plans to issue further guidance on this subject.

  Electric Shock Weapons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a company was last granted authority specifically to possess electric shock weapons in or before 1991; if he will name the company; and for how long that permission was given. [26754]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Personal Data)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove the United Kingdom derogations to principles 2.2 and 2.4 of the Council of Europe recommendation on the use of personal data in the police sector [R(87) (15)1; if he will list those member states who have not entered such a derogation; and if he will make a statement. [27008]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The UK has reserved its right to comply or not with principles 2.2 and 2.4 of the Council of Europe recommendation. There are no plans to lift these reservations.

  No other Member state entered identical reservations when the recommendation was adopted, although the Republic of Ireland entered a general reservation to comply or not with the recommendation as a whole and Switzerland abstained.

  Third Country Nationals
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made of the increase in immigration to the United Kingdom and of the likely effect on public funds of permitting any third country national lawfully resident in one European Union country freely to enter and to remain in the United Kingdom. [27027]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. The Government have no intention of allowing third country nationals lawfully resident in another member state to enter and remain freely in the United Kingdom.

  Europol
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning progress towards agreement on the draft convention to establish Europol; and if he will make a statement on United Kingdom objections to the current version of the draft. [27006]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Essen on 9 and 10 December 1994 the European Council asked for work on the draft convention to be completed before its meeting in Cannes on 26 and 27 June this year. Good progress has been made under the French presidency. The Justice and Home Affairs Council will consider the outstanding issues on 20 and 21 June.

  A copy of the current draft of the convention was sent to the appropriate parliamentary committees on 31 May under cover of an explanatory note. The United Kingdom is general content with the draft. We have reservations recorded against the text of articles 13 and 21 relating respectively to:

  (i) a Belgian proposal to amend the text so as to use the Europol Convention as a vehicle for extending to paper files, for the first time, particular data protection measures previously agreed only in respect of automatic data processing. This is not a reservation against the convention text itself;

  (ii) drafting aspects of the test relating to the role of national data protection authorities and the joint supervisory body.

  A number of outstanding articles in the current text are blank—these relate to data protection and institutional questions. Intensive negotiations are underway to reach agreement between member states on these issues.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the status of the Council of Europe recommendation on the use of personal data in the police sector [R(87) (15)1 with respect to the draft convention to establish Europol. [27002]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Article 13 of the draft convention requires member states and Europol to take account of the Council of Europe recommendation.

  Drugs, Holloway
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of mandatory drug tests have thus far been positive in HM prison Holloway; and what were the main drugs detected. [26889]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the results from the drug testing programme at Holloway prison.
  Holloway has only recently started their drug testing programme. The first results from the prison are not yet available.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been made of the likely consequences for the United Kingdom of its accession to the Schengen agreement. [27029]
  123
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. The United Kingdom is not a party to the Schengen agreement and has no intention of applying for membership, which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of our system of frontier controls.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made of any changes in the net migration flows between those European Union countries which have implemented the Schengen agreement. [27028]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom has made no such estimates.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to strengthen the European Union's external frontiers following the implementation of the Schengen agreement by seven member states. [27026]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Schengen agreement is not an agreement of the European Union and its provisions relate only to the external frontiers of the Schengen area, not to those of the Union.

  Female Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the female prison population at HM prison, Holloway and HMP Styal on 31 December 1993, 30 June 1994, 31 January 1995 and for the latest date for which figures are available. [26893]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the female prison population at Holloway and Styal prisons on 31 December 1993, 30 June 1994, 31 January 1995 and for the latest date for which figures are available.
  The information requested is given in the table below:

  Female population at HMP Holloway and HMP Styal on 31 December 1993, 30 June 1994, 31 January 1995 and 26 May 1995

  Prison Service establishment

  Date

  HMP Holloway

  HMP Styal

  31 December 1993

  448

  201

  30 June 1994

  483

  226

  31 January 1995

  530

  244

  26 May 1995

  518

  239

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced female prisoners in England and Wales were granted parole on(a) their first application and (b) their second application; and what percentage this represented of all applications in each of the last three years. [26892]

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

  Letter from A.J. Butler to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many sentenced female prisoners in England and Wales were
  124
  granted parole on (a) their first application and (b) their second application; and what percentage this represented of all applications in each of the last three years.
  New early release arrangements were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which were implemented on 1 October 1992 and which apply to those sentenced on or after 1 October 1992. Prisoners now sentenced to less than four years are released automatically at the mid point of their sentences. This has led to a progressive reduction in the parole caseload from 1993 onwards.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Determinate sentence cases considered and those recommended for parole at first or second reviews 1992–94

  Number of reviews/percentage

  Females, England and Wales

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total considered

  713

  284

  73

  Recommended at first review

  396

  142

  20

  Recommended at second review

  86

  46

  14

  Percentage of total considered

  recommended at first or second review

  67.6

  66.2

  46.6

  Nigerian Nationals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Nigerian nationals convicted of a drug offence in England and Wales and subsequently deported have been re-arrested on their arrival in Nigeria since 1 January 1994. [26688]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None that we are aware of.

  Holloway and Styal Prisons
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the catchment area for sentenced and remand prisoners in(a) HM Prison Holloway and (b) HMP Styal. [26890]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the catchment areas for sentenced and remand prisoners in Holloway prison and Styal prison.
  Holloway prison holds female prisoners committed by the courts from the following areas:
  Greater London (including City of London)

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Oxfordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  East and West Sussex

  Styal prison is a training establishment and accommodates sentenced female prisoners allocated from local prisons under the criteria and procedures set out in Circular Instruction 2/1991, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. As a contingency

  125
  arrangement, it can take a limited number of unsentenced female prisoners from Risley, if this becomes necessary, because of population pressures in the region. Risley serves the courts in the North West of England, North and Mid Wales, Staffordshire and Shropshire.

  Identity Cards
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek the opinions of the Governments of(a) the USA, (b) Canada, (c) Australia, (d) New Zealand, (e) Denmark and (f) Norway on the reasons they do not have compulsory ID cards. [27346]

  Nr. Nicholas Baker: The Green Paper on identity cards published on 24 May 1995, Cm 2879, sets out information on the use of identity cards and other methods of identification in a number of different countries including those specified. We have no plans at present to seek further information on international experience.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the representations he has received from representatives of professional bodies concerning his proposals to change the nature of the qualifications and training of probation officers. [27318]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received a large number of responses to the consultative proposals concerning probation officers' recruitment and qualifying training published earlier this year. It would not be appropriate for the to place copies of individual submissions in the Library, although when announcing the conclusions we expect to give an account of the nature and balance of the overall response. It is of course open to the hon. Member to approach directly those professional bodies in whose responses he has an interest, to establish whether they would be willing to make them available to him.

  African National Congress (Bombing)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 289, if the police have interviewed former British Telecom security officer, Mr. George Alton, in connection with the bombing of the London offices of the African National Congress in 1982. [27306]

  Mr. Howard
  The detailed conduct of a criminal investigation is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned. If anyone has information which might be relevant to this investigation it should be passed to the Metropolitan police.

  Boundary Commission Report
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in respect of the fourth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for England. [27374]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today laid before Parliament the fourth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for England together with a draft Order in Council for giving effect, without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.

  Volunteering Report
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the "Make A Difference" team on volunteering in the United Kingdom will be published, and if he will make a statement. [27375]

  Mr. Howard
  The report prepared by the "Make a Difference" team— "Make A Difference: An Outline Volunteering Strategy for the UK" was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. I attended the launch of the report this morning. I am very grateful to the members of the "Make A Difference" team for their hard work and commitment in producing such a thorough report, with a wide range of recommendations.

  Together with the report's publication, I announced the Government's response to the key recommendations it contained.

  I have today set out an action plan:
  we will fund the creation of local volunteer development agencies in those parts of the country where no equivalent bodies exist now; our intention is to ensure country-wide coverage before the end of the century;
  the establishment of a new national body in England, the Volunteering Partnership; its key tasks will be to advise me on promoting volunteering especially by young and older people, to stimulate the development of the local agencies and to ensure the development of opportunities for young people;
  we are putting in place youth challenge, a scheme to ensure that by the end of 1997 there will be volunteering opportunities for all 15 to 25-year-olds who wish to volunteer;
  individual applications have been invited for grants of up to £30,000 for 50 imaginative projects to promote volunteering by young and older people;
  a new UK-wide "Make A Difference" award to recognise outstanding contributions by volunteering organisations;
  a publicity campaign to promote volunteering.

  Volunteers make a contribution of immeasurable value to this country. People who give up their time to help others greatly enrich their communities. Many millions already volunteer in this country, and many organisations support them. But there remains great untapped potential in those who could volunteer but choose not to. Our announcement today, which stresses "Every Hour Makes A Difference", will directly help to realise that potential.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to permit disciplinary procedures to be pursued against a police officer even if that officer is unable to attend the hearing due to sickness; [26294]

  (2) if he will change police discipline regulations and the regulations governing sickness so that the latter may not prevent proceeding with the former. [26295]

  Mr. Maclean
  The present provisions governing police discipline do not prevent discipline procedures from being pursued in respect of an officer who is sick and allow a disciplinary hearing to take place, if necessary, in the absence of a sick officer, subject to certain safeguards.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the names of the private consultants who have certified the inability of an officer of the West Midlands police to attend disciplinary hearings; [26293]
  127
  (2) how many officers from the West Midlands police force who have retired on sick pension in the last two years did so when they were subject to disciplinary investigation or charges; [26296]

  (3) how many police officers have retired on sick pension from the West Midlands police force in the last two years. [26297]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the terms of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, medical retirement provisions are administered locally by police authorities. A record is not kept centrally of a police officer's medical consultants nor of the number and circumstances of ill-health retirements.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to stop police facing disciplinary charges from retiring early on medical grounds in order to avoid the completion of disciplinary proceedings. [25741]

  Mr. Maclean
  A police officer may retire from the service on grounds of disablement only if he or she is required by the police authority concerned to do so. This applies whether or not the officer faces disciplinary charges.

  Casinos
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end the 48-hour rule on admission to casinos, to allow casinos limited advertising, to allow casinos to accept cheques and credit cards and to establish the right of appeal against decisions of the Gaming Board; and if he will make a statement. [26585]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative we have been reviewing the controls on gambling, including casino gaming. We hope to issue a consultation paper soon.

  Custody Deaths
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged 25 years and under have died(a) in prison and (b) in police custody in England in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) so far this year. [26374]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Year

  Prison Custody

  Police Custody

  1993

  23

  12

  1994

  32

  10

  1995 to date

  9

  3

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged 25 years and under have died(a) in prison and (b) in police custody in Wales in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) so far this year. [26375]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Year

  Prison Custody

  Prison Custody

  1993

  0

  0

  1994

  3

  0

  1995 to date

  0

  0

  Remand Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male prisoners were received on remand during 1993 and 1994; and how many were eventually(a) given a custodial sentence, (b) given a non-custodial sentence and (c) acquitted or not proceeded with. [26196]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many male prisoners were received on remand during 1993 and 1994, and how many were eventually (a) given a custodial sentence, (b) given a non-custodial sentence and (c) acquitted or not proceeded with.
  Information on the number of males received on remand into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales in 1993 and 1994 is shown in table 1. Information on the court outcome is available for 1993 from court remand statistics and is given in table 2.

  Table 1: Receptions1 into Prison Service establishments of untried and convicted unsentenced male prisoners in 1993 and 1994

  Males

  21993

  21994

  Untried prisoners

  50,918

  53,796

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  28,593

  30,919

  All remand prisoners

  59,914

  64,189

  1 "All remand prisoners" describes those prisoners received firstly as an untried prisoner then subsequently as a convicted unsentenced prisoner. They are included only once in the figure.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: Final court outcome for males remanded in custody at some stage in magistrates' court proceedings1 in 1993

  England and Wales

  Estimated percentages Males

  Final court outcome2

  Acquitted not proceeded with etc

  22

  Non-custodial sentence:

  36

  Community sentence3

  20

  Fine

  7

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  6

  Other non-custodial sentence

  3

  Custodial sentence

  42

  Total

  100

  1 Includes persons remanded in custody by magistrates during proceedings or on committal.

  2 Includes estimated outcome at the Crown Court for those committed for trial or sentence.

  3 Includes CSO, probation, supervision orders, attendance centre orders.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow metropolitan fire authorities to distribute and install smoke alarms free of charge. [26312]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Fire authorities are not required to obtain the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend to distribute and install smoke alarms free of charge. But it has recently been suggested that there may
  129
  be a legal impediment to this practice. The Department is currently looking into this.

  Aids
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons currently operate viral infectivity restrictions for prisoners with HIV/AIDS; and what proportion this represents of the total number of prison establishments within England and Wales. [26412]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the operation of viral infectivity restrictions for prisoners with HIV and or AIDS.
  Of those prisons which currently hold inmates known to have HIV infection, none operates viral infectivity restrictions.
  When the last survey was carried out in December 1993 7 prisons said that they would apply VIR to HIV positive prisoners. However at that time, as at present, none of these prisons hold inmates with HIV infection.

  Video Evidence
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to implement the principal recommendations of the Pigot committee on the taking of evidence from very young children; and what review he has undertaken of the present working of the law in this area. [26205]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 implemented most of the recommendations made by the

  Area

  Time

  (i) Early retirement2

  (ii) Voluntary redundancy

  (ii) Compulsory redundancy

  (iv) Medical grounds

  Home Office (main)

  1993–94

  22

  1

  52

  32

  1994–95

  28

  1

  10

  56

  11995–96

  4

  0

  3

  3

  Prison Service

  1993–94

  16

  3

  2

  381

  1994–95

  8

  2

  4

  271

  11995–96

  1

  0

  0

  5

  United Kingdom Passport

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Agency

  1994–95

  2

  0

  0.

  7

  11995–96

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Forensic Science Service

  1993–94

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  6

  0

  0

  6

  11995–96

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Service College

  1993–94

  0

  2

  0

  9

  1994–95

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11995–96

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1 To 23 May 1995.

  2 Excludes redundancy and retirement on medical grounds.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost to the Department of staff leaving under redundancy—early retirement schemes to incorporate (i) added years lump sum payments, (ii) redundancy payments, (iii) pension payments including enhancements (iv) any other special arrangements for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and projected for (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [25641]
  130
  advisory group on video evidence. The only significant recommendation which has not been implemented concerns the pre-trial cross-examination of child witnesses. This remains under consideration. We are not yet persuaded that such a system would be in the best interests of the child.

  We commissioned a major research study by Professor Graham Davies of Leicester university into the effectiveness of the child evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The report of this study entitled "Videotaping children's evidence: an evaluation", was published on 18 May. I am sending a copy to the hon. Gentleman.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to enable more special constables to be recruited in north Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25673]

  Mr. Maclean
  The recruitment of special constables in north Wales is a matter for the chief constable. But north Wales is benefiting from the national advertising campaign launched last October. I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 24 November at column 288.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff of(a) the Home Office and (b) agencies for which the Home Office is responsible (i) took early retirement, (ii) took voluntary redundancy, (iii) took compulsory redundancy and (iv) were retired on medical grounds in (1) 1993–94 and (2) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25509]

  Mr. Howard
  The information is set out in the table. All agencies are part of the Home Office.

  Mr. Howard
  The costs to the department of early retirement and redundancies are borne from the Department's running costs provision.

  A detailed breakdown of the various costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The total costs borne on the Department's running costs, in respect of early retirements and redundancies, in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were £3,191,837 and £2,573,353.

  131
  Projected costs for 1995–96 are not yet available, and projections for 1996–97 will be determined during the coming public expenditure survey.

  Police Research Group
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has made of the report of the Home Office police research group on policing and neighbourhood watch; and if he will make a statement. [25210]

  Mr. Maclean
  I welcome the publication of the police research group report on policing and neighbourhood watch and its proposals for extending neighbourhood watch as part of the overall strategy for developing effective and efficient use of police resources. The report has been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers' sub-committee on crime prevention and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The report and its implications will now be given careful consideration.

  Police (Protective Clothing)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when every police officer in London will be provided with a bullet-proof or knife-proof vest; [25069]

  (2) how many bullet-proof vests have been issued in London to police officers. [25068]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, at present, approximately 5,500 protective vests are available for use by officers in the Metropolitan police district. The Commissioner is considering various options relating to the issue of protective clothing to all police officers and expects to make proposals to us shortly.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the recovery rate for stolen vehicles in 1994(a) in total and (b) by constabulary. [26178]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: Revised figures for 1994 are given in the table. They up-date the figures given in the reply to the hon. Member on 1 May at columns 96–98. These figures remain provisional and finalised data will be published in the command paper, "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", later this year.

  Notifiable offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the police, 1994 percentage of vehicles recovered by police forces area1

  Police Force area

  Percentage recovered

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  Bedfordshire

  62

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  Cheshire

  53

  Cleveland

  55

  Cumbria

  67

  Derbyshire

  62

  Devon and Cornwall

  85

  Dorset

  63

  Durham

  49

  Essex

  73

  Gloucestershire

  67

  Greater Manchester

  64

  Hampshire

  51

  132

  Notifiable offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the police, 1994 percentage of vehicles recovered by police forces area1

  Police Force area

  Percentage recovered

  Hertfordshire

  68

  Humberside

  85

  Kent

  53

  Lancashire

  81

  Leicestershire

  72

  Lincolnshire

  82

  City of London

  86

  Merseyside

  73

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  Norfolk

  50

  Northamptonshire

  53

  Northumbria

  71

  North Yorkshire

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  61

  South Yorkshire

  57

  Staffordshire

  57

  Suffolk

  66

  Surrey

  47

  Sussex

  50

  Thames Valley

  62

  Warwickshire

  73

  West Mercia

  75

  West Midlands

  70

  West Yorkshire

  60

  Wiltshire

  46

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  Gwent

  61

  North Wales

  75

  South Wales

  65

  England and Wales

  622

  1 Provisional.

  2 Excluding the Metropolitan Police and Dyfed-Powys.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently detained under Immigration Act powers in(a) Immigration Service detention centres and (b) Prison Service establishments. [26290]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The latest available data is given in the table.

  Persons in detention under Immigration Act powers1

  Category of person

  Date to which data relate

  Immigration Service detention centres

  Prison Service establishments

  Port asylum applicants2

  10 May 1995

  228

  50

  Other port cases3 and persons subject to enforcement action

  23 May 1995

  153

  204

  381

  254

  1 Excluding persons held in police cells.

  2 Figures exclude 45 persons for whom the place of detention is not recorded in the statistics.

  3 Excluding passengers refused leave to enter at the ports who have been in detention for less than a month; these statistics are not held centrally.

  Irish Terrorist Prisoners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted of IRA offences held in prisons on the mainland; and how many have been approved for transfer to prisons in Ireland and Northern Ireland. [25402]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: A total of 35 prisoners convicted of Irish terrorist offences are currently held in prisons in England and Wales. The transfer of one prisoner to Northern Ireland has been approved subject to the outcome of further criminal proceedings. No prisoners have been approved for transfer to the Republic of Ireland.

  Wheelclamping
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the assessment by the Association of Chief Police Officers of(a) the extent of problems associated with wheelclamping on private land and (b) the practicality of proposals to overcome these. [25867]

  Notifiable offences recorded by the Local Authority Borough or District

  Metropolitan Police District 1994

  Number of offences

  Borough/District

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary and going equipped

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in another building

  Barking

  14,938

  677

  124

  202

  3,558

  6,471

  513

  3,288

  105

  1,045

  2,095

  1,962

  1,591

  Barnet

  24,524

  778

  169

  389

  5,046

  11,326

  868

  5,794

  154

  1,085

  4,885

  3,912

  1,898

  Bexley

  17,831

  794

  181

  173

  3,502

  8,266

  518

  4,296

  101

  1,105

  2,740

  2,208

  1,205

  Brent

  26,149

  1,527

  209

  1,875

  4,985

  10,778

  987

  5,590

  198

  805

  3,307

  3,119

  1,245

  Bromley

  27,893

  1,297

  180

  264

  5,593

  13,080

  791

  6,518

  170

  1,131

  4,765

  3,752

  1,765

  Camden

  35,746

  1,491

  158

  1,176

  6,313

  19,612

  1,267

  5,443

  286

  1,163

  5,597

  3,633

  2,635

  Croydon

  32,520

  2,187

  286

  632

  6,116

  14,829

  1,232

  7,009

  229

  1,217

  4,859

  4,038

  2,066

  Eating

  28,127

  1,434

  222

  749

  4,566

  12,943

  1,232

  6,806

  175

  1,367

  4,123

  3,196

  1,366

  Enfield

  20,996

  1,380

  160

  373

  4,039

  9,404

  805

  4,712

  123

  876

  4,165

  2,795

  1,828

  Greenwich

  32,519

  1,902

  408

  471

  7,021

  13,784

  872

  7,774

  287

  1,461

  4,457

  4,944

  2,046

  Hackney

  29,263

  1,529

  265

  2,251

  7,364

  11,708

  1,075

  4,750

  321

  498

  1,721

  2,816

  984

  Hammersmith

  23,332

  1,201

  142

  823

  4,249

  11,877

  641

  4,239

  160

  897

  4,967

  2,882

  1,353

  Haringey

  22,313

  1,363

  197

  1,184

  4,393

  9,888

  779

  4,325

  184

  1,259

  2,972

  3,161

  1,183

  Harrow

  14,591

  653

  101

  255

  3,140

  6,164

  578

  3,633

  67

  378

  2,216

  2,154

  966

  Havering

  17,637

  532

  299

  110

  3,652

  8,802

  623

  3,557

  62

  1,658

  2,461

  2,039

  1,581

  Hillingdon

  23,316

  1,190

  133

  183

  4,169

  10,791

  674

  6,074

  102

  988

  4,127

  2,413

  1,489

  Hounslow

  27,476

  1,854

  306

  423

  5,371

  10,882

  1,125

  6,976

  539

  816

  3,296

  2,467

  1,482

  Islington

  27,682

  1,895

  191

  1,098

  4,913

  13,125

  758

  5,339

  363

  984

  4,002

  2,778

  1,588

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27,706

  1,072

  153

  956

  4,408

  16,346

  959

  3,570

  242

  702

  3,058

  2,931

  630

  Kingston

  19,499

  1,158

  109

  251

  4,438

  8,258

  621

  4,322

  342

  325

  2,542

  1,933

  1,541

  Lambeth

  30,418

  2,223

  292

  2,236

  5,866

  12,605

  898

  5,940

  358

  978

  3,160

  5,459

  1,503

  Lewisham

  30,532

  2,076

  297

  1,096

  7,474

  12,702

  887

  5,607

  393

  1,527

  3,995

  5,395

  2,080

  Merton

  18,474

  967

  135

  451

  3,466

  8,309

  903

  4,106

  137

  676

  2,319

  1,700

  1,013

  Newham

  30,157

  1,748

  617

  1,040

  6,606

  13,189

  1,042

  5,695

  220

  1,718

  3,752

  3,303

  2,329

  Redbridge

  20,294

  1,002

  140

  266

  3,811

  10,112

  1,002

  3,817

  144

  1,183

  1,566

  1,539

  727

  Richmond

  15,292

  903

  124

  260

  3,693

  6,364

  436

  3,301

  211

  323

  1,873

  1,604

  981

  Southwark

  40,836

  2,840

  353

  2,292

  7,734

  18,008

  1,312

  7,810

  487

  1,953

  6,117

  5,040

  2,710

  Sutton

  13,881

  819

  126

  112

  3,429

  6,071

  436

  2,800

  88

  606

  1,706

  2,166

  1,220

  Tower Hamlets

  25,084

  1,345

  192

  532

  4,938

  12,009

  700

  5,118

  250

  1,090

  3,705

  1,708

  2,405

  Wandsworth

  36,889

  2,234

  323

  1,353

  6,905

  15,480

  1,457

  8,152

  986

  1,238

  5,024

  3,137

  1,510

  Waltham Forest

  20,309

  1,119

  106

  649

  3,815

  9,749

  745

  4,025

  101

  1,279

  2,654

  2,353

  1,433

  Westminster

  56,796

  2,020

  252

  2,051

  6,950

  36,560

  2,837

  5,642

  484

  636

  4,629

  2,611

  3,443

  Broxbourne (part)

  3,413

  265

  8

  23

  448

  1,756

  102

  800

  11

  90

  849

  345

  303

  Elmbridge (part)

  2,269

  167

  25

  177

  141

  1,138

  81

  514

  26

  0

  17

  7

  7

  Epping Forest (part)

  4,306

  305

  21

  24

  605

  2,206

  150

  959

  36

  304

  701

  364

  229

  Epsom and Ewell

  5,937

  293

  41

  41

  1,432

  2,432

  198

  1,459

  41

  154

  771

  746

  418

  Hertsmere

  5,219

  161

  30

  43

  732

  2,634

  179

  1,419

  21

  161

  1,060

  369

  335

  Reigate and Banstead (part)

  2,607

  144

  9

  5

  519

  1,106

  116

  689

  19

  71

  459

  334

  177

  Spelthome

  8,817

  596

  65

  53

  1,971

  3,631

  257

  2,110

  134

  187

  1,460

  514

  784

  Welwyn Hatfield (part)

  55

  3

  1

  0

  6

  27

  7

  7

  4

  1

  10

  7

  4

  Heathrow Airport

  4,640

  66

  7

  69

  53

  3,473

  415

  325

  232

  50

  375

  4

  20

  Thames

  93

  0

  0

  0

  1

  61

  0

  31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Central Cheque Squad

  1,376

  0

  0

  0

  0

  68

  1,226

  80

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  MPD total

  871,752

  47,210

  7,157

  26,611

  167,431

  408,024

  32,304

  174,421

  8,594

  33,985

  118,557

  97,828

  54,074

  134
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 May 1995]: The assessment was made by the Association of Chief Police Officers as part of the process of developing and considering possible policy options and it would not therefore be appropriate to publish it. I can, however, say that it indicated that the problems arising from the activities of unscrupulous operators are confined to a few force areas and that there is not considered to be a significant problem in other forces.

  Notifiable Offences
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in each borough by the Metropolitan police within each category of crime in 1994; how may incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded in each borough; and how many of the burglaries recorded in each borough were(a) in a dwelling and (b) in another building. [23877]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: The information requested has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is contained in the following table:

  Detainees
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report column 364, how the overall weekly cost of detaining a person under Immigration Act powers in accommodation for which the Immigration Service is responsible is calculated. [26271]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The overall cost of detention in the Immigration Service estate is calculated by adding together the costs for custodial and escorting services, running costs, accommodation charges, staff costs and capital costs. This is then divided by the average daily number of detainees to give a unit cost per detainee day, from which the weekly figure is calculated.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 364, how the average cost of detaining a person under Immigration Act powers, in accommodation for which the Immigration Service is responsible, has been reduced between 1993–94 and the current cost. [26272]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The reduction in costs is largely due to a reduction in the use of expensive ad hoc accommodation. This is a consequence of an increase in the number of places available within the Immigration Service detention estate.

  Arrests
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operations have been mounted to enforce section 167 of the Criminal Justice 136
  and Public Order Act 1994; how many arrests have been made; how many prosecutions have been initiated; how many convictions obtained; and what sentences were given in consequence. [26183]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: Information on the number of operations mounted and arrests made is not collected centrally. Information on court proceedings under section 167 of the Act will not be available until autumn 1996.

  "Tomorrow's Job"
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have co-operated with the Metropolitan police in the "Tomorrow's Job" investigation; when the investigation started; what was the main focus of the investigation; how many people have been interviewed; how many premises have been visited; if he will list the charges which have been laid indicating, in each case, the outcome; and if he will make a statement. [25985]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that all forces who received copies of the publication "Tomorrow's Job" have co-operated fully with the Metropolitan police in the inquiry, which started immediately after distribution of the publication in early March of this year. The main focus of the investigation is to establish who published the paper; what was the purpose of publication; and who was involved in its distribution. The investigation is still in progress and to date two arrests have been made. It would not be right for me to give further details at this stage.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science Budget
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the work of the scientific document centre based in Dunfermline in developing the European resource of serials projects with particular reference to the preparation of Union list databases; and what is his Department's policy in respect of provision of public funds to rival companies in this area. [27307]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department's science budget is used to provide grant-in-aid to the research councils, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering and for a programme on the public understanding of science. It does not fund any work in this area.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours per week he spends co-ordinating the presentation of Government policy. [26015]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I spend as much time as necessary on all my responsibilities.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publish new citizens charters; and if he will list the areas to be covered. [26571]

  Mr. Horam
  We are hoping to publish new charters for further and higher education in Northern Ireland in the autumn. We also have a programme for publishing revised charters. A revised contributors charter for national insurance payers was published in April and we will be shortly following this up with revised charters for council tenants, court users and people travelling through Customs points.

  Duchy Affairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours per week he spends on Duchy affairs. [26726]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I spend as much time as necessary on all my responsibilities.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Property Services Agency on the future use by Government Departments of the Archway tower, Junction road, London N19; and if he will make a statement. [26978]

  Mr. Horam
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not had any discussions about the future use of Archway tower.

  Information Superhighways
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when will CCTA report on their work on information superhighways in general and the Internet in particular. [24875]

  Mr. Horam
  In accordance with the undertaking given by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, on 24 January,Official Report,
  138
  columns 116–17, I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the first report on CCTA's work on information superhighways. This includes progress and future plans for the Government world wide web server "www.open.gov.uk". The report will also be available over the Internet via the CCTA Government information service.

  Civil Service Posts
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of civil service posts, including positions in executive agencies but excluding technical appointments at grades 1 to 6 which have been advertised, together with the number of applicants, interviewees and appointees broken down to show(a) civil servants and (b) non-civil servants for each year from 1 January 1990 to 31 December as a whole in England. [26945]

  Mr. Horam
  Full information is not available in the form requested. The Office of the Civil Service Commissioners has been able to provide the following figures for all open competition appointments at grades 1 to 5 approved by the commissioners for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994. Further analysis could be undertken only at disproportionate cost.

  Grade

  Number of posts

  Applicants of which (): civil servants

  Interviewed of which (): civil servants

  Appointees of which (): civil servants

  1

  1

  37 (3)

  5 (0)

  1 (0)

  2

  7

  435 (36)

  30 (3)

  7 (1)

  3

  9

  731 (80)

  42 (15)

  9 (4)

  4

  17

  801 (94)

  75 (32)

  16 (9)

  5

  25

  2,332 (175)

  169 (21)

  24 (3)

  Total

  59

  4,336 (388)

  321 (71)

  57 (17)

  Further details on senior appointments approved by the Civil Service Commissioners following open competition are provided in the Civil Service Commissioners' annual reports, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for redeployment of the Army from Northern Ireland should circumstances and the peace process permit it. [25108]

  Mr. Soames
  Our deployment of the Army in Northern Ireland depends on the security situation in the Province.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning the future withdrawal of the UN from Bosnia. [25109]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend has regular discussions with NATO colleagues on a range of issues concerning Bosnia, including contingency planning for an operation to withdraw UN forces, should that become necessary.
  139
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops would be required to facilitate a UN withdrawal from Bosnia. [25113]

  Mr. Soames
  At the request of the UN Secretary General, NATO is continuing with contingency planning for an operation to withdraw UN forces from Bosnia, should that become necessary. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the plan, which are a matter for NATO.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on the latest situation regarding the shelling of Sarajevo. [25110]

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the deployment of British forces in Bosnia. [25117]

  Mr. Soames
  We deplore the continued fighting between Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb forces in and around Sarajevo. We condemn in the strongest terms the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the deliberate targeting of UNPROFOR troops in the city, and call on the parties to refrain from further military action.

  Attack Helicopters
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to strengthen Britain's front line attack helicopter capability. [25111]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is currently assessing bids for an attack helicopter for the Army, to replace Lynx in the anti-armour role.

  We expect to announce a decision on the choice of attack helicopter this summer.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the successful bidder to supply attack helicopters to the British Army. [26304]

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to announce a decision on the purchase of attack helicopter before the summer recess.

  Equipment Purchases
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of defence equipment purchases is manufactured in the United Kingdom. [25112]

  Mr. Freeman
  Figure 13 in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995"—CM 2800—shows that, over the past five years, my Department has spent some 79 per cent. of its equipment budget with United Kingdom industry, 12 per cent. on collaborative projects but placed in the UK and 9 per cent. with overseas companies. However, equipment bought from UK prime contractors is likely to include some components which have been manufactured overseas; similarly, equipment bought from overseas contractors may contain components which originated in the UK. The sourcing of components is a matter for the prime contractor, and so my Department is unable to estimate the percentage of equipment purchases which is manufactured in the UK.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department has taken to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [25114]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department supports a wide range of measures including work leading to the successful indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation 140
  treaty; playing a positive and constructive part in negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty; supporting international efforts for a convention banning production of fissile material for military explosive purposes; scrutinising export licence applications for nuclear-related goods; and contributing to the work of international organisations such as the Zangger committee and nuclear suppliers group.

  RAF Burtonwood
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the sale of the RAF Burtonwood air base. [25115]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF Burtonwood site has been declared surplus to defence requirements. Officials are in consultation with interested parties on the future of the site in order to prepare sale particulars in due course.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of the Meteorological Office. [25116]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Meterological Office's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 includes an assessment of performance against key business plan targets, on pages 11 and 12. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations she has received about future prospects for the British defence industry. [25118]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers and officials of my Department regularly receive many and varied representations about future prospects for the defence industry, from hon. Members, representatives of industry and others.

  Parachute Contracts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the awarding of parachute maintenance and supply contracts for the British Army. [25119]

  Mr. Freeman
  Contracts for the maintenance and supply of parachutes for the British Army are awarded, where practicable, through competition.

  Bovington and Lulworth
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of his Department's facilities at Bovington and Lulworth in Dorset. [25120]

  Mr. Soames
  At present, my Department's facilities at Bovington are occupied by the Royal Armoured Corps centre training regiment and the Army base repair organisation Bovington. The Gunnery school at Lulworth is part of the RAC centre and comprises an RAC wing and infantry wing. A detachment of ABRO is also located at Lulworth. These activities will continue at Bovington and Lulworth in the future. It is our intention further to develop Bovington as the centre of all armoured fighting vehicle driving, gunnery and signals training; and to move naval gunfire support training from Lulworth to Dodman point in Cornwall from this autumn. Bovington and
  141
  Lulworth are also being considered as a possible location, alongside the RAC training centre, for the third armoured reconnaissance regiment.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the presumed targets for missiles on the Trident fleet in the light of the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty. [25093]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Our strategic missiles have not been routinely targeted since 30 May 1994.

  Hurricane Nuclear Weapons Test
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what continued monitoring is conducted by his Department on the equipment, materials and other technology which was brought back to the United Kingdom from ships returning from the Hurricane nuclear weapons test; and if his Department retains records of the present location of radioactively contaminated materials arising from this test. [26702]

  Mr. Soames
  No records have been kept of the fate of contaminated equipment and other items brought back from the Hurricane nuclear weapons test.

  Fissile Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total quantities of(a) plutonium and (b) highly enriched uranium, in the dedicated defence stockpile. [25294]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 14 June 1994,Official Report, column 536, to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what happens to the fissile material in pre-existing nuclear weapons that are de-commissioned; to what extent it is available for use in new weapons; and if he will make a statement. [26912]

  Mr. Freeman
  Fissile material from redundant nuclear weapons is reprocessed for use in new weapons.

  Construction Projects
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a list of all construction projects proposed, planned or at present underway at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and Burghfield following the Health and Safety Executive's recommendations and Hunting BRAE' s review of the infrastructure at the atomic weapons establishments; and if he will make a statement. [26347]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive review was primarily directed at safety management arrangements rather than construction schemes. Five such schemes were recommended, however, related to waste management. They were the design and procurement of a mobile real time radiography unit for waste assay purposes; the conversion of an existing building to provide a drum inspection facility for intermediate level waste; the construction of a radioactive waste size reduction facility; the construction of a further intermediate level waste store with modern drum stacking densities; and improvements to the facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield for handling toxic waste.
  142
  These schemes are now in progress in accordance with the timescales that the Health and Safety Executive and the establishments have agreed with my Department.

  In addition, the Hunting-BRAE review identified a large number of relatively minor alterations and improvements to facilities, some of which are directed at meeting evolving safety standards.

  Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in implementing each of the recommendations made by the Health and Safety Executive to improve health and safety at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. [26351]

  Mr. Freeman
  All but one of the Health and Safety Executive's recommendations in its report of October 1994 were for implementation by the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Agreed acceptance criteria for completion of the work have been established with the HSE, and from time to time AWE report progress both to my Department and to the executive. One recommendation was for my Department, and concerned licensing of the AWE sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. As I announced on 23 March,Official Report, column 215, we are moving towards achievement of this during 1997.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for public consultation exercises on whether or not the Atomic Weapons Establishment should be granted a nuclear site licence. [26345]

  Mr. Freeman
  Before deciding upon the appropriateness of issuing a nuclear site licence, the Health and Safety Executive will follow its normal consultation procedures. As well as consulting relevant regulatory authorities it is open to the executive, in accordance with the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, to consult local authorities and other relevant public bodies.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the delay in placing full details of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's authorisations for radioactive discharges from the Atomic Weapons Establishment on the public register. [26348]

  Mr. Freeman
  Authorisations in respect of Atomic Weapons Establishment sites cannot be placed on the public register because they contain classified information. What information can be disclosed is published annually by AWE in its reports on discharges and environmental monitoring and health and safety.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Radioactive Waste Management advisory committee's investigation at the Atomic Weapons Establishments will start. [26346]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Radioactive Waste Management advisory committee has conducted a review of radioactive waste management practices within the Ministry of Defence. As part of this review the chairman and other members visited the Atomic Weapons Establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield on 17 and 18 January 1995. The review is complete and no further visits are planned. The committee's report is awaited.

  North Ponds, Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans are being discussed with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to improve facilities for the
  143
  collection and eventual discharge of water that accumulates in the North Ponds area of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston; what the estimated cost of improvements will be; and when he expects work will be completed. [26349]

  Mr. Freeman
  Improvements in the water management arrangements in the North Ponds area of the Aldermaston site have been devised in consultation with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and other regulatory bodies. The work is expected to cost several million pounds and be completed in 1997.

  Weapons Transportation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many times during 1995 MOD weapons and ammunition have been transported on scheduled services of civil airlines; and which airlines have been used; [25569]

  (2) how long the munitions transported from Hong Kong to London by British Airways on 4 April were left at Heathrow airport; and what factors led to their not being collected immediately on arrival. [25570]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Navy (Universities)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which universities have Royal Navy units; where they are located; in each case, what is the annual cost; and how many students are members and how many were recruited to the Royal Navy for the latest year for which figures are available. [26722]

  Mr. Soames
  The information sought is as follows:

  Name

  Cost (£) FY

  Number of Students

  Students entering RN in1994–95

  Aberdeen

  461,053

  50

  5

  Birmingham1

  261,648

  33

  0

  Bristol

  356,282

  50

  4

  Cambridge1

  285,907

  36

  1

  Cardiff1

  361,911

  33

  0

  Glasgow

  409,195

  50

  5

  Hull1

  284,064

  35

  0

  Liverpool

  346,956

  50

  2

  London

  365,847

  50

  4

  Manchester

  357,160

  50

  0

  Newcastle1

  240,252

  33

  0

  Oxford1

  251,017

  31

  0

  Southampton

  346,671

  50

  2

  Sussex

  385,320

  50

  0

  1Established in September 1994.Greenpeace

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files the Ministry of Defence police confiscated following their raid on Greenpeace headquarters in London; how many related to Aldermaston; when he expects these files to be returned; and if he will make a statement. [26510]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry of Defence police removed a small number of documents after their search of Greenpeace headquarters on 17 May 1995, all of which were relevant to Aldermaston, including drainage pit No. 20. No relevant document will be returned until after the conclusion of any court proceedings.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements are being proposed, planned or are at present being made to the radioactive waste management area of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, aside from the construction of A91; what the estimated costs of these improvements will be; and when he expects any work will be completed. [26350]

  Mr. Freeman
  There is a continuing programme of improvements to facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. This includes those in the so-called radioactive waste management area, although waste management as an activity is conducted at various parts of the site. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose the cost of constituent elements of the nuclear warhead programme, although construction of building A91 is the largest single capital cost associated with waste management at AWE.

  MEADS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards United Kingdom participation in the medium extended air defence system project; and if he will make a statement. [26092]

  Mr. Freeman
  We are currently assessing whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence and, as I announced to the House on 18 October 1994,Official Report, column 239, we have placed a contract with a consortium led by British Aerospace to provide advice on options, capabilities, timescales, costs and technical risk. MEADS is being assessed as one of the candidate options within this study.

  D5 Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)Official Report, 9 May, column 406, how many D5 missiles HMS Vanguard picked up from Kings bay prior to her deployment; how many D5 missiles are currently held at Coulport; and what means, other than transport by Trident submarine, his Department employs to transfer D5 missiles from King's bay to Coulport. [26093]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Vanguard collected 16 unarmed Trident II D5 missiles from Kings bay prior to deployment; none are held at the Royal Naval armament depot, Coulport. Vanguard class SSBNs are the only means by which these missiles are transported from the Us to the United Kingdom.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which his Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [26325]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the future use of the site of the former airbase at Greenham common for the purpose of exporting livestock. [26608]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received no representations about the use of Greenham common for exporting livestock.

  RAF Welford
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options are being considered for the future use of RAF Welford. [26609]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Welford has been used by the United States Air Force since the second world war as a conventional weapons storage and maintenance area. The RAF took over spare capacity at the site on 1 April for long-term use as a centralised conventional weapons storage facility. At present, no other options are being considered for the future use of RAF Welford.

  Russia
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 392, what factors apart from the progress of reforms in Russia informs his Department's assessment that Russia currently poses no direct military threat to the United Kingdom. [26755]

  Mr. Soames
  Whilst placing great importance on the further progress of reform in Russia, we believe that the restructuring and reductions in Russia's military capabilities and procurement programmes over the past five years, the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the transformed political map of Europe, mean that the warning time of a credible strategic threat re-emerging can now be measured in years.

  Boscombe Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed at A and AEE Boscombe down in each of the categories(a) military personnel, (b) civilian staff, (c) contractors and (d) others. [26640]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 6 June 1995:
  In todays written answer the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning the number of people currently employed at Boscombe Down since I am now responsible for the day to day running of the Defence
  146
  Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), which includes the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) site at Boscombe Down, formerly A&AEE.
  The numbers of people in their respective categories are currently as follows:

  Civilians

  Military

  Contractors

  Others

  Total

  1060

  497

  450

  42

  2049

  I hope this is helpful.

  Film Badges
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparisons have been made between film badges of the type used in British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s and those used in the nuclear industry currently, with particular reference to sensitivity to temperature and humidity. [26664]

  Mr. Soames
  In terms of sensitivity to temperature and humidity, there is little fundamental difference between the film badges used during the United Kingdom's atmospheric nuclear test programmes and those that remain in use today.

  University of Wales Air Squadron
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the activities and value of the University of Wales squadron at Royal Air Force, Saint Athan. [26695]

  Mr. Soames
  The aim of the University of Wales Air Squadron is to encourage air mindedness within the university and to attract entrants of good quality and education into the RAF. The activities of all university air squadrons are pursuant to this aim: generally, a full three-year training syllabus for each individual comprises 99 hours tuition on the Bulldog aircraft.

  In the past, the University of Wales air squadron has produced a higher than average number of pilot entrants to the RAF. However, the increased competition for places over the last three years due to the low RAF recruiting targets has resulted in poor recruitment from the squadron during this time.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Linlithgow of 25 May,Official Report, column 158, when he expects to draw conclusions about Gulf war syndrome. [25098]

  Mr. Soames
  Investigations into the alleged Gulf war syndrome are continuing in the United Kingdom and in North America. To date, no convincing medical or scientific evidence has emerged for a Gulf related syndrome from any of this work.

  Departmental Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy and procedures exists for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when the policy was last updated; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26225]

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no single point of contact in my Department which deals with complaints from members of the public. Complaints against my
  147
  Department are referred in the first instance to the appropriate secretariat for answer. As with all correspondence, my official are required to deal with the matter within 20 days. Although complex cases may take longer, in all instances an initial response should be sent out in 20 days. Any dissatisfied complainant may, of course, refer the matter to their Member of Parliament.

  Market Testing
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been contracted out(a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25553]

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of activities contracted out by the Ministry of Defence, including defence agencies, under the Government's "Competing for Quality" initiative, in the years 1993–94 and 1994– 95 are set out in the table. It is not yet known what work will be contracted out in 1995–96; this will depend upon the outcome of feasibility studies which determine how activities can best be exposed to competition from the private sector, and the results of the subsequent competitions.

  £million

  Contracted out following market test

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  Airfield services, RAF Gibraltar

  1.44

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  Industrial mess (catering and stewardship Function) Mill Hill

  0.68

  2nd line engineering support, Flag Officer Naval Aviation, Yeovilton

  6.20

  Nimrod Major Servicing Unit, RAF Kinloss

  7.49

  15.81

  Contracted out without Market Test

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  British Forces Hong Kong school bus service

  0.42

  British Forces Hong Kong furniture repair

  0.43

  AWE Aldermaston

  275.00

  Combat systems information management team

  0.03

  Catering strategy study, UK Land Forces

  22.10

  Data entry, Met Office Bracknell

  0.12

  Government Pipeline and Storage System

  9.66

  Repair of Defence Accommodation Store, Quedgeley

  1.40

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  Parachute transport flight, RAF Hullavington

  0.32

  Electronic Warfare training tasks, 360 Sqn, RAF Wyton

  18.50

  British Forces Hong Kong food supply

  1.52

  British Forces Hong Kong curtain manufacture

  0.01

  British Forces Hong Kong Support Services

  4.90

  Station Engineering management Aid, (Maintenance Analysis and Computing Division)—RAF Swanton Moreley

  0.72

  NAAFI food study

  25.49

  Air weapons range, Rosehearty

  0.32

  Support Services, Akrotiri, Cyprus

  4.18

  The Queens Flight, (engineering support) RAF Northolt

  2.29

  Wireless stations, (operation and maintenance) Inskip and Crimond

  2.84

  Support for Parachute Training

  3.05

  Mobile Civilian Artisan Groups, Germany

  5.70

  Freight Services, Germany

  2.20

  381.20

  Total

  397.01

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26241]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department aims to reply fully to all letters from members of the public within 20 days. Letters are referred to the appropriate secretariat, which is responsible for ensuring that this target is met. Central records are therefore not kept and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Telephone calls to my Department's switchboard are logged automatically and should normally be answered within 15 seconds. Data on the number of telephone calls and the time taken to answer is recorded. The latest information is as follows:
  Number of calls received (May 1995): 101,129
  Percentage answered within 15 seconds: 99.3 per cent.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on when he will meet the trade union representatives for Rosyth dockyard to discuss the impact of privatisation on the arrangements for pension and redundancy entitlements. [27247]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have met representatives of the employees of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc during recent visits to Rosyth and am, subject to time constraints and other commitments, prepared to do so again during any future visits. I am also prepared to meet the relevant national trades union officers as and when appropriate as part of my Department's wider commitment to inform and consult about the proposed privatisation of Rosyth dockyard, as I and my predecessor have in the past.

  Companies
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25721]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The only company currently in existence in which my right hon. and learned Friend is a majority shareholder is IMS Ltd. No such companies have been wound up in the past five years.

  Republic of Ireland (Sea Boundary)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland with a view to delimiting the territorial sea boundary between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. [25928]

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to hold a ministerial meeting to discuss this matter.

  Diversification
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited the north-west of England
  149
  to discuss defence diversification and if he will make a statement. [25231]

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have not visited the north-west for the purpose of discussing defence diversification. It is a matter for companies to decide whether, and into which markets, they should diversify. However, my Department monitors how the defence industry is responding to the defence downturn and has produced a manual, "Changing Tack: New Perspectives for Defence Suppliers", which provides guidance and advice on diversification. It is also participating in a NATO advanced studies institute on defence diversification which will be held in Scotland this July and has contributed £5,622 in support of costs. Some companies are eligible for assistance, to help them adjust to changing markets, through non-sector specific UK schemes and some projects may qualify for European Community funding through the KONVER scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Conservative Party Conference
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of hosting the recent Conservative party conference in Scotland; and how much was borne by(a) Strathclyde regional council—Strathclyde police—and (b) any other bodies involved in expenditure for this conference. [25044]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I understand from the chief constable of Strathclyde police that, although full details of all the costs incurred are not yet available, it is likely that additional costs of around £22,800 will have been incurred in policing the conference. Details of costs of any other public sector bodies involved with the conference are not held centrally.

  Housing (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the energy efficiency of Scottish housing. [25133]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources of nearly £1 billion have been made available to local authorities and new town development corporations and Scottish Homes respectively in 1995–96 for investment in housing. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities, new town development corporations and Scottish Homes to invest in energy efficiency measures in accordance with their assessment of local housing needs and priorities.

  In addition, the Scottish building regulations are currently being revised to set more demanding standards for energy efficiency in new build.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he concluded his consultation on the area of the Strathclyde passenger transport authority; what was the final total number of representations; how many of those favoured the present Strathclyde regional council boundary; when he expects to announce the outcome of his consideration; and if he will make a statement. [25620]
  150
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consultation concluded on 31 January, though some responses were received after that date. The final total number of responses received, which contained a wide range of views, was 147.

  Consideration of the responses is continuing, and we shall announce the result in the near future.

  Patients
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were struck off general practitioners' lists in each health board during the last year for which figures are available. [26109]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information as set out in the table relates to the period April 1994—March 1995.

  Health board

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  489

  Ayrshire and Arran

  374

  Borders

  10

  Dumfries and Galloway

  82

  Fife

  206

  Forth Valley

  261

  Grampian

  262

  Greater Glasgow

  2,375

  Highland

  42

  Lanarkshire

  659

  Lothian

  969

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  2

  Tayside

  503

  Western Isles

  5

  Total

  6,239

  Asthma Medication
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each health board in Scotland giving the figures for(a) net ingredient costs and (b) net ingredient cost per capita for 1994–95. [25961]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information by health board and Scotland for the financial year 1994–95 is set out in the table. The costs shown are based on the value of ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges.

  The costs relate only to inhaled and oral adrenoceptor stimulants, inhaled steroids, inhaled antimuscarinic bronchodilators and theophylline preparations.

  Cost ofmedication £ million

  Cost per patient on GP lists (£)

  Health Board

  Argyll and Clyde

  3.570

  8.06

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3.966

  10.12

  Borders

  0.948

  8.80

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.193

  7.80

  Fife

  2.623

  7.44

  Forth Valley

  2.272

  7.83

  Grampian

  3.954

  7.22

  Greater Glasgow

  8.087

  8.13

  Highland

  1.400

  6.58

  Lanarkshire

  5.067

  8.68

  151

  Cost of medication £ million

  Cost per patient on GP lists (£)

  Lothian

  5.643

  7.03

  Orkney

  0.130

  6.47

  Shetland

  0.111

  4.82

  Tayside

  3.930

  9.58

  Western Isles

  0.172

  5.77

  Unallocated prescriptions

  0.062

  —

  Scotland

  43.128

  8.03

  Rooflessness
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how he has defined(a) homelessness and (b) rooflessness for the purposes of current research into rooflessness in Scotland; and what distinction he draws between the two definitions; [26587]

  (2) what policy options he had developed in preparing a response to the current Scottish Office research into rooflessness in Scotland; and what additional resources he has earmarked to tackle rough sleeping in preparing his expenditure plans for 1996–97; [26590]

  (3) what is the total cost of the Scottish Office research project into rooflessness in Scotland; what proportion is being met by Scottish Homes and what proportion by the Scottish Office; and what proportion of the Scottish Office research budget for housing is taken up by the Scottish Office share of costs for the rooflessness research. [26589]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total planned cost of the rooflessness project is £91,666. The Scottish office and Scottish Homes will contribute 28 per cent. each of the cost, and the European Commission 44 per cent. The Scottish Office contributions account for 5 per cent. of its 1994–95 housing research budget, and an estimated 6 per cent. of the 1995–96 budget.

  Homelessness is a wider category than rooflessness and the Department publishes annual homelessness statistics based on the definition in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. However this research is confined to rooflessness which is generally equated with sleeping rough, but the research includes the development of an instrument to allow consistent measurement of rooflessness across a range of statutory voluntary agencies, covering such aspects as the time spent roofless and the number of continuous periods of rooflessness.

  The study's figures on the prevalence of rooflessness in Scotland will be taken into account in policy and expenditure decisions, together with other sources on the needs of roofless people.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the additional capital allocations for homelessness made available to housing authorities since 1991 has been specifically targeted on people sleeping rough. [26378]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Additional resources totalling almost £30 million were made available to local authorities for homeless projects from 1991 to 1994. Of this over £7.5 million, or 25 per cent., related to the provision of temporary accommodation which would particularly benefit people who were sleeping rough.
  152
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the current level of services to people sleeping rough. [26379]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available centrally on rooflessness services provided by statutory and voluntary bodies, and moreover services will often be used by other categories of homeless people as well as roofless people. However, we would expect local housing authorities, which have both the primary statutory responsibility for tackling homelessness, and also a duty to assess housing needs for their areas, to take account of the needs of roofless people in preparing their housing programmes. These programmes will inform authorities' capital allocations. At national level, we are undertaking research to produce during 1996 estimates of the prevalence of rooflessness in Scotland.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and what was the proportion of access requests made to the vehicles indexes of the police national computer. [26397]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Police forces

  Accesses

  Percentage vehicles

  Central Scotland

  178,710

  48.0

  Dumfries and Galloway Fife

  171,484

  60.4

  Fife

  171,149

  52.7

  Grampian

  323,399

  47.0

  Lothian and Borders

  830,210

  63.1

  Northern

  148,029

  42.4

  Strathclyde

  1,477,896

  42.8

  Tayside

  311,142

  47.4

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year, indicating the number of access requests that involved searching more than one index. [26396]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Data on the police national computer are stored on five databases. The number of transactions made by Scottish police forces, including transactions involving additional or retrial of information or both, undertaken on each database in the 12 months to 30 April 1995 is shown in the table. It is not possible to confirm whether transactions undertaken on separate databases are linked, with the exception of those undertaken on both the names and the fingerprint databases. There were 8,994 transactions which involved the use of both of these databases.

  Number

  Vehicles

  1,780,205

  Stolen property

  18,205

  Names

  1,655,442

  Fingerprints

  9,748

  Crime Pattern Analysis

  0

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current system at Scottish Natural Heritage for dealing with inquiries from hon. Members. [26380]

  Sir Hector Monro
  When enquiries relate to day-to-day management and individual cases hon. Members are encouraged to communicate directly with Scottish Natural Heritage. Where questions arise involving broader policy or strategic issues hon. Members are advised to write to the Secretary of State or the appropriate junior Minister.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a system at Scottish Natural Heritage to provide hon. Members with information and advice; and if he will make a statement. [26381]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The system which Scottish Natural Heritage presently uses was established in 1992 following a scrutiny of ministerial correspondence undertaken by the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office. There are no plans to introduce a new system.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's projects aimed at promoting healthy eating, indicating the cost of each project to his Department. [26302]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As foreshadowed in "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All", the policy statement issued in 1992, a number of experimental projects have been mounted in selected urban partnership areas to explore ways of encouraging healthy eating. These are as listed with the respective costs of each:

  Area

  Cost £

  Wester Hailes, Edinburgh

  37,580

  Castlemilk, Glasgow

  42,000

  Ferguslie Park, Paisley

  11,095

  Whitfield, Dundee

  9,000

  Assistance totalling £11,200 has also been made available to the Barri Grubb good food project in Pilton, Edinburgh, while the following projects have received funding under the urban programme:

  Area

  Cost

  Govan Healthy Eating Project, Glasgow

  268,680

  Castlemilk Foodstore Project, Glasgow

  162,000

  The promotion of healthy eating is among the priority topics for the Health Education Board for Scotland and, in 1994–95, the board spent some £347,000 on initiatives in this area.

  In addition to these specific activities, the Scottish Diet Action group, led by my noble and learned Friend, the Minister of State, is engaged in the preparation of an action plan for delivering the dietary targets announced by my right hon. Friend in November 1994.

  Custodial Deaths
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people aged 25 years and under have 154
  died (a) in prison and (b) in police custody in Scotland in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) so far this year. [26377]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of deaths in(a) prison and (b) police custody of those aged 25 years and under for the years 1993, 1994 and to date in 1995 is set out in the table:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Prison Custody

  3

  10

  1

  Police Custody

  1

  2

  0

  Total

  4

  12

  1

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to address the problem of light pollution. [26319]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Officials of the Scottish Office Environment Department wrote to all district and islands councils in April of this year to ask about their experiences of dealing with complaints about light pollution. Local authorities' responses are now being considered by the Department. However, preliminary findings suggest that light pollution is a minor problem in Scotland with the majority of complaints being dealt with on an informal basis by local authorities.

  Anti-competitive Behaviour
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints his Department received in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and, as a result, how many local authorities were subsequently issued under a section 19a notice or 19b direction. [26711]

  Mr. Lang
  In 1990–91, we received six complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government Act 1988: these resulted in one notice—under section 13 of that Act—and one direction—under section 14 of that Act—being issued. In 1991–92, we received five complaints: these resulted in four notices and four directions being issued. In 1992–93, we received four complaints: these resulted in two notices. In 1993–94, we received 10 complaints: these have resulted in six notices.

  Cashmere Goats
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will extend the hill livestock compensatory allowances and sheep annual premium payments to include cashmere goats; [26685]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of subsidised cashmere production in less favoured areas of Scotland. [26686]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are keen to encourage the development of alternative land uses such as cashmere goat production where they can be shown to have a profitable future without a continuing dependence on subsidy. It is therefore not the Government's policy to seek to extend the coverage of livestock subsidies to include cashmere goats.

  Local Government Surpluses and Deficits
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour—service organisations in Scotland for the financial years 1992–1993 and 1993–1994; [26768]

  (2) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–1993 and

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local Authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning 1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Aberdeen DC

  8,822

  17,446

  591,314

  86,550

  443,877

  Angus DC

  127,622

  17,266

  81,572

  194,384

  18,111

  16,139

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  93,432

  20,734

  120,687

  29,294

  Argyll and Bute DC

  2,000

  25,000

  95,331

  11,318

  3,000

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  23,746

  28,981

  Banff and Buchan DC

  22,965

  2,876

  113,165

  12,647

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  52,378

  98,020

  5,749

  Berwickshire DC

  49,950

  44,906

  6,122

  Borders RC

  -172,000

  -51,000

  78,000

  Caithness DC

  52,580

  13,729

  Central RC

  556,453

  163,181

  6,292

  51,680

  Clackmannan DC

  40,000

  96,000

  16,000

  Clydebank DC

  132,473

  42,045

  Clydesdale DC

  74,391

  20,041

  96,830

  58,788

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  33,969

  5,198

  15,154

  7,787

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  40,420

  18,755

  16,753

  2,973

  Cunninghame DC

  26,092

  19,254

  18,829

  106,047

  3,780

  71,252

  Dumbarton DC

  27,165

  -135,002

  50,749

  -175

  96,553

  100,322

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  406,000

  157,000

  20,000

  59,000

  Dundee DC

  317,932

  2,924

  143,412

  250,551

  72,000

  Dunfermline DC

  21,000

  98,428

  7,926

  0

  East Kilbride DC

  56,939

  50,313

  51,648

  12,627

  401,280

  East Lothian DC

  97,577

  10,158

  60,093

  134,658

  Eastwood DC

  23,272

  1,142

  24,720

  24,881

  27,187

  Edinburgh DC

  79,111

  63,097

  86,771

  -34,966

  199,140

  100,524

  35,170

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  67,822

  54,235

  66,748

  Falkirk DC

  77,000

  4,000

  134,000

  305,000

  6,000

  65,000

  Fife RC

  522,000

  205,000

  2,000

  19,000

  Glasgow DC

  914,896

  90,994

  265,576

  148,629

  1,116,950

  129,212

  195,021

  Gordon DC

  10,000

  102,000

  57,000

  Grampian RC

  -10,000

  204,000

  5,000

  108,000

  187,000

  Hamilton DC

  231,782

  135,682

  246,906

  Highland RC

  295,722

  465,010

  391,917

  Inverclyde DC

  186,367

  131,010

  3,504

  66,154

  77,138

  Inverness DC

  122,433

  81,067

  66,633

  39,393

  77,582

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  125,000

  2,000

  63,000

  6,000

  58,000

  32,000

  11,000

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  9,529

  73,537

  21,893

  Kirkcaldy DC

  96,192

  15,048

  59,105

  229,085

  142,143

  156,093

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  30,408

  38,993

  12,963

  159,246

  Lochaber DC

  6,533

  12,394

  Lothian RC

  166,945

  47,344

  12,125

  69,701

  290,516

  Midlothian DC

  78,000

  -2,000

  154,000

  6,000

  28,000

  Monklands DC

  67,717

  23,028

  135,366

  157,920

  27,410

  Moray DC

  22,025

  54,647

  61,418

  31,030

  Motherwell DC

  6,937

  516,884

  21,208

  134,065

  55,824

  219,195

  Nairn DC

  -2,567

  Nithsdale DC

  700

  200

  2,550

  64,899

  North East Fife DC

  45,000

  203,000

  93,000

  54,000

  Orkney IC

  22,000

  60,000

  8,000

  14,000

  9,000

  Perth and Kinross DC

  21,106

  26,349

  105,626

  53,207

  147,714

  Renfrew DC

  325,000

  8,000

  80,000

  401,000

  42,000

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  34,000

  -42,000

  28,726

  Roxburgh DC

  11,980

  3,831

  76,574

  4,545

  30,180

  Shetland IC

  10,000

  8,000

  30,000

  78,000

  77,000

  34,000

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  3,771

  4,705

  17,145

  5,830

  -12,007

  Stewartry DC

  31,598

  63,443

  Stirling DC

  71,200

  1,300

  9,600

  84,800

  8,900

  4,700

  Strathclyde RC

  237,407

  237,808

  11,243

  41,818

  84,377

  156
  1993–1994 for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) school and welfare catering, (e) other catering, vehicle maintenance, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure maintenance delivered by local authorities' direct labour-services organisations in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988. [26767]

  Mr. Lang
  The following tables show the surpluses, and deficits, returned by authorities for 1992–1993 and 1993–94:
  157

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local Authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Strathkelvin DC

  202,000

  91,000

  22,000

  Sutherland DC

  16,223

  43,554

  7,238

  Tayside RC

  6,000

  363,000

  102,000

  Tweeddale DC

  14,000

  10,000

  17,000

  Western Isles IC

  3,000

  16,000

  73,000

  44,000

  -43,000

  19,000

  West Lothian DC

  99,547

  205,916

  4,135

  122,874

  Wigtown DC

  23,908

  141,701

  156,222

  Cumbernauld NT

  77,000

  East Kilbride NT

  Glenrothes NT

  133,000

  Irvine NT

  43,038

  Livingston NT

  38,000

  1The accounts for refuse collection an other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities.

  1. The absence of an entry, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local Authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Aberdeen DC

  35,938

  2,747

  41,002

  968,329

  50,353

  678,929

  Angus DC

  227,756

  32,732

  81,518

  173,254

  15,769

  112,629

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  104,174

  16,279

  31,190

  25,170

  Argyll and Bute DC

  20,000

  20,000

  17,000

  8,000

  15,000

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  11,665

  6,142

  18,990

  Banff and Buchan DC

  30,748

  1,706

  164,143

  26,640

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  232,081

  91,133

  900

  Berwickshire DC

  41,532

  36,044

  1,424

  Borders RC

  -91,000

  91,000

  Caithness DC

  Central RC

  659,419

  29,375

  9,010

  87,336

  Clackmannan DC

  20,000

  0

  37,000

  13,000

  Clydebank DC

  61,130

  34,463

  175,472

  4,827

  Clydesdale DC

  87,365

  92,000

  11,854

  19,221

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  -46,240

  4,094

  4,855

  23,832

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  54,578

  25,472

  3,362

  4,857

  Cunninghame DC

  27,683

  16,309

  19,676

  42,206

  15,565

  54,793

  Dumbarton DC

  -61,590

  -96,333

  18,579

  132,985

  168,874

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  36,000

  194,000

  40,000

  92,000

  Dundee DC

  218,797

  23,674

  29,912

  172,402

  72,000

  Dunfermline DC

  99,592

  16,000

  23,428

  9,687

  0

  East Kilbride DC

  113,453

  106,160

  85,836

  28,263

  360,149

  East Lothian DC

  67,358

  2,120

  116,018

  50,945

  Eastwood DC

  40,708

  7,864

  39,382

  8,954

  Edinburgh DC

  118,904

  80,676

  139,245

  -8,474

  174,214

  155,095

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  73,985

  87,549

  44,243

  Falkirk DC

  81,000

  5,000

  147,000

  301,000

  13,000

  95,000

  Fife RC

  128,000

  162,000

  1,000

  76,000

  Glasgow DC

  685,835

  191,972

  218,187

  64,354

  1,155,537

  94,588

  262,309

  Gordon DC

  11,000

  127,000

  79,000

  Grampian RC

  -155,000

  290,000

  12,000

  184,000

  440,000

  Hamilton DC

  67,337

  175,132

  18,459

  287,894

  Highland RC

  251,003

  218,028

  Inverclyde DC

  170,413

  106,002

  35,587

  300,068

  95,784

  Inverness DC

  214,720

  106,245

  73,205

  3,829

  24,633

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  53,000

  2,000

  52,000

  5,000

  46,000

  15,000

  1,000

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  9,529

  73,537

  21,893

  Kirkcaldy DC

  144,537

  4,405

  118,477

  304,100

  127,056

  188,408

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  70,905

  3,897

  29,699

  7,523

  122,624

  Lochaber DC

  12,756

  31,105

  7,832

  Lothian RC

  38,975

  75,051

  10,580

  88,915

  -259,690

  Midlothian DC

  81,000

  0

  117,000

  46,000

  177,000

  Monklands DC

  12,850

  12,070

  62,472

  21,373

  93,091

  70,836

  Moray DC

  19,262

  7,380

  87,987

  35,834

  73,800

  Motherwell DC

  7,633

  355,485

  5,689

  36,624

  43,558

  Nairn DC

  17,140

  11,014

  2,393

  Nithsdale DC

  500

  200

  1,757

  24,221

  North East Fife DC

  20,000

  136,000

  47,000

  40,000

  Orkney IC

  -17,000

  56,000

  36,000

  17,000

  41,000

  Perth and Kinross DC

  26,343

  11,094

  48,741

  44,134

  227,964

  Renfrew DC

  264,000

  18,000

  68,000

  2,000

  313,000

  72,000

  108,000

  158 159

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local Authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  2,000

  7,000

  16,731

  Roxburgh DC

  13,244

  18,761

  79,528

  2,253

  22,831

  Shetland IC

  453,000

  54,000

  14,000

  82,000

  92,000

  67,000

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  497

  1,599

  9,252

  Stewartry DC

  58,901

  44,053

  Stirling DC

  105,600

  18,100

  46,500

  50,600

  3,000

  35,300

  Strathclyde RC

  500,331

  100,043

  11,671

  57,830

  42,959

  Strathkelvin DC

  142,000

  144,000

  27,500

  Sutherland DC

  20,513

  38,278

  525

  Tayside RC

  58,000

  408,000

  45,000

  Tweeddale DC

  Western Isles IC

  67,000

  23,000

  62,000

  24,000

  4,000

  6,000

  West Lothian DC

  178,996

  167,428

  12,976

  117,160

  Wigtown DC

  23,602

  92,963

  59,405

  Cumbernauld NT

  190,000

  East Kilbride NT

  Glenrothes NT

  119,000

  Irvine NT

  35,576

  Livingston NT

  14,000

  1The accounts for refuse collection an other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities.

  1. The absence of an entry, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94; [26766]

  (2) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for (a) general highways work, (b) construction

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction under £50,000

  New construction over £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  276,110

  —

  —

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  57,391

  —

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  1,761

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  28,915

  —

  —

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  169,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  37,606

  —

  —

  Central RC

  1,378

  3,667

  49,703

  224,586

  24,535

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  23,000

  —

  —

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  219,498

  —

  —

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  34,381

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  57,918

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  55,143

  —

  —

  Cunninghame DC

  —

  —

  366,000

  —

  —

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  150,857

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  7,619

  109,780

  —

  Dundee DC

  4,667

  15,208

  430,356

  —

  —

  Dunfermline DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  67,271

  —

  —

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh DC

  —

  —

  -8,750

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  19,104

  —

  —

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  325,000

  —

  —

  Fife RC

  10,000

  -358,000

  311,000

  1,000

  5,000

  Glasgow DC

  —

  —

  9,274,493

  —

  —

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160
  and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work, delivered by local authorities' direct labour-services organisations in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. [26765]

  Mr. Lang
  The following tables show the surpluses, and deficits, returned by authorities for 1992–93 and 1993–94 in relation to the categories of account laid down under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980:
  161

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction under £50,000

  New construction over £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  501,000

  31,000

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  162,653

  —

  —

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  2,128,575

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  304,594

  —

  —

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  94,194

  —

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  —

  —

  247,000

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  68,224

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  60,454

  —

  —

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  64,113

  —

  —

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  174,313

  451,113

  161,662

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  44,000

  —

  —

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  51,000

  —

  —

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  95,100

  —

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  200,159

  —

  —

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  45,222

  —

  —

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  Orkney IC

  —

  —

  6,000

  269,000

  2,000

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  67,703

  —

  —

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  748,622

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  96,000

  —

  —

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  10,000

  —

  —

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  166,000

  595,000

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  -45,022

  —

  —

  Stewarty DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  92,500

  —

  —

  Strathclyde RC

  174,602

  7,734

  787,281

  339,025

  60,302

  Strathkelvin DC

  —

  —

  149,000

  —

  —

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  36,000

  1,497,000

  —

  Tweeddale DC

  —

  —

  64,000

  —

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  3,000

  54,000

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  169,954

  —

  —

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  118,208

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld NT

  —

  —

  144,000

  —

  —

  East Kilbride NT

  —

  —

  125,000

  —

  —

  Glenrothes NT

  —

  —

  77,000

  —

  —

  Irvine NT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Livingston NT

  —

  —

  89,000

  —

  —

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1993–94 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction under £50,000

  New construction over £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  259,953

  —

  —

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  75,000

  —

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  74,711

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  37,375

  —

  —

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  742,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central RC

  8,241

  3,853

  262,192

  276,991

  30,861

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  137,000

  —

  —

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  82,059

  —

  —

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  38,636

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  55,548

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  13,064

  —

  —

  Cunninghame DC

  —

  —

  395,000

  —

  —

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  77,207

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  -32,795

  84,539

  —

  Dundee DC

  7,682

  21,837

  142,208

  —

  —

  Dunfermline DC

  22,996

  37,715

  47,676

  —

  —

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  27,346

  —

  —

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh DC

  —

  42,837

  188,515

  —

  —

  162 163

  Surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1993–94 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction under £50,000

  New construction over £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  59,920

  —

  —

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  47,000

  —

  —

  Fife RC

  4,000

  11,000

  172,000

  1,166,000

  78,000

  Glasgow DC

  —

  —

  8,966,109

  —

  —

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  1,195,000

  -137,000

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  20,790

  —

  —

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  3,096,908

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  76,110

  —

  —

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  30,373

  —

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  —

  —

  158,000

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  139,452

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  65,408

  —

  —

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  72,706

  —

  —

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  120,668

  352,354

  127,135

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  13,000

  —

  —

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  120,622

  —

  —

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  53,999

  —

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  485,189

  —

  —

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  7,697

  —

  —

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  66,000

  —

  —

  Orkney IC

  —

  -22,000

  81,000

  615,000

  -6,000

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  103,290

  —

  —

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  714,378

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  11,000

  —

  —

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  27,000

  —

  —

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  261,000

  662,000

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stewarty DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  -74,100

  —

  —

  Strathclyde RC

  4,669

  11,303

  819,583

  278,092

  151,325

  Strathkelvin DC

  —

  —

  59,000

  —

  —

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  —

  1,292

  —

  Tweeddale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  19,000

  43,000

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  120,538

  —

  —

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  59,065

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld NT

  —

  —

  68,000

  —

  —

  East Kilbride NT

  —

  —

  306,000

  —

  —

  Glenrothes NT

  —

  —

  133,000

  —

  —

  Irvine NT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Livingston NT

  —

  —

  72,000

  —

  —

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the

  Year

  Local Authority

  Deficit £

  Percentage (related to income)

  Building Cleaning

  1990–91

  Dumbarton DC

  -7,299

  -83.4

  1990–91

  East Lothian DC

  -3,000

  -2.1

  1990–91

  Shetland IC

  -13,000

  -2.6

  1991–92

  Dumbarton DC

  -66,438

  -59.6

  1992–93

  Borders RC

  -172,000

  -55.7

  1992–93

  Dumbarton DC

  -135,002

  -137.8

  1992–93

  Grampian RC

  -10,000

  -0.2

  1992–93

  Midlothian DC

  -2,000

  -1.4

  1993–94

  Grampian RC

  -155,000

  -3.6

  1993–94

  Dumbarton DC

  -96,333

  -99.5

  164
  financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 expressed in absolute and percentage terms. [26707]

  Mr. Lang
  The following table shows the deficits recorded and how these related, in percentage terms, to the DLO/DSO's income:
  165

  Year

  Local Authority

  Deficit £

  Percentage (related to income)

  Grounds Maintenance

  1990–91

  Strathkelvin DC

  -58,708

  -12

  1990–91

  Stirling DC

  -7,005

  -2.3

  1990–91

  Moray DC

  -122,476

  -24.7

  1990–91

  Highland RC

  -84,375

  -5.5

  1991–92

  Stirling DC

  -245,779

  -49.3

  1992–93

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  -42,000

  -4.1

  1992–93

  Wester Isles IC

  -43,000

  -9.8

  Leisure Management

  1992–;93

  Lothian RC

  -290,516

  -49.3

  1992–93

  Nairn DC

  -2,567

  -4.1

  1992–;93

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -12,007

  -7.4

  1993-94

  Lothian RC

  -259,690

  -47.7

  Other Catering

  1990–91

  Central RC

  -17,156

  -4.4

  1992–93

  Dumbarton DC

  -175

  -0.3

  1992–93

  Edinburgh DC

  -34,966

  -6.4

  1993–94

  Edinburgh DC

  -8,474

  -1.3

  Other Cleaning

  1991–92

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  -24,223

  -9.4

  Refuse Collection

  1990–91

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  -2,484

  -0.7

  1991–92

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  -13,113

  -3.3

  1991–92

  Orkney IC

  -6,000

  -2.5

  1991–92

  North East Fife DC

  -24,000

  -2.7

  1993–94

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  -46,240

  -5.2

  1993–94

  Dumbarton DC

  -61,590

  -4.5

  1993–94

  Orkney IC

  -17,000

  -5.7

  School and Welfare Catering

  1992–93

  Borders RC

  -51,000

  -3.0

  1993–94

  Borders RC

  -91,000

  -8.5

  Vehicle Maintenance

  1990–91

  Inverness DC

  -65,733

  -33.9

  1990-91

  Inverclyde DC

  -7,521

  -2.5

  1990–91

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  -38,495

  -29.3

  1991–92

  Stirling DC

  -670

  -0.2

  1991–92

  Clackmannan DC

  -2,000

  -0.7

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the conformity with local government legislation and procedures of(a) a district council's housing officer to serve as secretary to the board of the local housing association and (b) a district council and local housing association retaining the same legal advisers when housing stock is to be transferred between them; and if he will make a statement. [26683]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is common and accepted practice for a local authority sponsoring a new housing association in its area to provide services in kind to the association until it becomes a viable organisation. As to the question of conflict of interest in the case of legal advisers, it is up to both parties and their legal advisers to ensure that such a problem does not arise. If the ballot of tenants results in a vote in favour of transfer to the association, I would expect the parties to engage separate legal advisers to negotiate terms and conditions.

  Local Government Contracts
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland,166
  operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, have achieved the required rate of return for the financial year 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26708]

  Mr. Lang
  In 1992–93, 74 DLOs-DSOs, in an individual service area, met the prescribed financial objective. This represented 94.9 per cent. of the total returns received. In 1993–94, 75 met the prescribed financial objective: this represented 92.6 per cent of the total returns received. The figures for both years include a small number of returns from new town development corporations.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by authority and service area the number of full time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26716]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by authority and service area
  167
  the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for financial years 1990–91, 1991–92,

  Year

  Local Authority

  Deficit £

  Percentage (related to income)

  Water and sewerage

  1990–1991

  Central RC

  -3,332

  -3.6

  1993–1994

  Orkney IC

  -6,000

  -3.4

  1993–1994

  Grampian RC

  -137,000

  -8.2

  Roads

  Nil

  New construction under £50,000

  1990–1991

  Central RC

  -32,574

  -8.2

  New construction over £50,000

  1991–1992

  Orkney IC

  -16,000

  -21.1

  1992–1993

  Fife RC

  -358,000

  -50.9

  1993–1994

  Orkney IC

  -22,000

  -6.7

  Building maintenance

  1990–1991

  Argyll and Bute DC

  -81,000

  -8.3

  1990–1991

  Clydesdale DC

  -37,555

  -3.1

  1990–1991

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -50,075

  -33.5

  1990–1991

  Hamilton DC

  -770,649

  -11.0

  1990–1991

  Kirkcaldy DC

  -234,472

  -3.5

  1990–1991

  Orkney IC

  -47,000

  -2.9

  1991–1992

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  -17,095

  4.7

  1991–1992

  Edinburgh DC

  -708,635

  -7.7

  1991–1992

  North East Fife DC

  -176,000

  -14.4

  1991–1992

  Kirkcaldy DC

  -563,702

  -8.5

  1991–1992

  Nithsdale DC

  -21,364

  -1.1

  1991–1992

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -102,137

  -64.1

  1991–1992

  Dumbarton DC

  -119,072

  -3.6

  1992–1993

  Edinburgh DC

  448,750

  -5.5

  1992–1993

  Skye and Lochalsh. DC

  -45,022

  -49.0

  1993–1994

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -32.795

  -28.7

  1993–1994

  Stirling DC

  -74,100

  -1.3

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland out of the total number of accounts recorded, how many and what proportion of, local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland, operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988, have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26709]

  Mr. Lang
  In 1992–93, 258 DLOs/DS0s, in an individual service area, met the prescribed financial objective. This represented 94.9 per cent. of the total returns received. In 1993–94, 267 met the prescribed financial objective: this represented 96.7 per cent. of the total returns received. The figures for both years include a small number of returns from new town development corporations.

  Surcharges
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many councillors in Scotland have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government Act 1988. [26713]

  Mr. Lang
  No councillors in Scotland have been surcharged as a consequence of taking decisions in 168
  1992–93 and 1993–94 expressed in both absolute and percentage terms. [26706]

  Mr. Lang
  The following table shows the deficits recorded and how these related, in percentage terms, to the DLO-DSOs income:

  relation to the Local Government Act 1988. Figures on prosecutions are unavailable but I am not aware of any that have taken place.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many councillors in Scotland have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. [26712]

  Mr. Lang
  No councillors in Scotland have been surcharged as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980. Figures on prosecutions are unavailable but I am not aware of any that have taken place.

  Client-contractor Splits
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by service area the local authorities in Scotland that have been challenged by his Department under regulation issued under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits. [26714]
  169
  Mr. Lang
  My Department has not taken statutory action against any authority in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits.

  Wigtown Housing Association
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the registered offices of Wigtown housing association. [26684]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is currently available about the Wigtown housing association's aims and objectives, standard terms and conditions for tenants—which includes details of the rights of tenants following transfer—and the intended composition of the board of management; names of 11 out of 16 members are known. All this information has been provided to tenants in the district's formal consultation on the transfer of council housing to the Wigtown housing association. The Department does not have any additional information about the association's offices.

  Job Losses
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by authority and service area the number of full-time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour-services organisations in Scotland operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. [26715]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Departmental Complaints
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints his Department received in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980; and, as a result, how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction. [26710]

  Mr. Lang
  In 1990–91, we received two complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980; neither of these cases resulted in statutory action. In 1991–92, we received six complaints: a notice was served in relation to one of these. In 1992–93, we received four complaints: two of these resulted in a notice and one in a direction. In 1993–94, we received three complaints: these have resulted in two notices being issued.

  AIDS (Prisons)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, which prisons currently operate viral infectivity restrictions for prisoners with HIV/AIDS; and what proportion this figure represents of the total number of prison establishments in Scotland. [26955]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  170
  Letter from Mr. E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 6 June 1995.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about which prisons currently operate viral infectivity restrictions for prisoners with HIV/AIDS and what proportion this figure represents of the total number of prison establishments in Scotland.
  The answer is none: the policy in Scotland has always been not to segregate HIV positive prisoners.

  Crofts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whole crofts have been bought, by convenient geographical area, under the terms of the Crofting Reform Act (Scotland) in each year since 1976. [27249]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures are not available for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978.

  Year

  Number of whole crofts purchased

  1979

  216

  1980

  260

  1981

  308

  1982

  199

  1983

  176

  1984

  173

  1985

  149

  1986

  178

  1987

  104

  1988

  91

  1989

  96

  1990

  66

  1991

  139

  1992

  121

  1993

  150

  1994

  122

  Companies
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25709]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The information is as follows:

  Companies currently in existence

  Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.

  David MacBrayne Ltd.

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Scottish Electricity Ltd.1

  Scottish Electricity (No. 1) Ltd. 1

  Scottish Electricity (No. 2) Ltd. 1

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  The Student Loan Company Ltd2

  Companies wound up in the past five years

  None.

  1 Formed as part of the electricity privatisation process to handle monetary transactions.

  2 Wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will describe the structure of the Procurator Fiscal Service in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Paisley; if he will list the names and posts of the Paisley procurator fiscal's office to third-tier level or below; and how long each named member of staff has been employed in that office. [24059]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1995]: The structure of the Procurator Fiscal Service is described in the 1991 to 1994 annual reports of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. At the time of publication copies of the reports were sent to all Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will write to the hon. Member with the other information requested.

  Waverley Court, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the amount of revenue from rents lost to Scottish Homes since Waverley court in Paisley was emptied of tenants; how this has been calculated; how much was spent by Scottish Homes on reports, development briefs, consultancies and other outgoings; what plans Scottish Homes has for the building; if he intends to take disciplinary action against any member of the board or management team of Scottish Homes for negligence or incompetence; and if he will make a statement. [24102]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1995]: The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes and I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon to write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by The Lord Bishop of Oxford.

National Lottery and Gambling
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to study the extent to which the National Lottery, especially now that scratch cards have been introduced, is likely to give rise to problems of addictive or excessive gambling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government have directed the Director-General of the National Lottery not to license games as part of the National Lottery which he considers will encourage excessive participation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which falls a little short of answering the points lying behind my Question. Does he accept that the number of appeals to Gamblers Anonymous and the accumulating anecdotal evidence suggest that what was presented as a harmless flutter is causing problems to quite a lot of people? Are not the scratch cards with their characteristic of handing out small instant prizes which are designed simply to encourage the gambler to go on and on proving particularly addictive? These are early days, but has not the time already come to put in hand some well funded research and even possibly to go back to some basic re-thinking before an obsessive gambling culture really gets out of hand?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any danger of what the noble Lord would call an obsessive gambling culture getting out of hand. It is important to remember that the National Lottery is generally considered to be at the softest end of the gambling spectrum. Low stakes, prizes, the odds of winning and the lack of skill are all involved. They will make the lottery and the instant win games less likely to lead to addiction or major losses than other forms of gambling that are available to the public.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is absolutely right. There is a danger of a culture of addictive gamblers. Scratch cards are already proliferating. There are scratch cards for everything in every shop. There is no age limit for the people who can buy them, which causes a great deal of concern to parents and school teachers. The Minister ought to take the matter more seriously than he seems to have taken the original Question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I took the original Question very seriously. The point I was making concerned the National Lottery. Scratch cards have been around for a long time and have been in use for a number
1258
of years. Instant win games and cards were included in Camelot's applications for the licence to run the lottery. They are expected to be the important factor in the achievement of forecast revenue for the National Lottery distribution of funds.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, since there has been a change in government policy so as to promote and encourage gambling, does the Minister agree that the Government have a special responsibility to assess the effect of the new schemes on those addicted to gambling? After all, the Rothschild Committee on Gambling drew particular attention to the needs of that group. Calls to Gamblers Anonymous have apparently increased by about 17 per cent. over the past three months.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. The Director-General of Oflot takes seriously the suggestion that the National Lottery games should not encourage excessive participation. He is actively considering the scope and nature of the research required. I hope that that will answer the right reverend Prelate's point. The Government's policy is that we should not interfere with the liberty of the individual to gamble, but we should take steps to protect the vulnerable.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that he does not believe that the lottery scratch cards are leading to excessive patterns of gambling but he has just admitted that research has not yet been put in hand to show what effect the lottery has had on people's expenditure patterns. Will he instruct those who are investigating the matter to pay particular attention to the expenditure on the National Lottery scratch cards by people who are least able to afford it, such as those living on income support?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is early days with the National Lottery and one must not forget that scratch cards were only introduced at the end of March. Our market research at the moment indicates that on average most people spend slightly over £2 a week on the lottery. That is quite a small sum, but obviously it is important that the Director-General of Oflot monitors the situation on a regular basis.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that most of the arguments we have heard this afternoon are a repetition of the arguments from those who opposed the whole concept of lotteries from the start? Is it not time that they accepted that the will of Parliament is that there should be a National Lottery with the safeguards which my noble friend mentioned?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point and one with which I thoroughly agree. There is no question but that the National Lottery has been a success. Already, almost £600 million has been raised for good causes, fully vindicating the Government's decision to have a national lottery, and to have a private company run it. The benefits of the lottery are already being seen the length and breadth of this country: 297 projects have now been approved, involving grants of almost £72 million.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is it true that, at the same time, surveys indicate that donations to charities fell by £71 million in the first four months of the lottery

1259
being in operation, and that medical research, especially cancer research, is excluded from lottery donations? Does not that aspect of the matter necessitate an urgent review of the lottery operations?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, medical research is not excluded from the National Lottery. Obviously, a number of factors affect charitable income. Charities stand to gain from 20 per cent. of the net proceeds of the national lottery, which could be as high as £320 million a year. That money will be distributed by the National Lottery Charities Board.
During the passage of the Act we gave the assurance that we would monitor charitable income. We are indeed doing so. The evidence so far is that some charities are doing better and some are doing worse. It is too early to tell. It is important to remember that the National Lottery Charities Board expects as many as 200,000 applications this year. No body is ruled out from applying. The charities board has made it clear that medical research charities can apply for funding. It has also said that it will look in the first instance at applications from people suffering poverty.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister absolutely accurate when he states that 20 per cent. of the proceeds of the National Lottery goes to charities? Is not the correct figure in the region of 5 per cent., with the rest of the money going to different forms of grant aid, such as the heritage, the arts and so forth? Is not the figure of 20 per cent. a slight exaggeration in regard to charities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was referring to the National Lottery Fund, 20 per cent. of which goes to charities.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I was tempted to ask the Minister whether he was aware—as I am sure he is—that this month is the 350th anniversary of the Battle of Naseby, which should remind him that these arguments between the Puritans and the Cavaliers have been going on for some time. My specific question is this: is the Minister aware that this morning Camelot, the operator of the lottery, announced its first year's financial results, which make it clear that over its licence period Camelot will take out upwards of £1.5 billion in profits and expenses? Is he further aware that a leading businessman has said that this kind of take is unacceptable while small lotteries are being squeezed, and has suggested a windfall tax to be distributed to the lotteries? Will the Minister comment on that statement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said in this House before, the take over the seven-year period of Camelot's licence will be just over 5 per cent. of turnover. Camelot's bid retained a lower share of turnover for operating costs and profit than that of any other applicant, including Mr. Branson, who made a statement this morning on that issue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the Minister indicate, having referred, as he has, to the possibility of research, who will pay for that research? Will it be Camelot or the taxpayer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government will pay for the research out of the funds that devolve from the National Lottery. So it will be funded neither by Camelot nor by the taxpayer.

Vegetables: Pesticide Residue Limits
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to ensure that vegetables produced in the United Kingdom and abroad for consumption in the United Kingdom do not contain pesticides in excess of the maximum residue limits.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government operate a substantial annual surveillance programme for pesticide residues in a wide range of foodstuffs, including vegetables. Generally, results are within statutory limits. On the very rare occasions when problems are found, the Government have a range of powers available. We have used these powers where necessary, and will continue to do so.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. In view of the fact that many of the pesticides used are too poisonous to test on humans, how are the maximum residue limits set? Why, in the case of the recent carrot scandal, was the maximum residue limit raised when we should be aiming to lower the residue levels?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is important to recognise that maximum residue levels are not in themselves safety limits. The maximum residue level that is likely to be left in the crop in question, under the approved method of use of the pesticide, is determined on the basis of experimental trials. A risk assessment is then made to ensure that consumption by a consumer of a sample of the crop with the maximum residue level would not exceed the acceptable daily intake for that compound. That ADI has a substantial margin of safety built into it.
On the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Ministers agreed last year that the MRL for one particular compound, triazophos, should be set at a higher level in the light of recent data on actual residue levels. Since then, on a purely precautionary basis, the Government have issued new advice to farmers on the application of OP pesticides to carrots. But that did not in itself give rise to any change in the maximum residue limits in carrots for those OP compounds.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the maximum European Community residue levels for fruit and vegetables are observed by non-EC countries which export to the United Kingdom? Can he tell the House what checks are made in the United Kingdom on residue levels generally, particularly those coming from non-European Community countries, including at airports as well as seaports?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the working party on pesticide residues carries out extensive surveillance monitoring of the UK food supply. Surveillance monitoring involves the analysis of 2,000 to 3,000 samples every year for a wide range of pesticide residues. The number of pesticide/commodity combinations analysed is around 70,000. The surveillance monitoring effort is directed to areas where experience and intelligence show that it is most needed. To answer the noble Lord's question about produce from outside the European Union, enforcement action at ports can be taken, if necessary. Consignments containing residues in excess of MRLs can be seized and disposed of, or indeed refused entry into the United Kingdom.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, in view of the great public concern about this issue, does the noble Earl consider that what he called "annual surveillance" is in fact sufficient? Is he aware that the recent scandal about carrots referred to by the noble Countess was only revealed when the experts stopped inspecting batches and began inspecting individual vegetables? Can he tell the House what further efforts can be made? Is he aware that the Pesticide Trust has suggested that there should be a special task force to look into this matter? Would the Government consider such a body, possibly with an independent chairman such as the noble Countess, Lady Mar?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides has concluded that the elevated residue levels found in a small minority of carrots—I stress that—do not represent a threat to health. The Government have accepted the ACP' s advice and restricted the number of organophosphorous insecticide applications that can be applied to carrots. In approving any pesticide, we build in, as I said, substantial margins of safety in determining what are acceptable daily intake levels. Where those margins are at risk of being eroded—I stress that word too rather than "eliminated"—as in the case of OP residues in carrots, it is a prudent precaution to seek to restore those margins. That was the entire raison d'etre for the Government's announcement earlier in the year on OPs in carrots.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is important that doctors should be able to recognise symptoms of pesticide poisoning when they present themselves? Will he perhaps have a word with his colleagues at the Department of Health to ensure that, if possible, all doctors are better trained in dealing with cases of chronic low level toxicity?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that the Chief Medical Officer has during the past four years circulated GPs with an advisory letter on pesticides and veterinary medicines and the possible hazards arising from their misuse. We keep the need to inform GPs under regular review.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say how the vegetables grown in this country compare with those imported from other European countries as to the content of pesticides?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is very difficult to give a general answer to that question because different pesticides are used in different countries. However, our effort in targeting surveillance is based upon experience. We target those consignments and those crops which have proved to be most suspect in the past. I can assure the noble Lord that consignments coming into the UK from abroad receive their due measure of surveillance.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has clearly explained the expensive and extensive costs of surveillance, research and monitoring? Will he accept that all those activities are entirely unnecessary in the matter of products provided by organic farming?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is a consistent advocate of organic farming. The Government are very much in favour of consumer choice, provided that it is informed choice. Organic produce is grown without the use of pesticides. But the Government would deprecate any implication that anything that was not organically grown was unsafe to eat. The UK has standards of safety in food production that are second to none in the world.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the immense importance of pesticides to farming and the production of food in this overcrowded world, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to support research into mechanical methods; namely, producing sprayers which can be effective with smaller globules; producing plants which are resistant to diseases and do not need pesticides; and in general helping forward the spread of knowledge which can make food safe and at the same time ensure the supply of food to the people of this country and the world, which I am afraid that the present level of organic farming will never do?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have an extensive research programme devoted to pesticides which we update on a regular basis. The control of pests on vegetables need not be undertaken purely by chemical means. There are very exciting possibilities in the field of biotechnology also. It is perhaps worth stressing—to balance the message, if I may—that carrots in particular make a useful contribution to a healthy diet. They are a valuable source of vitamins and they are delicious cooked or raw. Government dietary advice is to eat more fruit and vegetables, including carrots. I commend that advice to your Lordships.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if people stop eating carrots, they are bound to go blind?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, but that does not affect the taste.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's observation that the standards that we apply are the highest in the world, will he give us an assurance that this is a matter which will remain of exclusive national competence? In order to ensure the maintenance of that position, will he consider making official approaches to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, so that she can be incorporated into the supervisory procedure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Countess's expertise in these matters is well known to all your Lordships. However, there are certain benefits in harmonising pesticide approvals across the European Union. It is generally to the benefit of business, both in this country and across the Community. I am pleased to say that we are making progress in that field.

Air Pollution
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering further measures to reduce air pollution at times when weather conditions lead to harmful combinations of gases in certain areas.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government are currently reviewing the advice provided to the public during episodes. The case for additional measures, including traffic bans, in the event of particularly severe pollution episodes is kept continually under review.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Can he confirm that such mixtures of gases in these circumstances occur in predictable places, where there are concentrations of motor traffic? Does he agree that sufferers from asthma in particular are likely to experience a worsening of their affliction when they are in those areas at the time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, unfortunately, one cannot make such a generalisation. During normal conditions, ambient levels of most pollutants tend to be highest by roadsides. But ozone levels tend to be highest in rural locations, where traffic is sparse, as a result of ozone formation caused by the reaction of ozone precursors emitted from urban areas and reacting with sunlight. Everybody should be concerned about the effect on asthma sufferers, particularly parents of children with asthma. However, medical opinion is that the cause of asthma remains unclear and there is no convincing evidence that air pollution can cause asthma to develop in those who do not already suffer from the disease.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Manchester comes within the "certain areas" referred to in the Question? Is he aware also that, from the cradle to the grave, the numbers of people dying in Manchester from the effects of the type of activity he mentioned are among the highest, if not the highest, in the United Kingdom? Can the Minister tell me, if not today then perhaps he can publish his response in the Library, the levels reached in the five largest metropolitan areas outside of London? In doing that, will he consider whether anything can be done to lessen the pollution in the city of Manchester because of its adverse effect on people in general?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government monitor air quality extensively in major urban centres through their enhanced urban network. They are seeking to expand that network further, integrating local authority
1264
monitoring networks. I shall write to the noble Lord regarding the five largest metropolitan districts and the levels he asked for. However, as I indicated to my noble friend, the levels of primary pollutants will inevitably be higher in urban areas where traffic levels are higher. Government proposals published in January aim to identify those areas where national air quality targets are likely to be breached and target appropriate action to ensure that air quality is improved.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will my noble friend give encouragement to the use of natural gas vehicles? I declare an interest as the president of the Natural Gas Vehicles Association. Those vehicles have significantly lower levels of the type of pollution referred to in the Question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are currently sponsoring research at the Transport Research Laboratory into a range of alternative vehicle propulsion technologies, including compressed natural gas. I hope that the results, when they become available next year, will point the way forward for cleaner vehicles in the future.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Viscount indicated that the Government are carefully monitoring the situation and are considering when the episodes, as he described them, occur. Can he tell us whether those episodes tend in normal circumstances, in urban areas, to occur at certain periods of the day and times of the week? If so, can measures be taken to deal with that situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the timing of the episodes is rather difficult to predict. Ozone is a Europe-wide problem. Much of the ozone in last month's episode was carried into Britain from northern and central Europe on easterly airstreams. The correlation that the noble Lord is looking for, therefore, is not really available. The chemical smog that is made above industrial areas produces ozone concentrations at lower levels outside those areas. It is difficult to predict where the episodes may occur.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during the passage of the Environment Bill before your Lordships' House, the Government undertook—after many debates on air quality—to table an amendment in another place which would deal with the matter. Has the amendment been tabled? If not, why not?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we shall be tabling amendments to the Environment Bill this week, implementing the proposals on air quality management that we published earlier this year and which were warmly welcomed. We are therefore undertaking to implement what I said in this House when the Environment Bill was before us.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that air pollution is not confined to urban areas? He said that ozone is prevalent in country areas, but problems also exist when farmers burn plastic bags and so forth causing dioxins and when they overspray in windy weather causing volatile pesticides to enter the atmosphere. There seem to be links between

1265
occurrences of asthma—it may be bronchial constriction rather than asthma—among children in rural areas. Can the Minister say what research is taking place in that field?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, all the items identified by the noble Countess acid to the number of pollutants which are present in the atmosphere individually or collectively. The same problem occurs with photochemical smog, except that in country areas the precursors would probably be widely dispersed before it developed. It is in urban areas, where there is a concentration of pollutant emissions, not only from motor vehicles but also from power stations and so forth, that problems of ozone are created which then cause the irritants which people with respiratory diseases find uncomfortable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is there not another factor in his matter which must not be overlooked; namely, that in any weather more air pollution is caused by oil-fired and coal-fired power stations than by nuclear and other forms of generation? Will the Government ensure therefore that in any further development of our needs for electricity, priority is given to nuclear and other forms of generation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we need to bear those matters in mind. However, it is because half of the pollutants are generated by the transport sector that we need to turn our attention more precisely in that direction in order to make certain that we alleviate the problem. Of course, my noble friend has brought out an extremely interesting and valuable point.
Baroness Robson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not only motorcars, but also diesel buses that cause pollution in our cities? Oxford is a perfect example. No doubt the Minister is aware that Oxford has entered into an experiment by starting to use a number of electric buses. What assessment has been made of the success and economics of using those buses?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that goes back to the research taking place at the Transport Research Laboratory into the range of alternative vehicle propulsion technologies. When we seek to achieve improvements in our air quality in urban areas, it is important that we make certain that the public sector plays its part with public transport to reduce the number of cars being used. I am extremely pleased to hear that Oxford is using electric buses because the resultant pollution from them will be minimal.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gas Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I remember, after the war, thinking that gas—with those awful grey kitchen stoves and funny flickering railway lights and remembering, even as a child, the lamplighter going round the streets with his stick switching on individual street lights—was a relic of the Victorian era. It certainly was to me. But my goodness, how wrong could one be!
Gas over the years has transformed itself into being a clean, highly efficient, highly competitive form of energy. In my book, that is a staggering achievement and one which, in the 1950s, would have been quite unthinkable.
It is not, therefore, surprising that there has been a long history in this country—and elsewhere, for that matter—of the gas industry being organised on the basis of a monopoly. It seemed the logical and sensible thing to do. That dates back as far as the Gasworks Clauses Act 1847, which I doubt if many of your Lordships will be able to recall! Like much Victorian infrastructure, those provisions were built to last. Many of the ideas behind that legislation continue to be reflected in the current Gas Act.
But what our predecessors, nearly 150 years ago, did not foresee—and, indeed, what has only become clear in recent years—is that having a monopoly in the ownership and maintenance of the pipelines is not incompatible with having competition with the gas which is actually transported through the pipelines and which eventually ends up in the homes or businesses of the consumers.
The idea that one could separate the function of supplying gas from the operation of providing and looking after the distribution system—in other words, the pipes—has emerged progressively over the past few years as a successful and competitive market has been developed in the supplying of gas to industrial and commercial customers. That happened in 1988, and has continued since. It has happened to those premises which consume more than 2,500 therms a year. They have been able since then to choose their suppliers. In fact, independent suppliers have taken over half of the business in that particular market, and real prices to those industrial consumers have fallen by about a third.
This Bill is really a continuation of that experience by providing the necessary legislation to extend the benefits of competition to the 18 million or so domestic gas consumers in Great Britain. The proposal is that competition will be introduced progressively from next year, 1996, and it should be able to cover all of Great Britain from 1998. It will start with a pilot phase in the South West consisting of some 500,000 domestic consumers. A second phase involving 2 million customers will follow in 1997 and there will be competition nationwide in 1998.
By doing this in stages, it will be possible to ensure that the necessary technical, administrative and licensing arrangements will be operating properly before the competition is extended to all the 18 million or so consumers throughout Great Britain.

1267
The purpose of the Bill is to give consumers choice. It will enable them to choose the service which they want. It will provide a powerful incentive on the suppliers to become increasingly more efficient, for nothing concentrates the mind in business better than the thought that there may be somebody who can do the job which you are doing better or cheaper than you are doing it. It will provide a strong pressure for prices to be lowered. Independent suppliers have already said that they believe that they will be able to offer average savings of around 10 per cent. on British Gas's current prices.
The first supplier to confirm its intention to enter the market in the South West next year has said that it will cut existing bills by at least as much as 10 per cent., giving savings of £30 or so a year on the average domestic gas bill of £300. The provisions of the Bill will be supplemented—as was the case in the 1986 legislation—by licences. Drafts of the standard conditions of those licences have already been made available for public consultation, and they were considered when the Bill had its Committee stage in another place.
We are now considering all the comments which we have received and, while technical changes will certainly be required, we have not heard anything at this stage which would make us want at present to make substantial changes to the principles of the licences. Once we have finished that consideration, we will be able to publish the revised drafts. I hope that we will be able to do this, particularly for the supply licence standard conditions, while the Bill is still before your Lordships.
I think that it might help your Lordships if I were to outline the three important principles which have guided us in formulating the legislative and licensing proposals. First, there is safety. That is an issue, quite obviously, of the greatest importance. That is why the Government asked the Health and Safety Commission for a thorough report on our competition proposals. It made that report; we have published that report; and we have accepted that report. Its recommendations will be implemented by the Bill, by the licences or by separate regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
British Gas will continue to provide a first-class safety service to customers through its pipeline business which is called TransCo. Members of the public will have a single, national emergency telephone number which they can contact if they suspect that there may be a gas leak, whether that is in the home or in the street.
Secondly, I would like to give some assurance about that horrible expression which is sometimes used. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, use it. I expect he will use it again today, but I hope that he will not because I shall mention it for him. It is that horrible expression "cherry picking". That is the idea that new suppliers will just pick and choose the best customers—those assumed to be living in the largest houses and who therefore use a lot of gas—and will just ignore the rest who would then have to face higher prices from British Gas as a result.
But both theory and experience suggest that fear is wholly misplaced, and that any relative difference in prices which may emerge must be seen against the likely reductions in overall prices. Competition itself limits the
1268
ability of suppliers to pick and choose because it gives that right to customers. If all suppliers were to aim only at a small part of the market, there would be insufficient business to go round and the margins would be minuscule. Suppliers are much more likely to seek a broad base of customers in order that they can build up a strong market share.
Experience in the industrial gas market supports that. When we opened that market in 1988, people expressed those very doubts and thought that suppliers would just pick the best customers. But that has not happened. Instead of prices rising, industrial customers of all sizes throughout Britain have seen substantial price cuts—averaging about a third in real terms—since competition started. But in order to ensure that there is no chance of that happening, we are taking some measures which are designed to add to the market forces in bringing the benefits of competition to all customers. Not only are we proposing to impose on suppliers an obligation to supply on request any customer who resides within their licence area, but we are making that choice a real one by requiring suppliers to offer a variety of different payment methods. And there will be a requirement for the supplier to publish the terms on which he will supply the gas.
The third important point is to provide effective protection to older or disabled customers or to those who have difficulty in paying their gas bills. All suppliers to the domestic market will be required to provide a number of special services for older and disabled customers which, in the future, will all have to be free of charge. These services will include such things as a gas safety check of the customer's fittings and appliances; special controls and adaptors for prepayment meters and gas appliances; repositioning of meters; special means of confirming the identity of callers; and many others. Where customers get into genuine difficulties, they will be able to have recourse to the debt and disconnection procedures which all suppliers will have to follow. Those procedures will include offering payment plans and prepayment meters in order to help the customer to be able to discharge his liabilities and to pay for his gas.
I am afraid that the Bill itself contains some pretty technical stuff. This particular subject is not what one might call light tea-time material. I think that it is only fair to warn your Lordships that I am afraid that it will be necessary for me to put forward a number of amendments during the course of the passage of the Bill. I will endeavour, though, to ensure that, wherever possible, your Lordships receive good notice of those amendments, which will be mainly technical, together with a written explanation of why they are being made.
The Bill's main task is to divide the old "public gas supplier", which was at the centre of the Gas Act 1986, into the three separate types of gas company which will be appropriate for competition. The first type of company will be the public gas transporter. It will operate the pipelines. That function will remain a monopoly at the local level. The second type of company will be the gas supplier. It will offer consumers contracts for the supply of gas, and it will have the responsibility of actually providing services to the customer. It will be possible for several suppliers to be licensed for the same area so that they can compete with one another for the business of

1269
supplying the gas to individual households. The third type of company is the gas shipper. It will have the specialist function of arranging with the public gas transporter for, as it were, shoving the gas into the pipe and then ensuring that it gets out at the other end into the consumers' premises. The Bill allows an organisation to act either as supplier or as shipper or both. However, public gas transporters must be separate legal persons.
The Bill amends Part I of the Gas Act 1986 in order to reflect this new industry structure and the consequences of competition. Clauses 1 and 2 adapt the duties of the Director General of Gas Supply and the Secretary of State to the new framework and they put in place additional safety considerations. The Bill introduces a new licensing framework, which is appropriate to the three new types of gas companies, together with certain exceptions and exemptions.
Licences will be granted by the Director General of Gas Supply. These will normally be on standard conditions and they will be set initially by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that the conditions are the same, unless special arrangements are justified. Ministers will have a reserve power of veto over subsequent changes to the standard licence conditions or, where changes may be made to those conditions as a result of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, a power of veto over the reference itself.
The Bill provides for exclusive areas for distribution of gas by public gas transporters. We expect that British Gas TransCo will continue to undertake the great majority of gas transportation throughout Great Britain. But there will be scope for other companies to compete for licences to convey gas to new areas. That will help to encourage the extension of the gas network. There are also arrangements to ensure that supply licences do not unfairly exclude pensioners or the disabled or those who are likely to default on payments. And there are provisions governing the coming into effect of the supply licences during the pilot phases and how applications for licences may be made. The Bill sets out the scope of conditions which may apply to licences, including the arrangements which may enable certain costs to be shared among all suppliers. All those matters, together with the arrangements for the standard conditions of licences, are set out in Clauses 3 to 8 of the Bill.
The new "gas code" is proposed in Schedule 2. That replaces the one in the 1986 Act. It sets out provisions on metering; on the supply of gas to consumers; on the handling of gas escapes; and on rights of entry. It also provides for deemed contracts where consumers are taking a supply of gas but where they do not have a contract with a supplier.
The Bill provides new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the operators of certain gas processing facilities in order to make them available to other people. These powers fill a gap in the present regulatory arrangements and they complement the existing powers which relate to offshore pipelines. The Bill also contains a number of detailed modifications to the existing Gas Act, reflecting the introduction of competition, and it contains transitional arrangements in order to facilitate the reorganisation of the industry. These are set out in Schedules 3 and 5.
1270
The whole purpose of this Bill is to bring the benefits of competition to gas consumers all over the country—and in many different ways. Perhaps I may highlight just three of them. The first is that competition will give a new commercial impetus to energy efficiency as suppliers compete, as it were, to the warming of houses rather than just to selling therms of gas. In the past, when there was a monopoly, trying to get energy efficiency programmes to work has been rather like pushing water uphill. If you run a monopoly you do not increase your business by actually selling less gas. Life just does not work that way. In the same way you do not set out to trim a tree if you are sitting on the branch which you are proposing to cut off.
But competition changes all that. In a competitive market a supplier can win business by being more competitive than his opponents. A competitive supplier is interested in the size of his particular slice of the market and not the total size of the market. It will, therefore, be in the supplier's interest to promote energy efficiency as a means of getting more custom, even though the total consumption may fall. By harnessing the power of the market to the cause of energy efficiency, we believe that substantial gains are possible. The new funding for the Energy Savings Trust that the Government have announced will get these initiatives off to a good start.
The second benefit which the Bill will provide is that consumers will welcome the opportunities of having cheaper gas. New organisations are already talking about charging 10 per cent. below the present British Gas prices when the pilot starts next April in the South West.
The third benefit which the Bill will produce is that it will bring service to the forefront. After 150 years of monopoly, there is now a tremendous opportunity for the consumer to turn the tables on the gas supplier and for the consumer to say what he or she wants as opposed to just sitting back and getting whatever is provided, and having to pay the bill without any alternative.
The Bill has been widely welcomed not only by the gas industry—including British Gas, which may surprise your Lordships—but by consumer bodies, including the Gas Consumers' Council which will play an important part in the new market. Each of those interests has qualified its welcome with its own particular points, but welcomed it they have.
I hope that your Lordships too will welcome the Bill. I have great hope, now that noble Lords opposite have done away with Clause 4 and all that jazz and have turned their backs on nationalisation that they will agree that privatisation of the gas supply is a good thing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this most interesting Bill. He is right about it being technical. I glanced through it during his speech and

1271
wish to refer your Lordships to Schedule 2, paragraph 25, which is headed, "Gas meters and fittings not to be subject to distress". Sub-paragraph (2) states:
"In the application of sub-paragraph (1) (a) above to Scotland, for the word 'distress' and the words 'in bankruptcy against' there shall be substituted respectively the word 'poinding' and the words 'for the sequestration of the estate of'".
I hope that in due course your Lordships will not be distressed by having to discuss such detail.
Perhaps I may make four general points at the outset and reassure the Minister by saying that I welcome the Bill, mainly on the ground that it enlarges the scope for competition, which must be to the advantage of most consumers. I use the word "most" advisedly because there is a question to which I must return; namely, whether "most" can be replaced by "all".
When the 1986 Act was debated, the central focus was for or against privatisation. The Government argued for a regulated private monopoly. The Opposition took the view that if the industry was to be a monopoly it should remain in public hands. However, some believed in the classical view that whether or not privatisation was good, it was vital that the newly privatised industry structure should be one of competition. The Government resisted that. The most that they were willing to allow was that competitors of British Gas could use its pipelines to supply large industrial users. Subsequently that was extended to smaller industrial users.
In essence, the Bill recognises the original error of setting up a private monopoly and seeks to rectify that. It is worth recalling that the previous director of Ofgas accused British Gas of anti-competitive practices and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission ruled that some of British Gas's practices operated against the public interest.
My second general point is to repeat that I recognise how technical the Bill is. Therefore, much of what I wish to say about it is best dealt with in Committee. This afternoon I shall indicate those areas of the Bill which are most in need of clarification and change.
Thirdly, it is difficult and probably futile to debate a subject like this without referring to general energy policy. But that is what we are obliged to do. Despite requests from all sides of your Lordships' House, no time has been found to debate the White Paper on nuclear power. That would have been the ideal context within which to place the future of the gas industry. Whether we are looking at the demand for coal, the scale of nuclear production, the use of gas for electricity generation, who will be the new entrants to the gas industry or for how long gas reserves will last, all those matters need to be considered if we are to take a rational view of this measure. But we shall not be able to do that.
Fourthly, the Bill raises important questions about the regulatory framework. Is it working well? Can it be made to work better? The questions which arise in that regard are to do with what is called regulatory capture and disclosure of information which should be in the public domain but which firms claim is commercially confidential. Of course, we must look also at the balance of the interests of shareholders and consumers.
1272
Now perhaps I may indicate some parts of the Bill which I consider to be the most important. On that, there is one further general point to be made. Much of the Bill amends the 1986 Act. One reason for that is the need to provide for the extension of competition. But it may be that the Bill has amended that Act for other reasons too and we shall need to pursue that.
I start with competition itself. The Bill refers to "effective competition". As an economist, I am not at all sure what the Government have in mind. I understand what competition is but I do not understand the expression "effective competition". I shall table an amendment to clarify the meaning of the word "effective".
In that connection, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether he has had any indication of the number of potential new entrants in the long and short term and who they may be. There is an image that the competitors will be small relative to British Gas. Nothing could be more mistaken. I presume that some of the new entrants will be massive organisations; for example, the oil companies.
In another place the Minister was asked about the probity, financial and otherwise, of possible new entrants. He said that that would be dealt with by the director general. That may well be right, except for the lack of accountability of the director general. Since it is not obvious that the maintenance of supply can be guaranteed and the supplier of last resort function remains problematic, to say the least, we need further clarification of that. Again, in due course I shall table a probing amendment which will enable the Minister to say more about that.
I note in the Bill the repetition of the phrase that is in the 1986 Act:
"to secure that, so far as it is economical to meet them, all reasonable demands in Great Britain for gas conveyed through pipes are met".
Again, apart from the question of interpreting what is meant by "economical" and "reasonable" together in the same sentence, we need to ask whether that condition has always been met in practice since privatisation and whether the wording is correct for the new competitive circumstances.
That relates to the problem of whether all consumers will gain. It is alleged that in existing circumstances some high cost consumers are helped by cross-subsidisation, which is feasible given British Gas's monopoly power. I think that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that there would be some consumers who would lose as a result of this new measure. It states:
"We recognise that, while introduction of competition may well result in a reduction in the overall level of prices, some groups may be worse off".
As noble Lords know, I have a rather low opinion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's activities in recent years, and some of its reports have been bizarre, to put the matter at its mildest. The Consumers' Association, which, like the other consumer organisations, supports the Bill, has written to a number of your Lordships saying that it will benefit all consumers. The National Consumer Council is a little more cautious. What is the Government's opinion? Is the Monopolies and Mergers Commission mistaken? Can we be assured that, without a shadow of doubt, all consumers will benefit?

1273
Furthermore, on consumer protection, noble Lords will have heard from the Gas Consumers Council. It says:
"We believe strongly that the move to a competitive market should not require the relinquishing of major statutory principles inherent to consumer protection, particularly since the Gas Bill does not give the Director General an overt duty to secure effective choice for gas consumers".
That is an important matter to which I shall return in Committee.
A most important part of the 1986 Act was Section 17 on meter testing and stamping. I am sure that all noble Lords will have acquainted themselves with that section of the 1986 Act. That is replaced by paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. However, there appear to be important changes which involve the director general. Meter examiners are now to be members of his staff, whereas before they were appointed by the Secretary of State. Again, without prejudging whether that is in the interests of consumers, we need to examine carefully the new words.
That takes me on to:
"the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age".
I am aware that that repeats what is in the 1986 Act and nothing that I say should be interpreted as being unsympathetic to those groups, as I approach both categories myself. However, I must ask why it applies only to them and not the poor in general.
En passant the noble Earl referred to those who have difficulty in paying their gas bills as being a responsibility, but I see nothing at all in the Bill which refers to that. Therefore, I should like clarification.
In that connection, we should note that all that the relevant powers that be—the Secretary of State and the director general—have to do is to "take into account". Why should they not be obliged to take into account any action by gas suppliers which are to the detriment of very poor people, especially in the light of my question of whether all consumers will gain? That is the view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and I agree with it. Noble Lords will be aware of the existing code of practice which provides a number of important services free to the old and disabled. Will that code of practice continue? What is its statutory basis? Will it apply to all new entrants to the industry?
On pensionable age, we have the twin difficulties that at the moment the pension ages for men and women differ but in future, as the method of equalising, the age for women will be raised. When we are discussing couples and the question of pensionable ages arises, can we assume that the lower age will be relevant? When we equalise pensionable ages, which I favour—and in this case they are being raised—for that purpose, why should not the pensionable age for couples be deemed to be 60?
There is considerable interest in the environmental reference in the Act and the Bill. Again, we shall need to explore whether extra safeguards will be needed in the new commercially competitive environment. The Country Landowners' Association has written to many noble Lords on the environmental impact of the laying of new high pressure distribution pipes. Those fears are serious and we must address them.
1274
A similar point applies to safety. Gas is one of the most dangerous substances to be found in peoples' homes. I have been asking people what they think is the most dangerous substance in their homes. The list is enormous but gas is certainly on it. Therefore, there is certainly a public interest in ensuring safety. If appliances are installed poorly or are not well serviced, or if problems such as leakages are not dealt with promptly and efficiently, the danger is to neighbours as well as to the household immediately affected.
Although it is important not to discourage entry into this market, it is vital that all suppliers have the same obligations in regard to safety. In Committee we shall raise questions about so-called Corgi standards. The Gas Consumers Council has reported an increase in the number of complaints that have been made against registered installers. After the enactment of the Bill there is a danger that those problems will increase. We shall therefore need to look at a statutory foundation for standards of service in installation and repair.
The question of licences is largely a matter of detailed scrutiny but I should like to make some general points. The noble Earl has given us useful information about the progress that he has made. When will we have the details of the licences that will be offered? He stated that he hoped that we would have them during the passage of the Bill. Is it too much to hope that we could have the detailed forms so that we can debate them by means of amendments in Committee? We all agree that we cannot accept these licences sight unseen; they must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
In raising the following aspect of an obligation to supply, I declare an interest, which is that I live in a block of flats. Will an obligation to supply apply to households or to premises? Will there be an obligation to supply each individual flat owner, or is the obligation to supply the whole block? That is not a trivial matter.
All those matters relate to amendments to Section 10 of the 1968 Act which is contained in Schedule 3 to the Bill. I shall reflect on what the noble Earl has said, but it appears that there is no statutory obligation to supply individual customers. We shall look at that more carefully at a later stage.
The subject of licences leads on to the role of the regulator. Regulating a private monopoly involves different considerations from regulating a competitive industry, albeit one in which competition will be less than straightforward. I cannot believe that the new job will be any easier. I add in parenthesis that I have no intention today of discussing the pay of the regulator, although in my view all regulators need careful scrutiny, especially the one or two who perform their jobs in a less than satisfactory manner.
I shall take the opportunity at the next stage of the Bill of putting down amendments to clarify the role of the regulator, especially in regard to answerability to consumers, shareholders and the public. There is an element of arbitrariness in the scope of the regulator which should be examined. Can the Minister confirm that in the Bill the Secretary of State appears to be giving himself new powers akin to those of the regulator? That matter should also be examined in detail.

1275
I move now to the area of transparency. Competition must be based on full information if it is to work properly: that is one of the oldest propositions of economics. As Adam Smith emphasised, firms intrinsically hate competition and find every reason under the sun not to compete and to justify secrecy. The Government have fallen for that nonsense on more than one occasion. Consumer protection requires that full information is available to everyone as to the prices charged by all firms and the terms and conditions on which supply is made available.
The current example of Which? magazine offers a useful comparison of best buys in telephone services. I am sure that the Consumers' Association and Which? will do the same good job in relation to gas. But we cannot rely on such an organisation, excellent though it is, to perform a job which is essentially one for the public sector and for government. There must be no secret contract and no small print. That is a matter of law and something which should not be left to market forces. The National Consumer Council suggests that the responsibility for providing consumer information enabling national choice to be made should lie either with Ofgas or the Gas Consumer Council. That is worth pursuing further. As the Gas Consumers' Council asserted, nothing in the Bill should lower the degree of consumer protection that is already enshrined in statute.
As the noble Earl stated, before the changes envisaged in the Bill come into force there should be some pilot exercises. Can the Minister tell us later this evening the details of those studies? What is their purpose? Will they be published? If problems are discovered, how will that effect the legislation, the licences or the regulation? Parliament in general and your Lordships in particular, I am sure, would wish to be informed of those studies in order to be able to comment on them.
I have tried throughout my speech to be constructive. If there is to be a widening of competition it must serve the intended purpose of lowering prices and improving services to consumers. For firms to make money out of those circumstances is incidental to the main aim and is not the primary objective. The Bill does not go far enough to help the consumer but we can improve upon that situation. Having said that, I should like to reassure the Minister that, subject to those remarks, the Bill is welcome.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish at the outset to declare an interest. I have been in competition with the gas industry in one way or another since 1947. While I was in the coal industry I fought hard to build up coal's share in the markets in which gas had penetrated. More recently, I have been involved in competition within the gas market as chairman of an independent gas supply company. Over the decades, therefore, I have gained considerable knowledge of the gas industry from the outside, and I agree with the tribute that was made by the noble Earl to the enormous technological progress that has been achieved by the gas industry in the long period in which I have been involved in competing with it.
1276
When I started, coal was exclusively used as their feed stock; then they moved to oil; then they moved to liquefied natural gas that was imported from Algeria, and finally to natural gas that was obtained from the North Sea. The most outstanding achievement was the way in which all the gas appliances were changed throughout the country. We should pay tribute to that great industrial achievement in this country.
Creating competition within the markets for gas has taken many years. That is the object of the Bill and something that from these Benches we fully support. It was intended to be introduced by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act in 1982. That Act gave free access to gas pipelines. However, there was one snag. No one could get hold of any gas because British Gas bought it all. The situation continued after the Gas Act 1986 which confirmed the monopolistic position of British Gas. The only change was to a private monopoly. I recall the debates during the passing of that legislation. I was one of those who raised the question of competition. I received the answer that there was competition with other fuels. When I argued that many consumers, particularly the smaller ones, were locked into gas I was told that nonetheless there was freedom of choice.
It was due to the intervention of Sir James Mackinnon, the first director general of Ofgas that competition was introduced into the industrial and commercial gas markets. It took a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1988 and to the Office of Fair Trading in 1991 for that situation to be brought about. Approximately 52 per cent. of the total gas market is now open to competition and over half of that percentage is supplied by independent operators.
The Bill is concerned with the opening up of the remaining 48 per cent. of the market which is represented by domestic consumers, If, as is proposed, the market is fully opened up by 1998, it will have taken 16 years to achieve full scale competition in the gas market, involving three separate pieces of legislation, two references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and one to the Office of Fair trading. At last we are getting there.
In spite of the present criticisms, British Gas provides a good service to domestic consumers. I happen to be one myself. Since December 1986 domestic gas prices, excluding the effect of VAT, have fallen by 22½ per cent. in real terms. The supply is reliable, there is a good back-up service, and safety is given absolute priority. Further, elderly and infirm customers are specially cared for and provision is made for those who have difficulty in meeting their bills. So it is fair to ask whether the new arrangements proposed in the Bill will improve on that or, at the very least, not in any way weaken this already good service provided to customers.
There is at present a common price for domestic gas throughout the country. Price freedom is henceforth to be allowed. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to that point. But I believe that we should ask what the impact of that will be on those consumers furthest placed from the points of supply and taking only small quantities. The Minister gave us an assurance about preventing "cherry picking", but can he give an indication of the range of prices likely to be anticipated under the new regime?

1277
Service is a vital ingredient and is of relatively much more importance to domestic than to industrial consumers. Can the present high level of service clearly given by British Gas be assured when the market opens up? Above all, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will the elderly, the infirm and those having difficulty meeting their bills be treated at least as well as they are at present?
British Gas has a good record of dealing with safety problems, to which the Minister and the noble Lord referred. TransCo, the transportation arm of British Gas as now reorganised, will retain responsibility for dealing with gas leaks and other risks. But the consequent repairs, after the risk has been dealt with, will be a matter for the consumer to sort out with private sector operators. How will that compare with the present situation when British Gas can deal with the whole matter at one go, thus avoiding consumers being deprived of gas supplies for a period, which could be serious if it occurs in winter? Prices, service and safety represent essential issues. Domestic consumers who have been used to high standards under the regime of British Gas will need to be reassured under the new regime.
In that connection, I must say that I was disturbed to note that, in Clause 1 of the Bill, protecting the interests of consumers of gas is given a secondary priority. That is surely a matter of prime importance. I would welcome the views of the Minister as to why it has been given such a secondary priority. A further duty which has also been accorded a lower priority is the promotion of efficiency in the use of gas. I find that extraordinary in the Government's oft-repeated commitment to improve the environment and diminish harmful emissions. Indeed, the Minister referred to the importance that the Government attach to energy efficiency which he thought could be promoted by competition, but why has that been made a secondary duty in the Bill?
A welcome feature of the Bill is the retention of the Gas Consumers Council. It has proved itself to be a worthy champion of the domestic gas consumer. It is regrettable that the Government have refused similar arrangements for other privatised fuel industries.
I turn now to the licensing arrangements. The draft transportation, supply and shipper licences have been issued, although they may be changed. We are told that the revised version of the supply licence, for example, will be available to us in sufficient time for us to debate it at later stages. Those licences fill many of the gaps left open in the Bill. However, it could be argued that too much has been put into the licences and too little into the Bill. That continues a recent trend in legislation to minimise what is in Acts of Parliament and to maximise what is left to discretion. It means that changes on quite major issues can be made without parliamentary scrutiny. That is an issue which will undoubtedly be raised as the Bill goes through its other stages in the House.
As a result of the Bill, and in particular the granting of licences, Ofgas will have its powers substantially enlarged. Therefore, it is of increasing importance that it should operate in an open and accountable manner. Indeed, I believe that consideration should be given to an appeals procedure.
1278
In an operation as complex as the opening up of the domestic market for gas, it is right that there should be pilot exercises. We are very pleased that the Government have decided on that procedure. We have been told that such exercises will take place in 1996 and 1997. However, it is a matter of concern that neither the DTI nor Ofgas propose to issue reports on the conclusions to be drawn from the pilot operations. That was particularly requested by the Trade and Industry Committee of another place in its report of 23rd November 1994. The committee recommended that,
"the DTI and Ofgas should set out how they propose to monitor the impact of the limited competition during the transitional period, what arrangements there will be for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, and what criteria they will use to assess the success of competition in the pilot areas. Provision should be made for reports to the House on experience in the pilot areas before further steps are taken".
That seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposition which, however, the Government appear to have rejected in debates in another place and in their answer to the Select Committee's report. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could comment on the situation. Further, can the Minister also indicate whether there could be a delay in introducing the first pilot scheme due to disagreements over the Network Code—a very complex arrangement— which was referred to in this morning's edition of the Financial Times?
There is one further aspect that I should like to touch upon briefly; namely, that of the assignation of rights and liabilities which is contained within Schedule 5 to the Bill. Paragraph 2 of the schedule, as currently drafted, would permit British Gas to assign contracts, without counter-party assent, to an affiliate. That has raised concerns with some of the gas producers who are parties to those contracts. I can see merits on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, companies which have invested significant sums of money against the security of their gas contracts are troubled if the contracts are assigned to a subsidiary without the financial strength of the parent; on the other hand, conditions in the market have radically changed and some discussion and flexibility may be needed.
The assignment of those contracts to a subsidiary does not seem to me to give British Gas an easy option to repudiate them. It would be a very serious step for a company like British Gas to walk away from a subsidiary. I am sure that that is not in the company's mind. It is clearly an important issue and I shall be interested to hear the noble Earl's views on the subject.
The Bill represents the conclusion of the long process of opening up the gas market to competition with which, as I indicated, we on this side of the House agree. British Gas generally provides a good service to its domestic consumers and has kept prices under control. It is essential that the standards set by British Gas, particularly in its treatment of its consumers who are elderly, infirm or on low incomes, are maintained at least: at the present level, if not improved upon. More emphasis needs to be given in the Bill to the duty to protect the interests of consumers and to promote energy efficiency. In my opinion, a better balance needs to be struck between what

1279
is contained in the proposed licences and the Bill itself. I am sure that these issues will be covered at subsequent stages of our debate.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first I should like to declare none of my interests. I have no shares in British Gas or gas companies, nor do my children. I am not paid by gas companies, although I admit that I have asked for briefing from some and received unsolicited briefing from others. I have even received unsolicited briefing from a company that appears to have changed its name following some pretty bad publicity. I sometimes wish that we could do the same!
The unease that I feel over this Bill is concerned with its principle. It affects a company that is already in the private sector. Therefore, the share price will be affected. I do not like any government to do that, and that is why I declare an interest in having no shares. It is the principle that I dislike. It is detrimental to the share price, and that is bad. I fully approve of the objectives of the Bill. As my noble friend the Minister has said, it will give consumers choice. I am all for consumers having choice. I may benefit from it in London, but I certainly will not benefit in the country. The greater competition that the Bill will offer is undoubtedly good for the industry and for us.
I believe that we must bear in mind two forms of competition. So far my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, have concentrated on competition within the United Kingdom. I wish to touch on that matter and also competition worldwide. So far as competition within the United Kingdom is concerned, there must be a level playing field. (I know that my noble friend the Minister loves expressions like that.) At the moment, there is not the transparency that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned. We need that transparency so that consumers can make a rational choice. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned the Which? report on telephones. We need to have that information, not in a magazine, but clearly presented. It means that each company needs to have information about the others so that there are no hidden costs, and one company is not forced to disclose its prices and others do not. That is wrong, and we must not allow that to happen in the competitive domestic market.
It is also important that the companies which stand to make a good reward within the gas business also suffer the same risk. One cannot have one lot of companies subject to a different risk from another lot of companies. The playing field must be level for consumers and the companies. We in this country are extremely good at opening up our market to competition. As a result of this Bill, state-owned companies will come into our market when there is not the remotest chance of our getting into their home markets. That point needs to be borne in mind.
That takes me logically to the next step: worldwide competition. I do not believe that we realise just how lucky we are in this country to have a company of the stature of British Gas. Whatever has been said recently— I make no judgment upon whether it is true or false—we have a world-class company with world-class people. It is
1280
a world leader and is a huge asset to UK Limited. Here, I put on my old Foreign Office hat. When travelling in the Far East, in particular, I was struck by how immensely important it was for any British company that wished to do business overseas, particularly in that market, to have a strong home base and to be able to provide exactly the same services in the countries in which it wished to do business as it proved it could offer at home. I believe that we must always have that in the back of our minds when we look to divest the monopoly situation from British Gas. We need to leave the company with the right amount of infrastructure in this country so that it can legitimately go abroad and say that what it has done in the United Kingdom can work in that particular market, too. Without that added strength the marketing opportunities for British Gas will be reduced; this in itself will be detrimental to UK Limited. I am sure that none of your Lordships wish that to happen.
I turn to the pipeline situation and TransCo. This is a unique operation. One is considering something like 160,000 miles of pipeline, which is about six-and-a-half times around the world. That is a fundamental base on which British Gas can sell its expertise worldwide. I believe that the Bill has it about right, and I do not wish to see any change.
So far as I am concerned, one other point in the Bill deserves brief mention at this stage I refer to the existing gas contracts which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He is right to say that there are arguments both for and against a change. However, some of the briefing that I have received tends to put the companies that wish to seek a change in the Bill in the position of having their cake and eating it. Any of us would like to be in a position where our risk was severely limited by a guarantee but we would be open to take whatever rewards were available. I return to my original point about a level playing field. All of the companies must face the same risks and rewards. So far as existing gas contracts are concerned, I support what is in the Bill, in Schedule 5, Part II.
Having expressed my unease, I reassure my noble friend the Minister that I support the Bill. I hope that this House gives it a fair and speedy wind on to the statute book, and that we as consumers will benefit from it but that we as UK Limited do not deprive ourselves of any benefit either.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I approve of the Bill. I support anything that improves the opportunity for new businesses to develop and offer wider services. Both my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that British Gas had proved itself to be a most successful company and had brought great wealth and opportunity to Britain. It is the fifteenth largest company in Europe. It is the leading gas company in the world. Britain is looked upon more and more as the leader in the development of new technology in all aspects of energy.
I declare an interest. I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. We have a considerable interest in seeing a reduction in gas prices. There has been

1281
a reduction in industrial gas prices by over a third during the time that British Gas has been in operation. That has brought enormous opportunities as well as technology improvements. I believe that that same improvement and reduction in prices will continue as the Bill comes into operation and many more companies come into the business.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that what should first be considered was an energy policy. I would have thought that, as the Government's energy sectors had improved, and new Bills introduced and approaches developed over the past few years, that was exactly what we had. What we will have as a result of this Bill is a further step towards the development of energy service industries. At one time, one dealt with large monopoly companies which sold one energy source. Slowly, we have companies that are involved in a whole range of energy activities. Following this Bill, the next stage is the development of companies that will not provide actual energy sources but heating or hot water as a general commodity to meet a requirement for the wellbeing of one's home or business. In a sense, we are evolving an energy policy that will create a whole range of forceful, independent, high-tech companies that can provide to the customer a whole range of services that he wants. I believe that that is the right approach. Those companies will be competitive and will be encouraged to come into the industry with new ideas and opportunities. As a result, all consumers will benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also said that the purpose of the Bill would be to reduce prices and not produce profits. I believe that that is what he said. If he did not do so, I apologise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce prices. If as a consequence profits were made, that is all right. My point was that the purpose of the Bill was not to produce profits per se.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I would argue that it will be difficult for the consumers to achieve their aims unless it is clear to everyone that profits can be produced. One of the advantages of the Bill is that many more companies will be encouraged to come into the business, to invest in it, and to be aware of the consequences of their actions. To ensure that companies do that, they will have to make a profit. It is clear that we must not set up a series of regulators and regulations which discourage people from taking the opportunity that the Bill offers. The purpose of opening up markets is to encourage more people to invest in them. That is where the benefit to the consumer lies.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also referred to the question of pipelines over land. I cannot help but support him on that. The greatest rows that I have ever had in my life have been with people who wished to put pipelines over my land and did not pay me the compensation that I thought was my due. I envisage more rows of that ilk. If the noble Lord wishes to raise those issues during Committee stage, he will find a supporter on this side of the House. I hope that we can make clearer provisions regarding compensation so that we can seek to avoid the rows and difficulties in which landowners and those who wish to put pipelines over their land are now involved.
1282
I welcome the Bill. It will open many more interesting opportunities. I hope that with a further reduction in gas prices we shall see combined heat and power used on a greater scale. Within that context, the Government have to be aware that as the opportunities for investment widen we shall see further developments resulting from the reduction in gas prices. Over the next few years attitudes to energy and energy use will change quite dramatically.
With regard to other aspects—again I must declare an interest in energy from waste organisations—we must ensure that Government do not put unnecessary regulations in the way of allowing the market to evolve to the benefit of all. I hope that the Bill is another step forward in allowing the market place and the demands of the consumer to set the pace at which change occurs.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when I started to prepare for this Bill, in which I should declare an interest as an adviser to British Gas, my eye lit on one of the many booklets I have accumulated about the utilities, which have become one of my abiding interests over the past few years. It is called, Gas: The Final Act and is subtitled Securing benefits for all consumers. It was part of the lobbying of the Government at a time when it was doubtful that legislative time would be found for the Bill in this Session of Parliament.
It occurred to me that it was a very apt title and my mind went back to the usually unsung but amazingly successful progress of the gas industry in this country over almost two centuries—rather longer than the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been involved in the energy field. The discovery that town gas could not only be liberated from coal but piped quite long distances and used both for heat and light, even in your Lordships' Chamber, was followed by the creation of a multitude of small gasworks up and down the country.
An element of regulation started to creep in. Was it, I wonder, for the first time that that word was used in relation to the utilities? I was not around to know! And this plethora of small companies and municipal undertakings was, as we all know, nationalised in 1949. The next 40 years of progress was truly amazing, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. Somehow this country—which really means the gas consumers of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s—managed to finance the development of gas from the North Sea, and, more importantly, to lay thousands of miles of steel pipeline crisscrossing the country, and to convert every single appliance to natural gas so that 19 million domestic and business customers had access to gas in factories, workshops and houses the length and breadth of Great Britain. That network is now valued at a massive £17 billion. I would describe the process as a second industrial revolution.
It is, I believe, no accident that this Bill keeps that staggering undertaking, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers called it, as a near-monopoly pipeline system under the control of British Gas, albeit hedged about with Chinese walls so that the trading arms of the company should be treated in the same way as any other customer and not have a better deal. In another place, there was a question of turning the enterprise into a fully fledged

1283
subsidiary—a "separate legal entity" as it was called. For my money, that means that British Gas becomes a holding company with at least two subsidiaries— TransCo, and everything else. There would be immediate calls for all five business streams—I shall refer to them in a moment—to be independent, and eventually bids would come in for parts of the company. I firmly believe that separating out TransCo in such a way would lead to the break-up of British Gas. Even though it is currently turning itself from a home-based gas production and delivery company to one of our major export winners, it is not in the interest of government, the company or its shareholders for your Lordships to encourage that situation. To put it bluntly, it is not in the national interest.
But I am getting ahead of myself. For 10 years I was inveigled away from the energy field, but I was able to watch from the sidelines the rapid changes that were occurring and the arguments, both pro and con, that were developing. Regarding "the selling of the family silver", how wrong that phrase turned out to be, with net revenue to the taxpayer increasing by leaps and bounds. In retrospect, putting revenue on deposit and earning interest might have been a better expression. Then there was the phrase which was peculiarly inappropriate for gas. "Privatising a monopoly", was the sneer from the Benches opposite, and from some on this side too. They conveniently forgot to mention that although, yes, British Gas was a monopoly supplier of a product, it was not a monopoly energy source—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made that point—nor did it have a monopoly of production.
No one has to use gas. In modem times the industry has always competed with electricity, oil and coal for heating. Firms and people use it because it is clean, convenient, as safe as possible, with a very good back-up service, and above all cheap; and it is becoming cheaper almost, it seems, by the minute—a reduction of over 20 per cent. after inflation in untaxed terms since 1986. Even in taxed terms that means a reduction of about 16 per cent.
Can we say the same of electricity? No. The only utility with which we can compare the industry is the telephone industry, which, although quite different, gives us some pointers as to what will occur when the Bill fully takes effect. So, too, does the competition introduced in 1990 for the industrial and commercial sector, and the few domestic customers using more than 2,500 therms a year. They have seen their gas bills fall by between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., and, incidentally, the market share of British Gas fall to well below the 55 per cent. level suggested as appropriate by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The industrial gas market is now completely open to competition, and competitors, mainly linked to oil and electricity companies, now supply more than half the total gas used in this country. That is quite a change since 1986. That is not why British Gas is going through a difficult stage at present. It is because it has been persuaded, by a mixture of Ofgas, the MMC and Government, all of which jointly hold the whip hand—and currently rightly so—to disaggregate the company.
1284
The original suggestion was just to separate gas trading from the transport of gas, which will, one can safely assume, remain a monopoly activity for many years to come. However, the board decided to go a great deal further and separate into not two but five business streams. TransCo, which operates the gas pipeline and storage business, would, as I have said, have been forced upon the board even if it had not gone along with the proposal willingly, as I believe it would. TransCo is now accompanied by Public Gas Supply, which deals with the 18 million customers using under 2,500 therms a year around whom the Bill revolves; Business Gas for those using more than that figure; Retail, selling a wide range of domestic cooking and heating appliances not necessarily powered by gas and thus directly competitive in the high street as that sector has always been; and finally Service, providing installation and servicing, mainly to domestic customers and small businesses, and again not a monopoly. So there are five business streams, each with its own managing director. I consider this restructuring as the business equivalent of the distribution network feat I mentioned earlier. Added to this, the customer base has fallen and obviously will continue to fall; so, if for no other reason, cost cutting is essential.
It is a truly massive upheaval, and it cannot be achieved without pain both to British Gas and to its customers, who, like all of us in these islands, are basically conservative with a small "c". (As my mother's family motto puts it, "Plutôt mourir que changer"—"better die than change": singularly inappropriate for this day and age, at least in this context, but there we are.) No wonder standards of service have slipped a bit and customer complaints have risen, but we should keep our perspective. The complaints may number thousands, but the customers number millions.
While talking about standards of service, it has been suggested by the Consumers Association that some standards are not appropriate for the new competitors that this Bill promotes but that they will remain appropriate for British Gas. In my book, this idea, which tilts the playing field that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is so keen to get away from in a totally unknown direction at the whim of the regulator, who already has far too much freedom, should be resisted. We all approve of competition but it must be fair and public—transparent, as my noble friend Lord Caithness called it.
We have already seen unfair competition in the gas industry, or at least competition which is less than even-handed, in the liberalisation of the contract market in order to encourage competitors. Only British Gas has had to publish its contract prices, thus giving the competitors a benchmark, while British Gas has had no knowledge of the prices it was competing against. I am very pleased that the regulator intends to correct this anomaly at last, but only for a trial period. It must not be allowed to happen at all with any gas sales, and I was glad to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say that it could not happen under this Bill. Where would telephone competition be without the publication of the various firms' tariffs? How else can consumers make the fundamental choice that my noble friend talked about?

1285
I believe that this is a good Bill, even a very good Bill and that, despite the strictures of my noble friend Lord Caithness, it deserves support on all sides of the House. However, there are very real worries. British Gas, with the Government behind it, has over the years built up an enviable reputation for protection for those customers who find it difficult to pay their bills on time— incidentally, not necessarily those on income support and family credit. The citizens advice bureaux are quite right about this. It is vital that those schemes continue in the new competitive era.
It would also be damaging to the Government's reputation if the new entrants to the market were allowed licences for very small areas; for example, the Grosvenor Estate in London, without, say, Westminster City Council's flats in Page Street. This is why I am delighted that a sensibly-sized trial is to be made in the West Country, with its mixture of conurbations and rural areas.
I know that in some quarters the transferability of long-term contracts is a worry. They are to be moved as a block to new trading subsidiaries. How anyone can argue that British Gas should so damage its reputation as to allow the subsidiaries to fail is totally beyond me, and clearly also beyond the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Sunoil are so insistent on this point that they sent me, through their lobbyists, not one but two briefing papers showing their concern. One wonders why, if it is a real point, other potential suppliers have not sparked on this.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about probity. Much more worrying to me are the financial standing and gas supply proposals of the new entrants. Both are of paramount importance but, so far as I can see, only the former is covered by Clause 1. If the new entrants' businesses were to fail, it would indeed be a section of the 18 million who would suffer. I should like to be told that the regulator will control this firmly and refuse licence applications if there is any doubt on either of these two scores: otherwise it will be a blow to the Bill, and perhaps an irredeemable one.
To sum up, fair competition with common rules which cannot be changed at the regulator's whim is good competition. It is good for the consumers and good for the suppliers, both new and old, as we have seen in the telecommunications industry. That is what I hope we all want to see in the gas industry. I think this Bill goes a long way to achieving it and, with a few tweaks here and there, will make a very successful Act of Parliament. For today it behoves all of us, wherever we sit, to wish Gas: The Final Act a safe passage through your Lordships' House.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the excellent way in which he has drawn our attention to what I believe is an excellent Bill. I must also declare not only an interest in, but an affection for, this Bill and all that is in it, because I had the privilege of being the first National Gas Consumer Council chairman. I think that was in 1971; and in those days I was able to work, not in conjunction with, but with "Mr. Gas" himself, Sir Dennis Rooke, who was responsible for making British Gas what it is today. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord
1286
Ezra, for all that he said about British Gas. Of course I cannot speak on behalf of British Gas, but I know that he is right and I thank him very sincerely for all that he said.
We are today discussing one of the most important service industries in the country, and indeed in the world. By 1998 the competition in British Gas will have been introduced to 18 million domestic customers. It will include many more people in the country: those who for many years have wanted to have British Gas and to be on the pipeline. They may now have more opportunity for that than they have had in the past. But overriding everything, as we all agree, is safety. That problem has been overcome in most areas. There are very few problems now with safety, but because gas is a substance that can be easily ignited, it must be underlined that safety is paramount and is still the most important criterion for all suppliers and users of gas.
That leads me to say that domestic appliances and equipment must be installed by trained operators. I hope that that requirement will be in the Bill. British Gas has always trained its own installers in the past and I know that today many of the installers have been there, man and boy, from leaving school right through until retirement, such is their devotion to British Gas. I think perhaps I might be allowed to say that. They have been ably assisted, of course, as we know, by the members of Corgi, but it is vital that all new suppliers are required to use equally well-trained operators when they install appliances in domestic and other premises.
I can speak from knowledge of the problems of the Country Landowners' Association, which have been brought to our notice by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Wade. If they went to Bacton and saw how North Sea gas has been brought under the cliffs and through pipelines in Norfolk, they would be amazed at how British Gas has managed to restore the countryside of that county. It is difficult to find the pipelines. I believe that I am right in saying that the little yellow caps on the tops of stakes which we occasionally see in the countryside are the only means of denoting where the pipes lie beneath the surface. I hope that the Country Landowners' Association will be reassured that British Gas is one of the best organisations when it comes to restoring the countryside after installing gas pipes.
As I said, I was at the Gas Consumers Council when gas was first brought in from the North Sea and we all changed to North Sea gas. I say "we", but unfortunately I do not have gas. But everyone who is lucky enough to have it changed to North Sea gas. I well remember that at first North Sea gas was disgustingly smelly. It smelt so disgusting that British Gas removed the smell from the gas. It devised another smell which was not quite so bad, but at least the gas had some smell, so that one could not put one's head in a gas oven, as people occasionally did, without smelling the gas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the Gas Consumers Council received 25,500 complaints during 1994. Few problems arose from the service; most of them related to the method of payment and ability to pay. The present systems of payment, which will presumably be universal, are by direct debit, credit, or prepayment meters. They all seem to be unpopular, but then of course paying bills is always unpopular. That is more so now that

1287
there are only just over 300 showrooms where one can pay one's bills, have a grouse about services, or talk about whatever it is one needs to talk to people from British Gas about. However, there are 19,000 post offices. A great many of these are now far too small and it is sometimes difficult to get in to a post office. Nevertheless, one can pay one's bills at a post office.
The subject of paying bills takes me on to a point which I want to raise with the Minister; namely, the standing charge. The Minister was kind enough to draw our attention to the problems of the elderly, the disabled and people who cannot take enough exercise to keep themselves warm. They often use more fuel in their houses than the younger or the able-bodied among us. Bearing in mind that elderly and disabled users frequently feel the cold more, I want to ask the Minister today whether consideration can be given to reducing the standing charge for disabled and elderly people in our society. That would be enormously encouraging to them. I know that they would be very grateful.
Shareholders and consumers are important people and are the end users of all the work of British Gas. I urge those who are now running this vast and important industry to recognise that, although the customer is not always right, without them life in this country would be much the poorer. I wish the Bill a safe, short and quick passage.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, like so many of your Lordships, I welcome the introduction of the Gas Bill. Consumers in the industrial and commercial gas supply market have already benefited by savings of as much as 20 per cent. as a result of competitive marketing, and in April 1996, as we have heard, domestic consumers in the South West pilot area will benefit from similar price reductions through the process of liberalisation.
British Gas will inevitably lose some of its share of the domestic market, which will in turn mean that it will require a smaller quantity of gas supplied from fields in the North Sea operated either by itself or by other investors in North Sea oil or gas production. While British Gas may lose a share of the market, the size of the market will still remain constant or will possibly even expand, so British Gas should not find it more difficult to reassign to the new independent gas marketeers, at market rates, some of the supply of gas it will no longer require.
It is against that background that I am concerned about the precedent being set in Schedule 5, where we are effectively allowing the renegotiation of gas supply contracts freely entered into in the past by two willing parties just because the supplier at the consumer end may possibly change some time between 1996 and 1998 or beyond. I believe that that provision will have profoundly damaging effects both in relation to the future development of Britain's offshore gas and oil resources— and, hence, longer-term gas supply security—and internationally in relation to the sanctity of contracts, a principle that is fundamental to the interests of a country whose offshore sector enjoys such extensive offshore investment. For example, investment banks may be
1288
reluctant to supply investment capital to explore and then produce from North Sea fields if they believe that contracts to supply the oil and gas produced can be renegotiated at more favourable terms to the buyer some time afterwards, thus reducing the revenue and increasing the risk of the investment.
I am reminded of other legislation in an entirely different area which also threatened the sanctity of contractual law—namely, the Leasehold Reform Act, which also raised considerable concerns, particularly on this side of the House, back in 1992. In fact, that Bill led to something of a breakdown in party discipline for some time afterwards. The Leasehold Reform Act followed a precedent created by the previous leasehold reform legislation of some 20 years earlier under Labour. Every time this happens it becomes easier to legislate against existing contracts, until retrospective legislation will become fully acceptable. That will be a sad and highly damaging state of affairs. I am, as I was then, a strong supporter of liberalised markets, but not if it means sacrificing the United Kingdom's reputation internationally for respecting the sanctity of contract law.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 as currently drafted would allow British Gas without counterparty assent to assign contracts to an affiliate which may not have the financial means and structure necessary, or even possibly the inclination, to meet the commitments that British Gas made on freely entering those contracts. As it has been expressed by one Member in another place, if the going got really tough British Gas could allow those smaller operations to founder as companies and its obligations would then disappear. The gas suppliers would then be left to pick up the tab.
I believe that there is merit in British Gas being able to renegotiate gas supply contracts in the event that its share of the domestic market reduces with the introduction of competition, but only in circumstances where the North Sea producer is aware of that option when he enters into an agreement with British Gas initially. In other words, the retrospective aspect of the provision should be withdrawn so that the assignment of rights and liabilities applies only to gas contracts negotiated and agreed after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Any future gas supply contracts negotiated after Royal Assent would be subject to liabilities being reassigned, but then at least both parties negotiating would be aware of that extra dimension at the time of negotiation.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have no more interest to declare than anyone who has a gas supply in the house. However, listening to the statement that there were few service complaints made me realise that I must pursue mine. For four months I have been writing to British Gas and making numerous telephone calls which have resulted in no action at all.
This is a most interesting Bill, which will have a far greater impact on the 18 million gas consuming households than the privatisation of British Gas as an integrated, though strongly regulated, monopoly. As we have all heard, from April 1996 in the pilot area domestic

1289
gas consumers will be able to choose who supplies the gas on which they depend for warmth and comfort in their homes.
I welcome the new Gas Bill as a landmark in the progress towards choice for the consumer. In drafting the Bill, the Government have no doubt taken account of the importance of making sure that entry into the market by new gas suppliers will not be hindered. But in examining the Gas Bill, particularly from the standpoint of consumers—and I speak now on behalf of the Gas Consumers Council, which has asked me to raise the point—I see that the balance of parliamentary protection may be moving away from the domestic consumer towards the gas supplier.
My concern is that the Bill on its own will not provide as much statutory protection for consumers as the present Gas Act, which had already been improved through the Competition and Services (Utilities) Act 1992 to incorporate principles of public service embodied in the Citizen's Charter. The supply of gas, electricity, water and telephone services into people's homes is widely recognised as a public service. The Citizen's Charter has clarified what the consumer is entitled to expect from the utilities that provide those services: accessibility, choice, information, non-discrimination, openness and standards, including redress.
It is the Government's intention to transfer key obligations to the standard supply licence conditions. Those obligations will then cease to be matters for parliamentary control. They will instead be under the discretionary control of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and/or the regulator.
The move to a competitive gas market should not require the relinquishing of major statutory principles of consumer protection which serve to promote the public service ethic. The rationale of the Citizen's Charter has clarified what a consumer is entitled to expect from a public utility. Why, if an industry is about to become competitive, should those carry any less weight?
An example of that in the new Gas Bill is the decision to remove "public gas supplier" from the 1986 Act and replace it merely with "gas supplier" or "licensed supplier". I hope that in reality it does not reflect a new attitude towards treating the supply of gas like any other commodity, rather than as a public service.
What are the most important structural changes? First, the removal of the statutory obligation to supply: Section 10(1) of the Gas Act 1986 places an obligation on the gas supplier,
"to give and continue to give a supply of gas".
That obligation has been replaced by an obligation on the public gas transporter (TransCo) merely to connect the premises to the network. That is in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. The omission of that fundamental obligation seriously diminishes consumer protection. The Gas Consumers Council believes that most suppliers to domestic consumers would find such obligations acceptable and that there should be a statutory obligation to supply any consumer who requests it. As has been mentioned by many speakers, that is vital to prevent cherry-picking and ensure that all gas consumers have the opportunity to benefit from competition.
1290
The obligation to supply has been transferred to the gas supply licence (Condition 2). Many speakers have already voiced their concerns about the extent to which consumer issues have been transferred to something that is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. My particular anxiety with the obligation to supply in the gas supply licence is exacerbated by the obscure wording that is used.
"To make available a supply of gas",
means little in comparison with the wording contained in the Gas Act 1986, which has been in use in other pieces of legislation since the last century. I should certainly welcome clarification of what that means. I had hoped that there would be a revised version of the Draft Standard Conditions of Gas Suppliers Licences available for Second Reading which would have clarified the issue. I trust that it will be available at the Committee stage.
Then there is the removal of the statutory obligation to publish prices. Again, the subject has been mentioned by many others, including my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who made it clear that British Gas would like to see that obligation. Section 14(1) of the Gas Act 1986 requires the public gas supplier to fix tariffs from time to time and to publish them,
"in such manner as in the opinion of the supplier will secure adequate publicity for them".
The Gas Bill seeks to delete that requirement in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3.
The requirement to publish price information so that all gas consumers in the supplier's licence area have access to it is fundamental to the creation of a market that serves all consumers and not just those who are "economically active". The point made by my noble friend Lady Macleod is relevant there. People who have disabilities or are unwell certainly do not have the time to be "economically active" enough to seek out the best thing for them. General publication of prices will be to the advantage of consumers and will be one of the key means of discouraging cherry-picking.
Like the obligation to supply, it will be a feature of the supply licence under Condition 3. I believe that availability of that price information is too important to leave to regulation, which again can be changed at any time by the Secretary of State and the regulator without the consent of Parliament.
I have been told that this obligation may have been moved to the licence to allow for flexibility in the market since consumers themselves, as has happened in the industrial and commercial market, may find that they do not want the rigidity of a statutory obligation to publish prices. The industrial and commercial market is the home of the professional energy buyer for whom negotiation of energy contracts is a means by which to steal a march over his competitors. I find it difficult to imagine that 18 million domestic consumers would each want to negotiate his or her own individual contract. It is remarkable how many widows have never even signed a cheque. We are seeing a gradual change, but many women have never made any arrangements for themselves. As time goes by, the same state will apply to men or women; they have always left it to their partner to make arrangements and suddenly they will have to make choices for themselves.

1291
My final point is that there is a duty to secure effective choice. I draw noble Lords' attention to Clause 1 of the Gas Bill, which will give the director general a primary duty to,
"secure effective competition in the carrying on of activities the carrying on of which is required to be licensed under section 7A below".
That is delightfully woolly. It is primarily a duty for the director general to secure competition between competing elements of the gas industry, but it will not necessarily afford effective choice to all gas consumers.
The aim of the Gas Bill should not merely be the introduction of competition into a monopoly market for the industry, it should be the means by which all gas consumers achieve the benefits of choice. Competition and choice are not necessarily synonymous; it is important to appreciate that within the context of the Bill. Competition should not be an end in itself, it should be the means by which all consumers are able to benefit from lower prices and better service through a real choice between gas suppliers.
Clause 7 of the Bill gives the director general a duty not to grant licences to certain applicants, as has already been mentioned together with the point about the disabled. I welcome that duty. It seems to me that it would be better, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, to refer to "low income households" or, "households in receipt of income support", rather than using the phrase,
"likely to default in the payment of charges".
That could refer to people who are well able to pay for their gas supply but do not wish to do so.
Returning to the point about Clause 7, I see that the duty is only the first hurdle in deterring cherry-picking. A licence area may have been framed so as not to exclude artificially any of the groups mentioned in the clause, but there is no provision requiring the supplier to show that in actuality he is supplying a fair proportion of those consumers. Nor is there a corresponding duty on the director general requiring her to monitor the consumer mix or the portfolio of consumers to show that suppliers she has licensed are committed to the public service ethic that is integral to the gas supply.
There should be a clear, unequivocal duty on the Director General of Gas Supply to work towards establishing choice for 18 million gas consuming households. Competition will mean little if consumers do not have choice. This Gas Bill should mean that choice will be available. I support the Bill.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I welcome this Bill very much. It is a good Bill. First, I must declare an interest. I am chairman of a family company which is an exempt gas supplier. This company, for which gas supply is an incidental service to customers, is a member of two trade associations in the holiday parks industry. I advise both associations on an informal basis, without remuneration or expenses. The members of those associations could benefit in certain circumstances were
1292
the Bill to be amended or were the Secretary of State to use other powers contained in Clause 4 of the Bill that is now before your Lordships.
As I said earlier, this is a valuable Bill, intended to promote competition in the gas supply industry, and I am sure that it will achieve much of that. However, complicated arrangements are needed to achieve the extreme fragmentation among consumers that is envisaged.
There is a price to be paid for promoting competition in the gas industry. The more the competition, the higher that price could be; the greater the fragmentation, the greater will be the price that will be exacted in administrative, legal and operational complexity. So far, with gas, that has not bitten very hard at the consumer level. But as the number of deregulated consumers increases towards the intended 18 million, so it will become plainer and plainer, unless simple in concept and lightly applied.
Experience since 1986 indicates that that has not always been the case. The Gas Act imposes a far greater potential for control and regulation through Ofgas and the pipeline executive on small-scale gas systems than occurs with comparable electricity systems. Put simply, that is because the Electricity Act controls only supply at high voltage, whereas the Gas Act (and this Bill) controls gas supply at any pressure. Consequently, a number of persons who in a small way could distribute gas usefully are faced with an elaborate licensing system imposed by the Act and administered by Ofgas. This anomaly has been partly recognised in a previous Act which exempted piped supply within a building—for example, flats or bedsits; perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I think he is safe, but one cannot count on it— by a landlord, or if the supply to any premises is mainly propane or butane.
Noble Lords will note the contrast between "buildings" on the one hand and "premises" on the other. It should be remembered that for these purposes a supply through pipes can involve a pipe almost as short as 18 inches—or so Ofgas, in one of its more excited moments, told me. An unauthorised supply is a criminal offence. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me how many prosecutions, successful and unsuccessful, have been authorised since 1986. If the answer is that there have been very few, it must surely be a spent provision and should therefore be removed from the Bill, perhaps to be replaced by a civil offence.
One way to reduce the economic price of fragmenting supplies is to reduce the number of controlled suppliers by exemption. In another place my honourable friend the Member for Melton and Rutland introduced amendments that would do just that. And better still, they would promote the supply of natural gas, which always comes through pipes, to small communities and groups which larger suppliers might find unattractive for some reason. That point has been made earlier.
My right honourable friend the Member for Enfield North, Mr. Eggar, said of the amendments of the Member for Melton and Rutland that he was "on to a good point". That, I might say, was high praise indeed. He added that when the Bill was passed it would be possible, by powers contained in Clause 6A, to deal with the point. However, it will be more reassuring to those concerned—who are

1293
not necessarily all in caravan parks, as was implied in the reply to my honourable friend—if my noble friend could state that he plans to deal in one way or another with the anomaly revealed.
Today, on a caravan park, there is a choice of four main fuels for customers. Traditionally, and still by far the greatest fuel supply used for cooking, and space and water heating is bottled butane, the supply of which is exempt from control under the existing Gas Acts and remains so under this Bill. Next, there is electricity, which similarly is not controlled, although there is a price cap on it. Finally, there is piped propane, exempted by the 1993 Act. This means that the Bill's effect is to oppose the adoption of piped natural gas and favour, as less regulated although not always cheapest, the other fuels. It also has to be remembered that bottled gas is generally more expensive, less convenient and in certain limited circumstances more dangerous than any of the alternatives. I repeat that at the moment in this industry bottled gas is the dominant fuel. It should now be recognised that its continuing use should be regarded as obsolescent and its abandonment should be hastened.
I am confident that my noble friend the Minister responsible for small businesses recognises the immense burden that well-intentioned, though inappropriate and unnecessary, legislation can impose on business, and particularly on the smaller or newly established trader, or indeed on a trader seeking to make large capital expenditure to improve the facilities that he offers. He, too, can be over-burdened.
In the past few days it has been publicly declared that the Director General of Gas Supply—that is, the head of Ofgas—has asked for a substantial pay rise because the workload of Ofgas is now far greater than that contracted for at the time when she first took post. I believe that claim to be well-founded, on the facts that I have just given. The 1994 annual report of Ofgas states that in that year staff numbers increased from 45 to 65; that is, by more than 40 per cent. An extra Treasury grant had to be sought and funding agreed for the increase and for extra office space. That is a direct result of the scattergun approach to increased competition, perhaps rather hastily adopted.
To avoid more escalating charges and red tape, it is now inevitable that regulating natural gas supply down to the smallest level cannot be sustained either usefully or sensibly. The answer is to adopt a policy of low-level deregulation that mimics that applied to the three competing fuels. By that means, the greatest good will accrue to the customers and the least amount of red tape will be deployed.
For those reasons, which I have put as briefly as I can, my noble friend should use the enhanced powers that he will possess after Royal Assent to deregulate the lower levels of natural gas supply so that there can be a uniformity of competitive control. An assurance to that effect will naturally be widely welcomed.
I now turn to a wholly unexpected power contained in the Gas Act 1986 which will continue unless this Bill is suitably amended or the point is dealt with in some other way. That power concerns the rights of sovereign states in terms of the Visiting Forces Act which, as a noble and gallant Lord said to me the other day, is seen as allowing visiting forces to do much as they choose, with the general
1294
framework of the common and criminal law providing the long-stops. But they may not distribute gas, except propane or butane, through pipes without authorisation from Ofgas and a cash deposit to ensure continuity of supply. In a Written Answer to me in yesterday's Hansard, I gather—I think from the American Government—that the sum of £1,330.74p has been deposited over a number of years. Should I have added up the figures wrongly, I apologise to your Lordships. I do not have Hansard beside me. That seems to be a nonsense. I hope that my noble friend will feel that that extraordinary arrangement can be dealt with by way of amendment. As it concerns a sovereign state, I feel that it would be better in every sense for it to be written into the Bill rather than dealt with by powers which he undoubtedly possesses under Section 6A of the 1986 Act, as amended.
Despite those strictures, which for me are quite mild, I am sure that the Bill takes a valuable step towards freedom of choice. For that reason I shall support it with even more enthusiasm when my noble friend agrees that the improvements that I have suggested also have his support.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I gave notice to the noble Earl that I intended to speak in the gap. Quite deliberately, I did not put my name on the List of Speakers because I expected that this would be a Second Reading debate. Normally, during a Second Reading debate the principle of the Bill is discussed. The Bill is given a Second Reading and it goes into Committee, when we start to talk about the detail. It seems that we have done the reverse of that today. Everyone seems to be talking about the detail.
But that is not the reason why I have risen to speak. I do so because everybody seems to welcome the Bill. It is likely that I shall not oppose the Bill. Indeed, it would not be sensible to do that. But certainly I do not welcome it. I believe that in the few short minutes available to me, I have a duty to tell the House why I do not welcome it.
I do not welcome the Bill because it drives the energy systems and production in this country further into the hands of private concerns, whose main aim will be to increase the number of customers to make the maximum use of the product that they are selling. Nobody, not even the noble Lord, Lord Wade, would disagree with that. I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that definition of what is being done.
But this is not just a matter of gas consumers being affected by the Bill; it concerns the whole of our energy system. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, brought in the issue of combined heat and power. That is a system which, if it is to be successful at all, will call for massive government encouragement and investment. It is a sensible thing to do. I am worried that the Bill does not contain a clause which in any way relates to the question of our energy resources.
When we discussed the Coal Industry Bill, I said that what would happen would be that the coal industry would go out of existence. It is not far off going out of existence. I just heard someone say, "That's ridiculous".

1295
But is it? I believe that the coal industry will decline further. I must be careful what I say because if I talk about the past the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will describe me as being bizarre.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not say that talking about the past is being bizarre. I said only that the noble Lord's expressions are bizarre.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that is not what the noble Earl said and that is not what is recorded in Hansard. The noble Earl said that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, made a speech that was bizarre. We are talking of some things that have not changed over 50 years. Of course some things have not changed over 50 years! Many people believe in Jesus Christ. That has not changed in 2,000 years. I believe that what I was saying 50 years ago is still correct. I still believe that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord imagined that he had lip-read what I had said to myself about the coal industry. My comment was not, "That's ridiculous" but "It's recovering".
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am sure that all the miners who are being made unemployed today will welcome that statement. It was made in such an authoritative way. But I do not believe that the coal industry is recovering. Because of its very nature, the coal industry will not be able to compete with the new forms of energy and will go out of existence. But that is not the important point. What is truly important is that coal is the last remaining large reserve of our energy resources. We must look at this matter from the viewpoint of the nation's needs.
I have asked several questions lately, in the form of Questions for Written Answer as to the energy resources that we have left in terms of oil and gas. I cannot obtain a satisfactory answer. I am worried that we encourage more people to burn gas and yet do not bother to ask whether electricity would be a better fuel. There is no co-operation between the two; there is competition between them. People are encouraged to use gas regardless of the fact that already in the North Sea oil rigs are being pulled down. God knows where the rest of our energy resources will come from.
I do not welcome the Bill. I believe that it is still right that the energy resources of the nation should be under the control of the nation. The nation should decide how gas should be used, when it should be used and at what price it should be sold to the customers. That is what I believe. Therefore it would be wrong of me—earlier I was the only Member to speak from these Benches—to allow statements to be made that could conceivably suggest that I, or any Socialist like myself, could possibly welcome this Bill. It is a Bill which places all our energy resources one way or another in the hands of a greedy set of people, whose only interest is the amalgamation of power and profit.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always refreshing to speak after my noble friend Lord Sefton. He speaks as he feels; and he feels very strongly about this matter and
1296
indeed many other topics. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him, in that, as my noble friend Lord Peston, said at the beginning of the debate, it is extraordinary that we should be debating this issue without in fact examining energy policy as a whole. That is a serious deficiency.
I believe that it is unlikely in the extreme that this Government will, in their own time, enable any debate on energy policy to take place in this House, in particular on the issues which were the subject of a Statement only a couple of weeks ago affecting atomic energy. One has to ask why they adopt that point of view. Why should they expect us, with our very limited time, to provide time to debate issues, such as the Statement, which are introduced by the Government in the first place? So perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will give an indication of whether we are likely to debate these issues. I suspect that the answer will be in the negative or that it will be a matter for the usual channels or that kind of drivel. I was very sorry to hear of the difficulties confronting the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults. I sympathise with him. Just before he spoke I was combating a fit of coughing and I said to myself, "My goodness, disease stalks this Chamber".
This has been an interesting debate. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Sefton when he complained that your Lordships have directed attention to matters of some detail and to areas which will engage our attention at Committee stage. I believe that it is appropriate to gain from a debate of this kind some indication of the anxieties that beset individual Members of the House.
At the beginning of the debate I was given a firm injunction by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I was not to use the term "cherry picking". I will obey that injunction to the full, though I note that it fell on deaf ears elsewhere. I suspect that he would like to be able to dictate my speech to me, but it would be much worse if he did so. I am not suggesting that my speech will be any good, but his would be worse.
It is clear from this debate that deep anxieties are felt. They were encapsulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, when she said that protection was moving away from the consumer and shifting to the supplier. That incorporates some of the anxieties—not all of them—expressed by numerous non-governmental organisations which have made representations to your Lordships in preparation for this debate. I refer to Age Concern, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Gas Consumers Council, the National Consumer Council, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Country Landowners' Association and others. They feel, as we on this side of the House feel, that serious deficiencies exist in the Bill. They are matters which will come before us in detail in Committee—we shall ensure that they do—and I simply want to give some idea of the main issues that we feel need to be ventilated. I can only hope that the Government will be more responsive to these criticisms—after all, they are designed to improve the Bill rather than to rend it asunder—than they were in another place.
There is no doubt that the Bill requires amendment so as to enshrine in the law some basic ingredients rather than leaving them to be dealt with in the licensing system, which is capable of substantial variation from time to time

1297
without any, or any adequate, parliamentary debate or scrutiny. That is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. My noble friend Lord Peston dealt with a number of those issues and I propose to enlarge on them and to mention some with which he did not have time to deal.
First, I want to refer to questions affecting consumer interest. There is no direct provision in the Bill for consumer protection. We were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that there are 18 million consumers of gas. At present there are regulatory safeguards in being, including service safeguards and price controls, which affect British Gas. It will be some considerable time before the Bill comes fully into effect and in the meantime it would be inequitable that consumers should or might be obliged to pay the price for competition years before they can realistically expect to obtain benefits which may ultimately accrue to them. That is a matter that needs to be dealt with.
We know that low-income consumers on prepayment meters are paying far more proportionately than other gas consumers. Does the Minister regard that as just and fair? No safeguards are provided for rural consumers and that is unsatisfactory because of the specific circumstances which affect them.
The duty to supply should be enshrined in legislation. That concept was dismissed in another place by the Government. But it is noteworthy to point out that in the United States, where gas monopolies are required by law to do precisely that, it has been found to be perfectly satisfactory. Why therefore should not a provision apply here, thereby putting the issue beyond any legal doubt?
My noble friend Lord Peston made a point which was reiterated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, concerning the imperative of transparency to enable the consumer to obtain maximum information, within reasonable bounds, and to enable the consumer to make informed decisions concerning the choice of gas supplier. That is a vital matter because it is only in that way that a full and proper comparison can be made of what is offered by possible suppliers.
We feel also that the Gas Consumers Council—the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was involved in that many years ago—should continue to play an important role in protecting consumers' interests, as the noble Baroness self-evidently believes. In order to do that one must ask—we shall put this by way of a probing amendment—whether it should have a formal role, with its responsibilities being clearly defined in law.
Consumers should have wider access to the courts to enforce rights and pursue remedies by way of representative actions than is envisaged by the Government. The Government have chosen to construe very narrowly the right of consumer organisations to undertake representative actions. They confine that right in relation to consumers' contracts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994, which purport to implement the European directive, to the Office of Fair Trading exclusively. That is in marked contrast to the attitude of most member states of the European Union, which have chosen to give a wide range of organisations powers of that kind. One must ask therefore why the Government have chosen to do this.
1298
That single fact illustrates all the cant in which the Government engaged over subsidiarity. Here we have a right which is designed to empower citizens to obtain remedies through representative organisations. The Government limit that right. When this issue was raised in another place in Committee on 27th April, all that the Minister could say was, "We have decided against the amendments proposed". He went on to say:
"We believe that the present remedies available via the DGFT are appropriate. We do not think that other bodies should be able to exercise those remedies".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 27/4/95; col. 322.]
That was a sort of "Giordano" response and it is not acceptable. The Minister must explain why, if other member states can go down that route empowering their citizens in a much more meaningful way, the Government are against that position. We believe that the situation is wrong; we oppose the current position and we shall introduce amendments to broaden it.
The Minister may ask what other bodies there are. We believe that Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council—which will be the recipients of large numbers of complaints from consumers and are therefore in a peculiarly advantageous position to adopt this role—should be able to pursue those remedies in the courts. The OFT is not the right instrument to protect consumers because it is not designed to adopt a position of defending the interests of consumers; it is designed to maintain a careful, independent, objective balance between industry and the consumer. I ask the Minister to let us have a response to that point. It is certainly not what Mr. Eggar said in another place.
In this general context we share the anxieties of the Consumers' Association concerning the powers of the Secretary of State to veto a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission without being properly accountable. We believe that it is questionable whether he should be able to exercise such a veto, but in any event, if he does, he should be required to justify to Parliament that intervention in each case. One also has to ask whether the Secretary of State's power does not impair the powers and independence of the regulator, about which the Government frequently wax so enthusiastic.
I turn from that to the question of guaranteeing security of supply, which has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships in this debate. In that regard I turn to what the Gas Consumers Council says. It says:
"Our anxieties have been exacerbated by the obscure wording used in the licence. 'To make available a supply of gas' means nothing in comparison to the wording of the Gas Act that has been in use since the last century".
It is deeply concerned as a matter of principle about that.
How can we be assured that new suppliers and other companies will have the duty to undertake this and have the necessary financial resources to guarantee security of supply to customers and to implement the conditions in the draft suppliers licences? Ministers in another place say that the regulator is in a position to fine licence holders if they fail to comply. In my judgment that is hopelessly insufficient if for financial reasons the supplier has failed to undertake his obligations.
There is a clear need to define the term "fit and proper persons" in the context of the Bill much more specifically regarding financial status. Ministers in another place

1299
argued that there is provision elsewhere in the Bill to respond to a situation where companies fail to perform this role adequately, due to perhaps insufficient technology or failure to provide sufficient managerial or financial resources. If that is the case, where does it appear in the Bill? I may be wrong but I have not detected it.
The next point I wish to refer to is a representation made by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It says,
"The CAB Service would be extremely concerned if competition meant that a public gas supplier was able to supply cheap gas at the price of a worse service, as this would inevitably lead to greater hardship as low income households are attracted to the cheapest supply. Competition should not be about low income households having to sacrifice standards of service to secure lower prices".
That is a powerful observation and I hope that the Minister will respond to it, if not now, then certainly during the course of the Committee stage.
I turn next to safety, which is another matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Peston. We are talking here about safety not simply for those employed in the gas industry, although that is important enough, but also for customers at home. In that regard it is essential that new suppliers should have well trained people undertaking these safety processes. Problems were raised by my noble friend regarding the existing Corgi standards. We shall return to that in the further stages of these debates.
The environment was referred to by my noble friend Lord Peston and in a rather oblique way by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. It is essential that we should have full regard for environmental considerations in the Bill. The Minister said that it is perfectly all right when it comes to energy efficiency because these new companies will be able to diversify their functions to deal with that. Is that to be made an obligation in the licence? Will they have any choice in the matter? There may be certain temptations not to go down that route. The Minister must respond to that point.
We also say that transporters should be obliged to take account of the concept of sustainable development and to inform the director general how they are undertaking this duty. Equally, suppliers should be under an obligation to provide customers with details of how they can obtain free advice in relation to energy efficiency, perhaps by giving details on all invoices, as the Gas Consumers Council has suggested.
I want to end on the matter of executive salaries. It is relevant to refer to this because of the anxieties that were expressed by large numbers of people only the other day. When Mr. Giordano, Cedric Brown and government Ministers say that it is all about the politics of envy, they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is to miss the point about the concerns which have been expressed by individual shareholders. They have questioned not only the propriety of the announcements concerning huge benefits afforded to the executives, but also the managerial skills which enable them to do that, coinciding with the announcement of huge job cuts and cuts in employees' remuneration and benefits, as well as the closure of gas showrooms. In the view of thousands of investors—and we agree with them—that demonstrated poor management and poor judgment. They should not be grotesquely rewarded as they have been. The board
1300
treated these criticisms with lofty disdain and with an arrogance, armed as it was with the block votes of the large, unaccountable institutions.
So much for the Government's oft proclaimed powers of individual shareholders to influence events. Incidentally, so much for their complaints about block votes at Labour Party Conferences, which are at least out in the open. There has been unreasonable profiteering in this industry. Profits are derived from consumers, and they have been excessive. Shareholders have been unable to control these abuses and when they try they are dealt with dismissively and defensively by those in power. We shall seek to deal with these abuses when we have won the next election. Meanwhile, we shall seek to mitigate the position vis-à-vis this Bill since clearly the Government have no interest in so doing.
We shall be proposing amendments to require that all licence holders shall publish on an annual basis details of all salaries, benefits and share options receivable by directors. We shall seek to regulate and take account of the level of pay and share options and the extent to which they reflect performance in setting prices. We believe that the interests of those shareholders, which have been spoken of airily by the other side for so long, should be respected. They should mean something. With those criticisms we propose to improve this Bill in the stages that remain.
5.28 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have discussed this Bill. As one would expect, it has been a very informed debate. The interesting fact is that there has been very little dissent from the basic approach, which is the extension of choice to those 18 million customers currently enjoyed by consumers in the commercial and industrial market. There was one dissenting voice; namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. He is entitled to his point of view. He said that I called him "bizarre". On the last occasion in which he took part in a debate I said that he made a bizarre speech. Indeed, when he made a similar speech today I thought that that was just as bizarre, because part of it was about the coal industry which has nothing to do with the gas industry which we are talking about. On the previous occasion when I happened to say that the noble Lord made a bizarre speech, without being at all controversial—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall give way in half a moment. The noble Lord really must let me finish what I was saying. On the previous occasion I said that there are some people in the Labour Party who have not moved one inch during the past 50 years and that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, is one of them. I believe that his speech today confirms that view—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does that mean that you disagree with what I said? If so, that means that the question of "bizarreness" was directed to me personally. Perhaps I could remind you of the "Companion of Honour", so called, in this House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can remind the noble Lord of one of the rules of procedure, which is that one talks in the third person and not in the second person. I was not being offensive to the noble Lord. Indeed, I was not being offensive but saying merely what I thought of his speech—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, you would be better off answering the argument.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to be distracted by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, any more than is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was most constructive in his opening remarks. He said that a number of the points that he wished to make were Committee points and he then gave indications of them. These are technical matters and we must deal with them.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for paying tribute to the great industrial achievement of British Gas during the past 40 years. It is astonishing and we must never forget it. My noble friend Lady Macleod was right to pay tribute to Sir Dennis Rooke and the work done by British Gas at Bacton in Norfolk. It deservedly has earned a reputation for showing great sensitivity in the work that it has undertaken there.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, thought that I was telling him how to make his speech. I should never dream of doing such a thing. I did not actually tell him not to refer to cherry picking; I merely said that I thought that he would because he did so last time. The noble Lord avoided doing so today and I regret the fact that I referred to the matter because it enabled a number of my noble friends to use that horrible expression. My noble friend Lord Caithness made the matter worse by talking about level playing fields, which I believe is an equally objectionable expression.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has spurred me into saying something that I had not intended to say about British Gas. I do not wish to enter into discussions about the showrooms which British Gas has closed or the salaries paid to chief executives. However, perhaps I may make it clear that when British Gas was privatised there were 4 million individual shareholders, who were commonly known as "Sids". There are now 1.7 million shareholders and they hold 22 per cent. of the shares of the company. Of those people, 4,500 attended the annual general meeting and nearly 12 per cent. of the 1.7 million returned proxy cards. It is interesting to note that 88.5 per cent. of those individuals, whom we call "Sids", decided not to vote. That is similar to what has happened in previous years when 90 per cent. of those individuals have not voted. Therefore, what happened last week is a reflection of what happened in the past. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it is not an argument to say that the block votes of the institutions stop proposals being carried. There is no comparison between the block voting of the institutions and the block voting in the Labour Party. The fact is that all institutions—all shareholders—have the right to vote, but if they do not wish to vote they need not do so. The fact is that 50 per cent. of the capital voted, which is interesting to note.
1302
Your Lordships asked a number of questions and I shall answer them as best and as expeditiously as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to consumers. There is an important protection for consumers in the Bill. It is the duty of the Secretary of State and the director to protect the interests of consumers. The noble Lord said that in the Bill there is a balance between consumers and industry. That is not so; the Bill is about consumers. The balance comes when the industry can compete within itself and one against another for the interests of consumers—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has taken my remarks out of context. I said in a totally different context that the balance lay in the duties of the Office of Fair Trading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for having noted his words incorrectly. It is a hazard in trying to take notes but I shall study what he said in Hansard. The noble Lord referred also to the Secretary of State's veto. The provisions follow the Electricity Act. Let us assume that an amendment tabled on Report narrowed the power of the veto for the standard conditions only. We believe that the veto is appropriate to ensure that there is proper parliamentary oversight as regards the changes to the standard conditions. The obligations placed on companies by the licences are just as effective and as effectively enforceable as those imposed by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated that there would be losers. That assessment was based on a table submitted to the commission by British Gas. However, the table was withdrawn in October 1994 in evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place. There is no reason to believe that competition will lead to higher prices for any consumers. However, the nature of a competitive market is that one can never guarantee that. There may be some price variations on the general downward trend and we must see what the result is.
The noble Lord was also anxious about the drafts of the licences being available in Committee. It is our intention to publish a new text of the supply licence for the Committee stage, if that is at all possible. We plan to leave the technical revision of the other licences—and they are more technical—for later consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was also concerned about disabled people and pensioners being dealt with separately, but not the people who have difficulty in paying. He asked why that was. Pensioners and disabled people have special needs in relation to gas. If their supply fails they may be more susceptible to cold, they may need their meters moving to more accessible locations or they may need adaptors for appliances. Low income users do not have such special interests. Their real interest is in cheaper gas, which is similar to the interest of every other consumer. However, the director has a duty to protect the interests of gas consumers in respect of the continuity of supply. That includes possible disconnection and provisions to avoid unnecessary disconnection.
That point is not dissimilar to an anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. She asked whether we can reduce the standing charges for disabled people. The

1303
role of the standing charge is to recover the fixed costs of supply. However, one benefit of a competitive market is that different suppliers can adopt different practices and marketing strategies in order to win customers. One supplier has said that he is considering offering a zero standing charge, which would meet not only my noble friend's anxieties but those of many other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether there would be a single pensionable age and why not leave it at 60. The Bill defines the pensionable age as the female pensionable age, so it is quite discriminatory! That is the lower of the two pension ages. However, when the age is equalized at 65 it will be inappropriate for us to define people below that age as pensioners.
The noble Lord was anxious to know whether there is a statutory obligation to supply and whether the obligation is to supply a household or a premise. That is an important point. The obligation to supply is set out in standard conditions of the gas supplier's licence. It applies to prospective customers and that means persons at a particular premises. But each flat in a block of flats would normally be regarded as separate premises for that purpose.
The noble Lord was concerned also about whether British Gas's debt and disconnection code would continue. The answer is that it will. British Gas will continue to operate to its current code. The only difference is that in future, it will operate that code as a requirement under its new licence as a gas supplier rather than under its old authorisation as a public gas supplier.
The noble Lord was anxious about why the Secretary of State is taking new powers to regulate. The Secretary of State has been given further reserve powers so that Parliament can be assured that the regulator cannot change major policy issues without political consent for which the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament.
He asked also about how many new entrants there might be. It will be for new entrants to make their own decisions on how and whether to make an entry into the market. But so far, some 20 suppliers have taken a close interest in the formulation of the licence conditions for domestic supply.
The noble Lord asked whether the code of practice on disconnections would apply. All suppliers will be required to follow debt and disconnection procedures which will apply to any customer who has genuine difficulties in relation to paying his bills. They are set out in the supply licence standard conditions and I gave your Lordships an idea of what they would be when I made my opening remarks.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, asked whether the public should not be notified of the evaluation of the pilot phase. We have made it clear that the purpose of the phased transition to national competition is to provide an opportunity to test the necessary technical and administrative systems. It will allow British Gas, TransCo and competing gas suppliers to iron out any problems with their systems while they are operating on a relatively small scale. The pilot is not intended to test the principle of whether competition will go ahead. It is intended to test how it will work in practice. The director will obviously
1304
wish to monitor the progress of competition and we expect to seek the feelings of consumers and suppliers as to their experiences during the transitional phase. If the monitoring by the director showed that the licence conditions were not operating in the intended way, the director could make proposals to change them. That monitoring process will enable Ministers and the director to report appropriately to Parliament about progress, and it is our intention to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was concerned about the promotion of energy efficiency and the protection of consumers being a secondary duty upon the Secretary of State and the director. In a perfect world, we should like all duties to be primary, but the Bill imposes both primary and secondary duties on the Secretary of State and the director. The primary duties are concerned with providing that there is an effective framework for the competitive supply of gas; for example, to ensure that licence holders can finance their activities and that there is proper competition. The interests of consumers in relation to energy efficiency, important though they are, must obviously be subject to those primary duties. It is no good trying to secure the interest of consumers if no companies are competing in the market.
The noble Lord referred to the assignment of contract. The Government made a detailed statement on that in another place. Schedule 5 follows closely similar provisions in several other statutes, and a major feature of the arrangements that we propose is the separation of the functions of gas transportation and supply. That is to ensure that competing suppliers, including the supply arm of British Gas, use the pipeline network on the same basis. It follows from that that provision must be made for a scheme under which British Gas will allocate its various rights and obligations between the different legal entities which it will need to create in order to carry on its business. The ending of the monopoly of British Gas and the consequent loss of its market share will inevitably mean that a certain amount of adjustment to contractual arrangements will have to be made. The Government believe that that will be achieved best by discretion on a commercial basis among the parties involved.
My noble friend Lord Caithness was worried about the terms of British Gas privatisation. He said that he did not particularly like the Bill. I thought that was rather disparaging because I believe that it is a very good Bill. He said that he thinks that the measure will affect the price of what is a public company. The prospectus for the sale of the shares in British Gas, which described the policy at the time when British Gas was privatised, said that it was to retain the monopoly. But of course it is quite appropriate and legitimate for policy to change at a later stage in the light of experience. British Gas says that it supports those proposals.
I understand my noble friend's anxiety about other countries being able to supply into our pipelines even though they do not allow us to supply into theirs. It may be that in time, people will realise that total competition such as that which we are having in the UK works best for our consumers in a way which would seem, in the end, to work better for consumers in those other countries. They may then decide that we are adopting the right policy.

1305
My noble friend Lord Wade referred to combined heat and power. I agree with him about the available opportunities in that regard. The endless strengthening of competition which is taking place in the industrial market for gas provides a substantial boost for combined heat and power. That will continue.
I referred earlier to the fact that I did not like the reference made by my noble friend Lord Caithness to a level playing field but, as he used that expression, I shall use it back to him. I assure my noble friend that the guiding principle in the drafting of the legislation and the licences has been to ensure a level playing field among all the suppliers and the transporters, including British Gas. New companies will be able to compete on a fair basis and that is one reason why we rejected the idea proposed in some quarters that there should be some kind of target for the market share of British Gas.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that there is too little in the Bill and that too much is left to the licences. I understand why he says that. That is a criticism which is often made. He will know that there is a very good reason for that; namely, that the Bill provides the basic structure and the licences have to deal with the details of the matters. It is far more flexible to do that in the licences rather than by including it irrevocably in statute.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was concerned about the obligations in the legislation. We believe that it is necessary for suppliers to publish their prices for domestic consumers, at least initially. The reason for placing that obligation in the licences rather than on the face of the Bill is that we do not know exactly how the market will develop. It will be necessary to have a degree of flexibility to allow the regime to adapt to what happens in the market. We wish to be able to change those requirements if experience shows that that will be in the interests of consumers.
Perhaps I may give one example of that. The requirement on British Gas to have published a price schedule in the industrial market was considered to be good a few years ago. Ofgas is now proposing to remove that requirement after representations were made by customers who said it prevented them negotiating. If that requirement were placed on the face of the Bill that flexibility would not exist.
My noble friend Lord Wade was concerned about pipelines over the land. Schedule 3 to the 1986 Act, which we are not amending materially, provides proper compensation for landowners where pipelines are built across their land.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale expressed the desire that the high levels of service provided by British Gas at present should continue. All suppliers will be required to provide special services to the elderly and disabled customers and to those who have genuine difficulties in paying their Bills.
In relation to service standards generally—reading meters, answering questions and so on—competitors will be able to win business only by offering customers what they want and by offering them a better service than that offered by other suppliers. That is why the Consumers' Association does not think that British Gas's 39 service standards, which state, for example, how quickly they
1306
should answer the telephone, should be imposed on all suppliers once the monopoly ends, because competition must set that free.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough was concerned about the vesting of the gas contracts to the new contracts. It is not practical within the structure of the legislation to alter that aspect in the way that my noble friend would like. If the consent of counter parties was required, they could prevent the Bill from taking effect by refusing to sanction an assignment. Therefore, it is necessary that those assignments should be continued. British Gas would not legally be able to continue in operation if its trading activities could not be moved to another body and the Bill would not come into effect if that were the situation.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred to the Citizen's Charter. That relates to provisions of public services to consumers where the consumers have no choice as to where they go for services. They are not relative to a competitive market where consumers can seek the service which meets the required needs and are not stuck with a monopoly supplier.
My noble friend wondered why the words "made available a supply" were used as opposed to "give a supply". I had not realised that that wording would cause the difficulties that it obviously does to my noble friend. I shall consider what she has said and see whether further clarification or elaboration is required.
My noble friend Lord Cochrane referred to caravan parks and visiting forces. My noble friend has great knowledge of that subject which was rewarded with the passing, as a very rare Private Member's Bill from your Lordships' House, of the Gas Exempt Supplies Act 1993. That legislation successfully deregulated holiday parks that supplied liquid petroleum gas. My noble friend asked whether it was possible to extend the exemption to those caravan holiday parks which distribute natural gas. Clause 4 of the Bill provides adequate powers to the Secretary of State to grant exemptions in those cases. Officials in my department are in touch with my noble friend and with the various trade associations to establish the scope of the exemption that would be appropriate and any conditions for safety and consumer protection that should be applied.
The scope of the exemption is not straightforward; there is a balance between deregulation and ensuring in appropriate cases that customers are able to choose their gas supplier. The technical discussions that are under way with my department will, I hope, achieve the best result.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, expressed concern about prepayment meter costs. Ofgas examined the differential in price and decided that that differentia] was appropriate.
I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have considered the Bill at Second Reading. It is an important Bill. There should be safeguards for consumers in certain important respects, for example safety and provision of special services for vulnerable customers. Those matters are being addressed in the Bill and the licence. We are concerned to allow consumers the choice of not one supplier but a number of suppliers. That, in the long run, will lower prices and bring efficiency. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, finds that point difficult to absorb, but I expect that as time goes on he

1307
might be able to absorb a little of it. There are a number of points that noble Lords will wish to discuss at Committee, but I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have addressed the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Europol: ECC Report
5.55 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Europol (Tenth Report, HL Paper 51).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is a considerable disadvantage to have to speak immediately after the forceful, engaging and elegant speech of the noble Earl. It is perhaps less of a disadvantage since we are not playing on the same fields.
The subject of the report that is referred to in the Motion standing in my name is of very considerable practical significance. It also has a procedural significance in that this is the first time that the Select Committee or one of its sub-committees has considered a convention proposed under Article K of the Treaty of Union which in this country is normally referred to as the justice and home affairs pillar. I am not sure whether pillars exist in other member states of the Community, but the adoption of that phrase is regarded as another English eccentricity.
The procedural significance is that Sub-Committee E has been able to look at the draft at a time when constructive criticism could be made. One always lives in hope that suggestions and criticisms that are made by the Select Committee will be listened to, and perhaps even taken into account.
This was a particularly unusual situation in that negotiation was still in progress and it was plain that changes would be made. Since our report a number of changes have been made in the provisional draft which the Minister was kind enough to let me see a few days ago. I do not propose to refer to more than one or two of those changes.
It is significant that a number of the articles in the draft convention are now blank because they are to be the subject of further negotiation at the Paris Council of Ministers. I hope that some of the things that we have said have an effect there.
Crime across frontiers has increased and seems likely to increase further. It has become apparent to everyone that it has to be dealt with in certain areas on a cross-frontier basis. The Maastricht Treaty contemplated that a proposal for a European police office (not a European police force) would be made.
The United Kingdom and Germany have supported that idea throughout. The proposal seeks to achieve an exchange of information between states in order to combat crime. The member states have already experimented in that area with a European Drugs Unit. That is based in the Netherlands and has made a very successful start. The committee, which I have the honour to chair, had considerable doubts about the legal basis of
1308
the European Drugs Unit, but it has provided some experience upon which Europol, the police office, can develop.
It is accepted everywhere that from the police point of view it is important that all data, including sensitive data, should be available for exchange and analysis in respect of certain crimes, if criminals are to be caught. The director of our criminal intelligence service accepts the importance of the new proposals.
It is no less important to ensure that the citizen who wrongly and unjustifiably gets caught up in the system has protection and a remedy. It is also no less important that Europol should be accountable for what it does.
What is to be the task of this new office? Its task is to be limited to the exchange or collection, analysis and provision of information and intelligence. Despite earlier discussions, which, perhaps, were going in a different direction, it is not now proposed to give Europol any operational or enforcement powers. They will remain with national police authorities. The committee which considered the matter thought that that was right. Whether further powers should be given to Europol in the future will remain to be seen in the light of experience. The committee took the view that it might only be necessary to have operational powers if, one day, there is a body of European criminal law. That is something which will have to be looked at as time goes on.
I should like to deal briefly with three issues. The first is the question of how the information should be exchanged and who should have access to it for police purposes. Secondly, what crimes ought to be covered or ought to fall within the Europol remit? Thirdly, how should data, and especially sensitive data, properly be protected and what remedies should there be for the citizen who has been injured by the wrongful giving of inaccurate information?
I shall start with the first question, about exchange of information and access to it. As to the exchange of information, there is really no controversy. Each of the member states is to establish a national unit which will be the only liaison body between Europol and competent national authorities. In the case of the United Kingdom, that authority will be the National Criminal Intelligence Service. That unit in each stage will supply information to Europol to enable it to carry out its task. The information itself will be available to national units of other member states and to Europol.
What will really be important in the future is not just the information which is given; the analysis of the information will also be of very considerable significance. That analysis will be available to Europol and national liaison officers only when authorised. They will be authorised to receive it only when it is necessary for them to have it as part of the analysis of a particular project. In effect, it means that there are two rings: there is the outer ring of information which is not necessarily very sensitive and which will be obtainable by national authorities; and there will be an inner ring of sensitive information which will only be available on a need-to-know basis.
The committee considered that the "need to know" test which has now been accepted is a very important limitation and control. If information is to be given and if

1309
there is to be access to the inner ring, it is important that it should be done speedily. It seems to the committee to be unsatisfactory that an order for opening a new file or for setting out the conditions upon which data can be communicated should require the approval of the management board set up by Europol. That board is required to meet only twice a year. It seems to the committee quite impracticable that such a board should have the final word. The committee recommended that there should be power of delegation either to a committee or to the director to take steps. In the revised draft convention, I have to say that a number of the articles relating to that kind of access and exchange of information are distinct improvements.
I turn now to the second question; namely, what crimes should be covered? It is clearly not necessary in the view of the committee that all crimes, however serious, should fall within the remit of Europol. It is only those crimes which have a trans-national effect—such as drug smuggling, vehicle crimes and illegal trade in radioactive and nuclear materials. There is no dispute in that respect. I am glad to see that money laundering has been added to the list of crimes by the latest negotiations.
On the face of it, it might seem that the most obvious crime to include in the list would be terrorism. In committee, we thought at first that that was something which ought to be included. However, we recognised that, because of the unusually sensitive information which may be held by member states in regard to terrorist activities, terrorism is in a special category. The committee eventually supported the compromise solution which had been arrived at, that terrorism should be included after a period of experience. I note that, although it was contemplated that that would be done within a period of two years, it is now recognised that it may be brought in earlier. As time goes on, I suspect that it will be necessary to consider whether other criminal activities should be included if the police are to be effective as a result of using the new system.
I turn now to the third question: how can the data be properly protected, and what remedy should there be for the citizen who has been injured by the wrongful giving of inaccurate information? As to the first part, it is important to bear in mind that the Council directive on data protection—which was debated in this House some time ago—will not apply to police data. It has always been contemplated that there would be separate provisions. Under the draft convention, each member state must implement in its national legislation a standard of data protection which is at least equivalent to that required by a data convention adopted by the Council of Europe for the protection of individuals and that it should also take account of a recommendation of the Council of Europe which is known as Recommendation R(87)15. The draft convention proposes that Europol will simply take account of those principles.
The Home Secretary, who was good enough to give evidence to the committee, accepted that that recommendation (which lays down very good standards for the police to follow) should be incorporated into the convention in language appropriate to such a document. However, he did not accept that the recommendation in its current terms should be adopted. We accept the attitude
1310
that the Home Secretary has taken on the matter, but we consider that Europol should be bound by the same rules and should not simply have to take them into account.
Access to data by individuals has caused considerable discussion. It now seems that there is no agreed proposal in the convention. It is a matter to be negotiated in the Paris Agreement. We firmly took the view that it was quite wrong that Europol should have the right to refuse to produce information to the citizen about him or about his affairs if the effort to retrieve it was disproportionate to the data subject's stated interest. It seems to us to be critical that there should be a much more precise definition of when Europol can refuse to give information. The same is true of a provision that Europol may refuse to produce information if it is necessary to do so for the proper performance of its task. The committee has urged that such matters should be made more limited and more precise so that people will know where they stand.
Finally, there is the question of supervision as regards what is being done by Europol and by national authorities. This is most important. We strongly support the recommendation that there should be both a national supervisory authority, and a joint supervisory authority, to monitor the flow of information and complaints by citizens that their rights have been violated. If that does not work there must be a fallback position. It is the view of the committee that the citizen should have a direct remedy against national authorities and Europol in the national courts, but not in the European Court of Justice. If there is to be liability for the unauthorised or incorrect processing of personal data the citizen should have the right to go to the national court.
That leaves two important questions. Is it desirable that this convention should be interpreted in the same way in each of the states a party to the convention? What is to happen if member states are in dispute as to the interpretation or application of the convention? It seems right and necessary in principle that an international treaty, like any contract, should be interpreted by all the parties in the same way. They have agreed the words, and cannot possibly have intended that they should have as many different meanings as there are parties to the convention; otherwise, there is little point in agreeing the convention at all. It is absurd that a British subject suing here should be told that the convention means one thing but that if he goes to sue in a Greek, Danish or Portuguese court he will be told that it means three other quite different things. That necessarily involves a body, court or tribunal giving an authoritative ruling. If this convention fell under the Community pillar there would be no problem. It would come within Article 177 and national courts could make a reference to the European courts. Prima facie, under Article K the jurisdiction of the European court is excluded, though it is provided that conventions under the home affairs and justice pillar may stipulate that the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the convention and to rule upon them in such a way as is laid down in the convention.
The majority of the Select Committee and Sub-Committee E took the view that for purely practical reasons it was desirable that there should be power to refer the matter either to the European court or an independent

1311
tribunal for an interpretation to be given to apply across all the member states concerned. The minority of members of the committee believe that, despite the clear words of Article K which provide for jurisdiction, to give jurisdiction to the European court is contrary to the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty. I suggest that conventions made under the justice and home affairs pillar need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There should not be any dogmatic rule either that they should or should not give jurisdiction to the European court.
Despite that, the difference of view between the majority and minority is not to be blown out of proportion. There is a difference which we have set out in our report. The majority were firmly of the view that it was desirable to have uniformity of interpretation, and that even if most disputes would be settled in the national courts, the management board, or between member states in the Council, there was a need for a fallback position. I am glad to see in the last sentence of the Government's response that, even if they are not convinced that a reference to the European court or an independent tribunal is needed, they will consider the committee's recommendation further in the context of the continuing discussion. It is that kind of undertaking that makes the work involved in these reports worthwhile. In particular, I desire to pay tribute to our legal adviser, Mrs. Denza, her assistant, Mr. Ivan Smith, and our clerk for the work that they have done. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Europol (Tenth Report, HL Paper 51).—(Lord Slynn of Hadley.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, for the way in which he has introduced this debate with his usual clarity and pleasing method of delivery. He will not be surprised if I say that I have one difference and a few points to make later in my speech about his closing remarks. The noble and learned Lord conducted this inquiry in a masterly way. He handled those of us who had the honour to be members of his committee—I was co-opted onto it—in an excellent way. We had a full set of evidence which enabled the Committee to produce a worthwhile report.
Like many other debates on European Union (formerly European Community) matters, this discussion takes place at a time when my noble and right honourable friends are engaged in intricate negotiations on this subject. I am sure that in the past we have all had that in mind and we have it very much in mind at the moment. I hope that I shall say nothing that will embarrass my noble friend. I join the noble and learned Lord in thanking my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for taking the trouble to come to give evidence to the Committee. He argued his point in a lucid, impressive and powerful way.
The establishment of Europol is a practical example of ever closer union in Europe as a result of intergovernmental co-operation. Police co-operation is necessary and must be based on the full exchange of up-to-date information and intelligence in secure conditions by the authorities concerned. In that way they
1312
can tackle cross-border criminal activities that threaten all of us and presage an increased threat if we do not tackle the situation properly. The sooner the full Europol system can be established the better for everyone in the European Union.
It is worth while seeking, and getting, full agreement of all member states, who have different systems of criminal law and traditions, to the details of the system and the safeguards of private citizens which the noble and learned Lord has emphasised, as indeed we all emphasised in the committee. I for one do not complain about the time that has been taken. I do not complain yet, though I shall if the matter is still unresolved in the latter part of the year. I hope that by the end of the current French presidency all that has to be resolved will be resolved.
The noble and learned Lord reminded us of one or two points on which it might be possible to review the situation later. That is true of the points that he has made and is also true of the points about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, to which I shall refer later.
With regard to timing, in view of the current arguments about what should be done at the IGC in relation to the pillars, I do not believe that the Commission could have secured earlier agreement on Europol matters had the issue been communitised because there are problems to be sorted out between differing member states. Meanwhile, the Europol Drugs Unit can do and is doing good work. I accept the points made in the Government's reply about the validity of that unit. I applaud the agreements that have widened the unit's original remit so that it can be a precursor to Europol. We must accept that, even if we obtain an agreement to the convention in the middle of this year, it will take a number of months before Europol can be fully established. That is clear from the wording of the treaty; and it is clear from an understanding of reality.
Europol will have no operational powers. Those remain with member states, each supplying and having access to information and intelligence gathered on a European Union basis. It seems to me to be in the nature of the third pillar activity of the European Union, Article K, that member states retain responsibility for operational action and help each other to operate more successfully. It therefore follows that citizens seeking redress, whether against their government or against Europol, for any damage that they allege they suffer should seek it from member states using their legal system. The recommendations in paragraph 104 of the committee's report are along those lines. Although in its latest form Article 35 does not follow that argument exactly, it meets my point.
Redress is sought, rightly, in national courts. Any member state found liable may be able to make a claim on another or on Europol. If and when disputes arise, how will they be settled? Article 35 provides for the settlement in the first place by the Management Board or the Council. Our report examines whether the European Court of Justice should have jurisdiction to settle disputes of interpretation or implementation of the convention or disputes between member states. That is clearly set out in paragraph 109.

1313
I say that the argument is clearly set out. The majority view is clearly set out. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and I parted company with the remainder of the sub-committee and with the majority of the Select Committee. Our arguments are fully set out on pages 36 to 39 in the report. They are not part of the report; I wish that they were. I hope that the House will take as much note of those arguments as of the recommendation in paragraph 109.
As noble Lords will understand if they read those pages, my noble friend and I were trounced by the lawyers. We were trounced again in the Select Committee, where the arguments received some support. However, we both venture to suggest to the House that we might be right and that the others might be wrong. In our view there is no case for providing now—I emphasise "now"—for the involvement of the European Court of Justice in this convention. It was eloquently and clearly argued by the noble and learned Lord that uniformity in interpretation is desirable; indeed, it is said that it is important. I would say that it is desirable and important if other factors are equal but it is not essential. Differing national traditions should not be trampled upon unnecessarily.
If some member states' courts were to interpret the convention in a maverick way, the Council or the Management Board is there to sort out the problem, as the noble and learned Lord said. If that course failed—it would be some years before it failed—the Council could meet again to decide whether the European Court of Justice or an independent tribunal might be necessary. But such a tribunal is not necessary today. If the arguments about the issue were to delay the signing in June of the agreement to the convention, it would damage an issue which really matters to the Community. Therefore the case on uniformity does not seem to be proved.
There is another kind of uniformity which is equally as important and certainly equally as desirable. It is that all citizens of the United Kingdom should have the same right of redress in police data matters whether or not Europol is involved. The European Court of Justice should not be put in a position to overrule British courts where Europol is involved and to have no say where Europol is not involved. The noble and learned Lord stated that there was a strong practical argument for the European Court of Justice to be given jurisdiction in the convention when it is first signed. For practical reasons that is not so. The Council is there to ensure that members observe the convention, and it should not be assumed that it will not succeed. Nor should it be assumed that if the European Court of Justice were to have jurisdiction every member state would immediately follow the course that the Court decided was right. That is one of the problems of today's European Union.
Nor should it be assumed that in all conventions and treaties between member states outside the Treaty of Rome a special tribunal to settle disputes must be provided for. There is no such provision in the Schengen Agreement among six member states on open borders—an agreement which also has police data implications—and it seems to work perfectly well.
1314
I hope that agreement to the convention will not be held up by arguments about the European Court of Justice jurisdiction which are not immediately relevant to today's problems. In principle, I believe it right to keep the two new pillars away from the European Court of Justice, at least at this formative stage when intergovernmental co-operation has to prove itself. A strong case has to be made for the necessity of providing European Court of Justice jurisdiction; and that does not exist here, in the opinion of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and myself.
Furthermore, as your Lordships know, the Select Committee is inquiring into matters for the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, including the working of the two pillars and the European Court of Justice implications. Should we not wait until we have been able to consider anything that the IGC report may say in regard to the European Court of Justice and the home affairs and justice pillars?
Looking back upon my unusual obstinacy in face of the opinions of many colleagues I deeply respect, I have a procedural suggestion to offer to the House. It relates to occasions when differences of opinion occur in Select Committees on points of political importance which have been in the mind of the House in its agreement to major Bills such as the European Communities (Amendment) Bill passed in 1993. In that Bill and in the Maastricht Treaty which it ratified the independence of the two new pillars from the institutions of the Community other than the Council was fundamental, with the treaties spelling out suitable provisions. The noble and learned Lord was quite right to remind the House that there is provision for the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction where it is so decided in Article K matters. Would it not be wise to allow a Select Committee simply to set out the conflicting arguments and points of view, without any need for a recommendation? The House can then make up its mind on major matters which have been in front of it in quite recent months.
My final words relate to the scrutiny by national parliaments of the work of the third pillar, where the House has been enormously helped by the leadership given to it by the noble and learned Lord and his committee. This inquiry, so well led by him and well supported with evidence and documents from the Home Office, shows how this House can be informed of the progress of policy and convention creation and can express useful opinions which the Government can have in mind in further negotiations. We shall in due course be asked to ratify the convention and at that stage we shall have no power of amendment. But today, and through this valuable report, we have an opportunity to influence and to help to mould it. That is important for us in our duties within the United Kingdom constitution, but it is also an important consideration when it is argued, as it will be, that the third pillar is undemocratic and non-accountable and that it should be more accountable to the European Parliament. The accountability of Ministers in the Council is to their national parliaments and this debate, in a long line of others, helps, does it not, in the implementation of that accountability.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and his sub-committee—to him for the way in which he has introduced the Report to the House and to the sub-committee for the way in which they have presented it. I myself was not a member of the sub-committee—I did not have that honour or pleasure—but I can assure your Lordships that, although I was not present during the giving of the evidence, I have read thoroughly through it since and am familiar with that evidence.
This report has perhaps a rather greater significance than its necessarily academic flavour must have given it, particularly when you have the presence of so many lawyers involved in its production. However, there can be no doubt that the subject matter of the report is of great importance to all our citizens. There are very few areas of our society, in terms of the gradation of society, rich and poor, or in terms of the location in which we happen to live or work, that are immune, for example, to the effects of international crime, particularly in the field of drug trafficking.
This is something which, indirectly or in many cases directly, affects us all. If that be the case, so much more must it be with the trends that have become more inevitable and more pressing since the break-up of the Soviet empire: the traffic that has grown up in radioactive substances, in the disposal of nuclear material, as well as of more commonplace crimes which are again organised internationally in the field of car theft, the theft of goods in transit and matters of that kind. Last, but not least, I would include in the list illegal emigration. So let us make no mistake: what we are talking about today is not something of pure academic or legal interest. These are matters of the utmost importance to us all.
It is particularly important, as we are bound to know, for those in the United Kingdom and indeed in Europe who are entrusted with the enforcement of laws and the arrest and trial of criminals, because, unless they have adequate information, adequate intelligence and adequate analysis available to them, their task is made so much more difficult. Therefore, one must inevitably support wholeheartedly the endeavours that are being made to aid those honoured citizens of ours who, despite reductions in their numbers on the beat for totally different reasons, are entrusted with the enforcement of the law and the apprehension of criminals. So far so good: therefore the purposes of the convention and indeed of the agreement between states, as instanced in the case of Germany in 1993 concerning the Interpol drugs unit, must command the support of all.
But, having said that, I am bound to go, as an accountant, back to the initial considerations of this convention. Many of us forecast—I claim no particular credit for myself for having done so—that, with the abolition of internal frontiers on the scale that was proposed immediately following Maastricht, and indeed before it, this problem was bound to arise. The abolition of international frontiers, which from a trade point of view obviously had its advantages, nevertheless had its downsides. This is one of them and it is noteworthy that Germany should be the principal nation in the European Union to urge this forward, because it was across
1316
Germany's eastern borders that much of the illegal material began to flow. Indeed, even international drug rings now have a route via Germany and via those parts of the frontier that are far easier to cross than taking, say, Eurostar to Waterloo or crossing the English Channel.
Inevitably, therefore, this matter came under the influence of Germany, and so we have the convention. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have not yet got an agreed version. We are still discussing a convention to which further amendments are still being received, or so I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. He will be well aware that what I have said applies also to the agreement achieved between member states in regard to the Interpol drug enforcement unit. From the practical standpoint I have to ask whether, in considering this problem, any thought was given to the European branch of Interpol. After all, Interpol is an organisation on an international scale that has very great experience in these matters. I am quite sure that those of your Lordships who have any experience with an organised police force—and my own Front Bench is replete with these—will be able to testify that Interpol has been of enormous assistance.
I may not have been able to go through all the evidence in detail, but I can find no suggestion anywhere that the improvement of the European branch of Interpol was considered. I shall be very glad if some information can be given about that. After all, Interpol has a proven track record. I should have thought that there would be an initial assessment as to whether the European branch of Interpol and its functions could have been extended to cover these matters rather than relying on the establishment of a new organisation confined to Europe.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not against the foundation of the organisation which is laid out in the convention or of the Europol Drugs Unit. However, I am curious to know whether that possibility was explored, because cost comes into this. As an accountant I hesitate to bring to the attention of the Government, who are so bent on economies in public expenditure, the necessity for viewing any increases in expenditure with the utmost degree of scepticism. The establishment of such an organisation, with its management committee, liaison officers, data processing requirements and staff will not come cheap. I do not believe that the British contribution, in terms of a percentage of national income, will present overwhelming financial problems, but the costs ought to be considered. It would not have been out of order for the Government themselves to have made some estimate of costs when they presented the convention to us with its explanatory memorandum. We should like to know roughly what the cost will be.
It is quite clear that the operation of the new Europol, relying as it will on recording probably 90 or 95 per cent. of the information it receives in the form of computerised items, will involve some degree of data protection. That has already been dealt with very adequately by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. But it remains a problem. In the course of the operations of the new Europol, some injury may occasionally be done to the individual. As the report brings out and its recommendation makes clear, in those circumstances redress should be available. Such

1317
cases will probably be exceptional, but provision ought to be made for injured parties to be able to obtain suitable redress.
This is where the whole question of interpretation of the law is extremely important. I have taken note of the arguments produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, with whom I have often argued on a totally different plane. Nevertheless, the provisions of the treaty remain. The provisions of the treaty are not there as a matter of accident. The two pillars of foreign affairs and defence under Title V and the provisions under Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty were included quite deliberately. They mark the agreement of the member states that they do not want one universal writ to rule under the aegis of the Commission but want a degree of co-operation between member states without the impact of the influence of the Commission.
I like to think, perhaps modestly, that the remarks that I have made over the years on the question of international civil servants may have had some impact. There are two types of international civil servant. There is one type which consists of persons who conceive it to be their main purpose to carry out the instructions they have been given and to do so loyally and efficiently to the best of their ability. There is another type of international civil servant, from whom the tendency to desire to increase their power may not be entirely absent, which consists of people who see matters in institutional terms and regard their main role as the extension of their power rather than following the purposes of the nation states which comprise the Union. No names, no pack drill—but if the cap fits in any part of the Community it can be worn.
In this matter I support the Government. Indeed, somewhat unusually, I support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Those pillars should remain intact. We must maintain the principle of co-operation, rather than the principle of ever-increasing centralisation, which has been brought out once again by the Commission's own plans for the revisions which are to take place under the IGC. Although I shall not quote from the document now, it is clear that the Commission is bent on revising Titles V and VI in order that it may become fully involved, rather than retaining the existing position fortunately agreed by the member states to co-operate with one another rather than to submit, albeit after argument, to a quasi-supranational authority.
Exactly the same principle applies to the resistance by the Government to the Court of Auditors being brought in to the audit of expense. The Court of Auditors is an institution of the European Community. It is not perhaps known that, if the Court of Auditors becomes involved in auditing the accounts and finance of the new convention and its association of member states, it remains subject to the Community's financial regulations under which it has to take into account at all times the wishes of the Commission. Therefore, the Government are wise to resist that proposal. I cannot find any reason why the Government's attitude on that matter should not be supported.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, we still do not have the final version of the convention. I must address the noble Baroness on this question. In the course of the evidence there was a suggestion by the Home Office that
1318
a document placed in the Library of the House could not properly be quoted until it had been published in another fashion. That, together with a quotation from her department's correspondence, appears on page 30 of the evidence given before the Committee. I made inquiries of the Clerk of the House and am told that that suggestion is incorrect. Once a document is in the Library it becomes public property at the hands of any Member of the House. I hope that some clarification may be given upon that point.
That apart, I give the report a hearty welcome. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, despite my marginal difference with him in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I hope that in due course your Lordships' House may give the matter even further and more detailed consideration when the final proposals are known.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord for providing the House with the opportunity to consider one of the products of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, it will undoubtedly be of considerable benefit to many people in this country. He and his colleagues deserve our thanks for the work they have put in, for producing such a comprehensive and illuminating report, and for exposing some, if not all, of the problems involved in establishing a joint venture of this kind. Speaking personally, I support many, if not all, of the report's conclusions, but there are one or two on which I wish to comment.
Co-operation between police forces of this country and those overseas has necessarily existed for many years; in fact long before the Trevi organisation referred to in paragraph 9 of the report. It was set up in 1976 and was concerned at the outset with co-operation at an operational level against terrorism and other serious crime. It was 1990, however, before the Trevi group of Ministers was given the task of developing concrete proposals for a Europol organisation.
There is clear evidence, I believe, to indicate that the time has long since passed when an effective Europol should have been created. Motor cars, for example, were disappearing off the streets of Birmingham and reappearing somewhere on the continent of Europe well over 10 years ago. Your Lordships may agree that had the European Council of Ministers not authorised the steps it has in advance of a properly established convention—a fact which the committee finds unsatisfactory—then the position in relation to serious crime within the Community might well be more threatening than it currently is.
It is to be hoped, therefore, that the present intention, which I believe is to secure the signing of the convention at Cannes later this month, will be realised and that the necessary legal acts required by the convention will quickly follow. Until they are all in place, presumably everyone concerned with Europol will be acting in a way which will be contrary to the requirements of the convention, with whatever consequences that might have. But it is imperative, I suggest, that the present atmosphere of indecision, which must inevitably hamper the work of

1319
the unit in seeking to combat the burgeoning problem of criminal activity within and without the Community, should be removed.
The creation of any new system of records—whatever its contents—almost inevitably arouses suspicion and fear of misuse. Clearly the protection of the data held by Europol, subject access to that data, and the general accountability of the organisation for its policy and methods of operation are extremely important. The committee's conclusions in that respect should, I believe, be found generally acceptable.
Your Lordships might be surprised, however, that similar detailed requirements do not seem ever to have been debated in respect of this country's link to Europol; that is to say, the National Criminal Intelligence Service which commenced operations on 1st April 1992. Its position is unique in that while police forces are locally established and maintained, the National Criminal Intelligence Service is established by the Home Secretary, using his powers under Section 41 of the Police Act 1964 to provide and maintain common police services. Its director general is accountable directly to the Home Secretary who appoints him. Chief constables are not involved in any way in the management and organisation of that unit. It is the first time, I believe, that responsibility for what most people would regard as an operational responsibility has been assumed by a politician. But this is not the time or the place to debate that issue.
Your Lordships may agree that there are parallels here with the security services. One wonders whether the time may come—indeed may already have come—when there should be established a committee on the same lines as the Intelligence and Security Committee to oversee the policies and activities of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Perhaps that is the role which will be performed by the national supervisory body which we shall be required to set up to monitor data exchange with Europol. The constitution of such a body seems rather sketchy at the moment and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us later this evening a little more about what is proposed as regards the national supervisory body.
I turn now to the role and remit of Europol. I very much share the committee's view that Europol should not take on an operational role, for all the reasons advanced by the committee in paragraph 84. Last year, during the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, your Lordships persuaded the Government that policing should remain clearly local in nature. I believe that that is still the correct attitude, however serious the crime may be. As to the crimes with which the unit should be involved, again there can be little argument with the provisions of Article 2 of the draft convention and the annex to it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. Is the noble Lord saying that chief constables have no contact with Europol in carrying out their duties at home?
Lord Knights: My Lords, I am not saying that chief constables have no contact. Of course there is a lot of contact between chief constables and the criminal intelligence service. My point is that they are not involved in any way in its management. I believe that that is unique.
1320
Coming back to the crimes with which Europol will deal, I am doubtful about one or two. I am doubtful about the inclusion of nuclear and radioactive substances and, more particularly, of terrorism, even with the possible two-year delay before terrorism is to be taken up. Your Lordships will be aware that the development of intelligence relating to terrorism is one of the statutory responsibilities of the security services in this country. They also handle crimes involving nuclear substances, and the convention's requirement that there should be one national unit to liaise with Europol would appear to require that the security services' data will need to be fed to the unit via the National Criminal Intelligence Service and vice versa, with the security risks that that might involve. Or is it thought, perhaps, that the two data banks should be combined in some way?
In a Written Answer of 16th May 1995 (at col. 191 of the Official Report for another place) the Home Secretary said:
"If … resources were available to the Security Service and if, within their statutory functions, a useful role were identified for them in support of the police … in their work to counter serious crime, I would be ready to consider such proposals".
One wonders whether there is anything to be read into that in terms of fusing the security services and the criminal intelligence service.
Clearly, there is much to be done in the two years which are to be allowed, if the respective roles of the security service and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are to be satisfactorily reconciled in respect of the handling of terrorist crime.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I turn to Interpol. It is mentioned only briefly in the report. At paragraph 14, the Data Protection Registrar is quoted as stressing that,
"Europol would be quite different in character from Interpol, which was based on operational arrangements among police forces without government involvement".
A Select Committee of another place, in a report on practical police co-operation in the European Community in 1990, described Interpol's principal role as being to act as a channel of communication, to send messages from the police of one country to those of another.
There is reason to think that Interpol is seeking to widen that role. For example, in an article in The Times on 26th May this year the director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is reported as saying that Interpol is building up a database in respect of stolen motor vehicles, which should be running by the end of this year, covering 45 countries in Europe. That sounds remarkably like duplication. Interpol is very much its own creature. If it is developing databases of an intelligence nature, questions must inevitably arise as to its accountability.
I understand that this country's contribution to Interpol is included in the budget for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on that point. Bearing that in mind, perhaps she will say whether the question of possible duplication is being addressed and whether, in the light of the establishment of Europol, the activities of Interpol within the European Community are still regarded as cost-effective.

1321
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised a question as to whether consideration had been given to using the European branch of Interpol rather than setting up a new organisation. The difference between the two organisations, as I see it, is that that Europol is very much controlled and very much accountable right up to the Council of Europe; whereas Interpol, as I understand it, is accountable to no one but itself. There is no political connection whatever with Europol. As I say, it is a creature of its own standing. I am quite sure that the committee was right when it agreed that Interpol does not serve a useful purpose in the field of which we are now talking.
We are seeing the birth of a most important joint venture, one that will be of great benefit to us all. I am sure that we should support the committee's recommendations.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, it is very reassuring to find noble Lords unanimous in welcoming this new European enterprise. All noble Lords who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, welcomed the report—with the exception of certain details encapsulated by my noble friend Lord Aldington. It seems undeniable that, in an age where criminals do not respect frontiers, the police should be enabled sometimes to cross frontiers in the pursuit and apprehension of the criminal. Too often these days the police can be handicapped by the fact that a crime is planned in France by British miscreants, who then commit their crime in Belgium, carry away their ill-gotten gains to the Netherlands and dispose of them in Germany. The police forces of more than two countries can be involved in such a crime. Frequently the police are one jump behind the criminals simply because of the transfer of the action from one nation to another. It is that problem, that security deficit, that the creation of Europol is designed to overcome.
I should emphasise at the outset that in these remarks I have taken the advice of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which I advise over such issues. I understand that the Police Federation is in favour of the development of Europol along the lines suggested.
However, I have one particular query in this connection; namely, how will the officers of Europol who are British be represented as regards a professional body or association? Will they remain British constables, and therefore be represented by their federation, or will they be represented by some other body? I gave my noble friend notice of that question, and I hope that she will be able to inform me.
The scope of Europol has been well set out by the noble and learned Lord in his report. It is undeniable that it can at the moment have no operational powers. But its and analysis role will be exceptional. I do not believe that it can be rivalled, if it works as it should work, by any other organisation, and certainly not by Interpol. I do not believe that any other body would enjoy the confidence of the organisation that already exists in embryo in The Hague. I speak as someone who has been to The Hague and visited police and customs officers in that building. It is my impression that they work very well together, that
1322
they have confidence in one another, and that they can get information from one another far more quickly than they used to do. Many arrests have been made already because of the swift exchange of information provided by that modest building in The Hague. Once Europol is fully under way, with information being provided direct to the central computer, it will be that much easier for criminals to be apprehended and for the police to go about their duty.
I know that there are fears about the power of this new organisation, although it is my impression that those fears are less felt in this country and more felt in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. The idea of some massive "Big Brother" of a computer containing all the information that there is to know about each one of us in the European Union is frightening to a number of people. Questions were rightly raised by previous speakers about how the great power of the new machine is to be controlled and to whom the body is to be accountable.
On the dispute, the disagreement, that arose between the majority and the minority in the noble and learned Lord's sub-committee, I have to say that I come down on the side of the majority. I think it normal that someone who has a grievance about how Europol has been working, who has not achieved satisfaction from a joint supervisory authority, and who takes the matter to the national court, should envisage the possibility of a reference, a search for advice, being made to the European Court of Justice. That can happen in practically any civil action that arises nowadays. It is undeniable, whether we like it or not, that the decisions of the European Court of Justice override those of national courts. It may well be that references to the ECJ in Luxembourg will have to be made from time to time in cases that are brought before national courts. I hope that not too heavy weather will be made of this process, and that it will be allowed to unravel itself in a normal way.
However, before those cases come to court, I hope that they can be tackled by normal parliamentary means. The report before us emphasises the view of the Home Office that individual cases can best be tackled by the national parliamentarians of the aggrieved individual. There is a fair amount of truth in this. But I should put forward a word for the European Parliament in this context. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, thinks that the European Parliament is totally useless, but there are times when the European Parliament can help and when an MEP can assist one of his or her constituents. In such questions as the third pillar, as in any other, the president of the home affairs Ministers appears before the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament at least once every six months. Assisted by officials, he fields questions on anything that the members of that committee or other MEPs care to throw at the president in office. It is a forum for debate on third pillar issues which does not yet exist in national parliaments, so far as I know, or in another place. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He said that I viewed the European Parliament as useless. I have never said that. Indeed, I was an active Member of it for four years. I do not feel that it is all that effective, but

1323
that is neither here nor there. What I had in mind in the context of this debate was the role of the European ombudsman, who appears not yet to have materialised.
Lord Bethell: Well, we do not need to bring up all over again the Maastricht debates, when words which perhaps we have now done our best to forget flew across the Chamber. But the noble Lord is quite right to raise the question of the ombudsman. He is the first speaker to do so. The Minister may care to refer to that at the end of our proceedings today.
I believe that at the moment there is a role for the MEP in representing constituents over third pillar issues, including Europol, just as there is a role for the national parliamentarian to represent constituents on the national scene. I hope that both will be used. When the Home Secretary appeared before the sub-committee, he seemed rather to down-play the role of the European Parliament in this issue. But I refer your Lordships to Article K.6 in the Maastricht agreement, which says quite clearly that the European Parliament has the right to be consulted— not just informed—over these issues.
Some interesting comments have been made about the crimes which could fall within the purview of Europol. It is quite right that we have begun rather slowly. We have begun before we have any legal basis in place, so far as I can see. I understand that doubts have been raised about whether the present unit has from time to time exceeded its legal entitlements. But I believe that it has begun to work well in providing an exchange of information on drugs and serious crimes connected with drugs. I can see no reason why it should not be expanded to deal with vehicle crimes and the very serious matter of crimes involving nuclear material. It is surely essential that such a terrible crime, which could threaten us all, should be tackled on the international level as well as on a national basis—if one likes, not only within Europol but, by agreement, with governments and the law enforcement agencies of all countries where there is nuclear material.
As for terrorism, I suggest that after the statutory two years, it would make sense to begin by exchanging information within Europol, which we hope by then will be thoroughly legal, on terrorism which is non-indigenous. I have in mind terrorism that originates outside the European Union. I can understand that there may be some hesitancy on the part of law enforcement agencies of the Union to pool information that they have on terrorists or terrorist suspects and put it into that great machine in The Hague. Such information is not garnered easily. It is often acquired after exposing police agents to danger and maybe even bloodshed. It is not given away to anyone on an easy basis. So a step forward would be to start with non-indigenous terrorism.
For the future, I wonder whether it would make sense for that body to begin looking into specifically European Union crimes. I have in mind European agricultural fraud, which costs our taxpayers huge sums of money. It is a matter which the Commission is meant to look into but it does so rather inefficiently, without proper attention or despatch. If one has, for better or worse, a European Union police body, could it not tackle the very costly question of European Community fraud? Already, the Commission in Brussels has operational powers. It has the
1324
ability to launch dawn raids on enterprises or individuals in order to acquire documents and can impose arbitrarily severe fines on enterprises and individuals. Would it make sense eventually, if we are reaching a stage at which an operational role for Europol could be considered, to consider European fraud? I believe that that is an aspect of the European Union's work which will be broadly welcomed by the people of the United Kingdom, and even by those who are sceptical about many other aspects of the European Union's work.
The sub-committee is to be congratulated on having produced this document. It is an admirable analysis of the problems raised and the opportunities presented to us. I give it my unqualified support.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, one of the pleasures of serving on your Lordships' committees is witnessing the continuity of our work. There has been no greater pleasure for me than serving on the Law and Institutions Sub-Committee of your Lordships' European Communities Committee.
So we can witness the continuity of our work, as we did in our report, at paragraph 78, when we referred back to our border control report of some five or five-and-a-half years ago. In noting that from 1992 onwards there was likely to be a much greater movement of people of all kinds across borders, we stated that,
"Co-operation and common action against those who break the law must indeed be carried forward".
There is another continuity, which is now a poignant one. Our report on the protection of personal data was the first report to be chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, when he became chairman of the sub-committee. Regrettably, the report that your Lordships are now considering is one of the last that will be delivered to this House from the sub-committee by the noble and learned Lord under his present tenure as chairman.
When we took evidence in our inquiry on the data protection directive, we received some very disturbing evidence from Liberty. We were told of a number of serious incidents of deprivation of human liberty. I suppose that up to a dozen examples were given to us. I shall recount three to the best of my ability.
First, there was the account of a lady from Germany who used to enjoy taking holidays in Italy—that is, until she went through the experience I am about to relate to your Lordships. On starting one of her holidays she booked into a modest hotel or hostel. In the middle of the night her hotel bedroom was stormed by armed Italian police who seized her and took her off for a long period of interrogation. When she returned to Germany she protested to the authorities there and established with them, as was correct, that she was not a member of the Baader-Meinhof gang. She asked for that information to be corrected and, as I understand it, the German authorities were obliging and said that it would be corrected.
The lady then took a second holiday in Italy and this time, as she was getting in or out of her car, she was again surrounded by armed Italian police, again

1325
mistaking her for a member of the Baader-Meinhof gang, who took her off for interrogation. Even though she protested once more when she returned to Germany, and waited for four or five years, another similar incident occurred. I understand that the lady no longer takes her holidays in Italy.
The second example that was given to us when we were conducting the inquiry concerned a family from the Midlands who were taking a holiday in Portugal. As I recall it, there was a husband and wife—a mother and father—and two young sons. Outside their hotel, shortly after their arrival for this holiday in Portugal, they were surrounded by Portuguese police. They were all thrust into a police van and driven at high speed to a nearby police station. They were then subjected to considerable inquiries and the husband of the family was locked in gaol for 48 hours. He did not speak a word of Portuguese and the proceedings were conducted in that language. It was only through the assistance of the British Consul that he was released. It transpired that the family had been arrested on the incorrect information that the husband had been indulging in criminal or terrorist activities. Presumably that information was supplied from some source in this country.
The third example concerns an employee at Stansted Airport on the eve—or perhaps I should say the morning—of the Queen opening the airport. On that morning the employee opened his front door to the British police who were standing there. They instantly arrested him and with a search warrant gained access to his house. They took possession of a number of documents and video tapes from his home. It transpired that three or four years earlier that employee had been taking a holiday in Europe. During the course of the holiday he and his wife had given a lift to a hitch-hiker over the French-Spanish border in the Pyrenees. It transpired also that photographs were taken of the hitch-hiker, some of which were retained in the hitch-hiker's camera. The hitch-hiker was later arrested as a suspected IRA terrorist. Based upon the photographs, which also recorded the car registration number, the employee of Stansted Airport had a wholly humiliating and distressing experience for himself and his family.
I cite those three examples to your Lordships because when we came to consider the implications of them during our deliberations on the protection of personal data, we came to the conclusion, at paragraph 116, that:
"There is little benefit to the individual in being protected from an unwanted charitable appeal from unfair loading of his insurance premiums or denial of credit if he is not also protected from conviction abroad on the basis of suspect police evidence or from mistaken arrest as a supposed terrorist".
The difficulty that we found when writing the report was that police and counter-terrorism co-operation lay outside the competence of the European Community and therefore we could not make recommendations of changes of text in the draft directive. The best that we could recommend was that member states should agree a Resolution to deal with what we considered to be a serious problem. As far as I know—this is somewhat regrettable—the Resolution has not been agreed.
1326
I do not know whether Interpol was involved in the dissemination of any of the information relating to the three incidents. But I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that under Interpol there was and is no protection to any of the individuals involved. None of the individuals had right of access to the data information nor the right to have it corrected. So it was, when we came to consider this matter in our deliberations on the Europol Convention, that we looked with close scrutiny, as described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, at Articles 17 and 18. I believe that this is an important matter and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I read in full part of the text to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The paragraph states, as an exception to the right to have access to information, that:
"If the personal data are stored in documents, information shall be provided only if the effort involved in providing it is not disproportionate to the interest in the information stated by the data subject".
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, those words caused us considerable worry. We were also concerned in Article 17, as he said, about another exception to the right of access to data when there was conflict with,
"the proper performance of the European task".
We believe that there should be a much closer definition in those words if protection is to be provided to individuals.
I am grateful to my noble friend for sending me a copy of the Government's response to our report. I was glad to note at the beginning of the response that it stated that the Government entirely agree that:
"Europol, like all organisations operating within the criminal justice system, must be clearly accountable for its policies and actions. Our approach to the present negotiations and to the organisation's establishment and operation has been based on that important principle".
I felt on reading those words that we were getting off on the right foot—and, indeed, I think we were. But what was worrying, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, is that we learnt later in the report that that area was still subject to negotiation and that the Government can go only so far in saying that they agree,
"that effective subject access provisions are essential and that exceptions should be no wider than strictly necessary".
I should be grateful if my noble friend could help us more about that. It is a matter of concern shared by all members of our sub-committee.
I do not want to get deeply involved in the debate over the European Court of Justice because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and my noble friend Lord Aldington have said, in the greater part of our deliberations all members of the committee were agreed. However, we did part company over the role of the European Court of Justice. It was very nice to be refreshed again with the arguments of my noble friend Lord Aldington which he so cogently presented to the committee. We have read the Government's response. I need not read it to your Lordships, although I have some difficulty in understanding why the Government are still showing reluctance.

1327
I certainly have a better understanding during our debates of what my noble friend Lord Aldington was saying. There is a strong case to keep out the European Court of Justice, and other institutions of the European Community, of the two new pillars based on government co-operation. We wholly understand that. The difficulty is that it is not in the area of government co-operation that the concern lies, but in the interpretation of the convention in different national courts. There is also the problem to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn our attention of disputes between one member state and another as regards the convention.
My noble friend Lord Aldington expressed, as he did earlier, a worry that the issue of the European Court could be a cause for delay of the ratification. I certainly hope that my noble friend will assure us that this will not be the case. It is very comforting to read the final words of the response where it states:
"However, the Government will consider the Committee's recommendations further in the context of continuing discussion".
May that be so.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Sub-Committee E and the Select Committee, on a very important report. It has already been adverted to that this convention still has blanks within it. I hope that they will be filled with an appreciation of the thrust of this report with which I very much agree.
The need for Europol itself is not in issue. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, the German police authorities have reported a six-fold increase in the number of cases suspected of involving nuclear material. Spain and the Netherlands in particular have been concerned about the increase in drug-related crime, all internationally organised. We in this country have been in the forefront of international action to control money laundering because of London's leading position as a financial market.
The idea of Europol was launched years ago. It had particular publicity in 1991, but nevertheless, despite the need for Europol being beyond dispute, we still lack any formal international agreement. Organised crime is not dragging its feet even if governments are. Organised crime is taking full advantage of the greater freedom of movement across borders, while Europe cannot agree over a regulatory framework for Europol. It is a matter of urgency.
I very much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, on this particular point. He rightly drew the distinction between Interpol and Europol. They are totally different organisations. Europol is going to be an accountable organisation, but Interpol is not. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was not concerned about the democratic deficit in Interpol.
Meanwhile, member states have pressed ahead with the Europol Drugs Unit because they had to. Its activities have been extended under ministerial agreements but, as
1328
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, pointed out, they apparently have no legal force. Moreover, its activities are not subject to common rules on data protection. It is unclear what remedy, if any, would be available to any individual who suffered damage as a result of its actions.
I merely point out these matters because they underline the importance of seeking an agreement on a regulatory framework as soon as possible. Furthermore, the very successes of the Europol Drugs Unit illustrate the benefits that would flow from the institution of a wider Europol. For example, in his evidence to the Select Committee the Home Secretary outlined the matter of the large consignment of drugs which were found on a ship in Greece. Intelligence from Belgium, France and the United Kingdom was brought together with the Europol Drugs Unit within one hour and was passed on to the Greek Europol liaison officer. That led to three crew members being arrested within 24 hours. That is one example of what international co-operation entails.
Perhaps I may say as one who was engaged in practice at the Bar until very recently, that the great British public are taking a very long time to appreciate how very well organised and sophisticated international crime syndicates are. Apart from the areas which come within the remit of the EDU, the methods of communication available to the police forces of Europe are relatively primitive. In the common struggle against organised crime a modern intelligence super-highway is required, with a central body which has the capacity to analyse intelligence.
I very much appreciate the point that one does not want Europol to become operational. It should not be investigating farm subsidy frauds, which are matters for the national authorities. Europol wants to be a central data-collecting body capable of passing on intelligence at speed because undoubtedly the gangs with which it is dealing are doing so at speed and using all possible modern communications. The increased mobility that people enjoy nowadays means that criminals have more opportunities to exploit any gaps in law enforcement structures. It is vital that those gaps are closed.
Drug-trafficking cartels target Europe as a single target. They decide which is the advantageous point at which to enter, whether by sea into the United Kingdom; whether by air into somewhere else; or whether to use the eastern European borders and so on. They target Europe as a single market. Links between the member states need to be formalised so that intelligence over a broad range of crimes can be pooled. Only in that way can the increasingly sophisticated activities of organised criminals be countered effectively.
It seems to me that one of the mistakes of the Euro-sceptics is that they criticise, for example, the disappearance of national boundaries. They are also very reluctant to support effective measures to bring into being new organisations which deal with the problems that arise when national boundaries disappear. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, regarded the European Parliament as being pretty useless or ineffective. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I am sure

1329
that he would be much more worried if he thought that the European Parliament was effective, and one would have much more criticism of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord must not misrepresent me in this matter. I said at the beginning and at the conclusion of my speech, which I now reiterate, that I entirely support the proposal of the convention. I would have thought that that would have been assimilated by the noble Lord through both his ears.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful. I appreciate the knowledge that I gain about the noble Lord's attitude over the years, but I find it difficult to distinguish between one contribution and the generality.
I turn to the final issue of jurisdiction over disputes. In order to ensure a coherent structure and uniformity in the standards of control, it is obvious that the European Court should determine all issues of interpretation. Perhaps I may quote from the evidence given to the committee by the Home Secretary, which I thought was highly unsatisfactory. I quote from page 94, paragraph 507, of the report. The noble and learned chairman asked the Home Secretary:
"Do you not find it unsatisfactory that the Convention should be interpreted in completely different ways by different national courts?".
Mr. Howard replied:
"I do not think it is … It does not seem to me terribly likely that you would get wildly different interpretations".
Perhaps we may stop there for one moment. If one had not wildly different interpretations but interpretations which were sufficiently serious to cause great problems—a different interpretation in Greece from that in the UK and a different interpretation in Portugal—why on earth should we set up a new convention and not provide for that?
At the end of his answer the Home Secretary said:
"If it is suggested that the desirability of uniformity should outweigh other considerations then it would be possible to set up some kind of ad hoc tribunal that might deal with these matters on a more consistent basis".
There he is resiling on the issue. He is objecting to the European Court and then saying, "Oh, well, if there is a dispute we will have an ad hoc tribunal". What kind of decision shall we have from an ad hoc tribunal?
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, then asked Mr. Howard:
"What is the objection to the European Court of Justice being involved in the adjudication?".
Mr. Howard replied:
"If there is no need for the European Court of Justice to be involved then it is undesirable for it to be involved".
Why is it undesirable for the European Court of Justice to be involved? It is the supreme judicial body in the Europe that has been formed, and whatever form Europe eventually takes it will be the supreme judicial body. If there is to be a problem of interpretation, it should be decided by the European Court.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, intervened at paragraph 517 with an interesting qualification. In the second part of his question in paragraph 518 he asked:
"Would it be so strong"
1330
that is, the Home Secretary's objection—
"if the European Court of Justice were limited simply to interpretation and nothing else, simply this is what the Convention means?".
Mr. Howard replied:
"It would be just as strong because the question is what kind of interpretation would the Court of Justice adopt. Would the European Court of Justice tend to adopt an expansive interpretation in most cases or not?".
That is asking a question by way of reply.
What is happening is quite clear. The Government are taking the view through the Home Secretary that it is better to have an ad hoc tribunal than to leave the question of interpretations to the European Court of Justice. He obviously believes that there is a possibility of different interpretations in different countries, which would obviously be undesirable. I believe that common sense, pragmatism and everything else points in the direction of the majority recommendation of the committee. I hope the Government pay close heed to that.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too congratulate the committee on this interesting report and its sensible conclusions. As was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, it is essential to have cross-border arrangements in Europe to deal with crime. Even my noble friend Lord Bruce applauded the purpose of the convention. However, the proposal has already been under discussion for several years and, despite the urgency mentioned by several noble Lords, it will probably be several more years before Europol is up and running effectively. Clearly frustration at the lack of progress led to the setting up of the Europol Drugs Unit at the beginning of last year. I understand that there is no formal international agreement or legal basis for the Europol Drugs Unit. It appears that Europol as a whole may continue of necessity to evolve in that way.
The apparently successful first year, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, inevitably occurs when one sets up what in the police service we used to call a "squad". To begin with information is floating about and there are various loose ends to which one applies new resources. To begin with there are always great successes. However, I wonder whether there is a danger that in future not only the drugs unit but Europol as a whole will run into the kinds of problems experienced by other squads. Those problems are that one becomes overburdened with information and needs increasing resources and increasingly elaborate data systems. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the need for an information super-highway to underpin its activities. More analysis is needed and tight controls must be placed on what could develop into a monster without any legal basis. My noble friend Lord Bruce referred to the possible costs. They will need to be kept under strict control.
A further anxiety is the lack of public debate not only about the setting up of the Europol Drugs Unit but about the draft convention on Europol. I do not believe that the issue of accountability has been fully resolved. Quite clearly, the question of data protection for individuals is an essential aspect of the setting up of Europol.

1331
It is extremely important that there is transparency in anything to do with crime. Some of the stories related by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, could apply also to the activities of Europol unless it is set up under strict regulations and the terms under which information is passed between police forces is very clear. Mistakes easily occur even within local policing, but they occur more so on an international scene when one is dealing with different systems of crime, policing and judicial systems. There may be mistakes in translation and so forth.
Often the police service is secretive about what it is doing and there is confusion between the need for secrecy in relation to operational intelligence and secrecy about structures, methods, systems and so on. It is essential that the public are able to scrutinise structures, methods, systems and powers even though for security reasons they may not have access to crime intelligence.
That problem would be even more compounded if terrorism became part of the remit of Europol. The secrecy that tends to surround anything to do with the security services could then apply to more mundane types of police matters and crime and could create problems in that way. The whole matter might become shrouded in secrecy. Therefore, the assumption that two years after the setting up of Europol terrorism will become part of its remit could be extremely dangerous. There appears to me to be a clear link between the responsibility for dealing with crime relating to nuclear and radioactive substances and terrorism. I wonder why those crimes were included in the initial suggested remit for Europol. I suggest also that there is another international crime—the smuggling and stealing of arts and antiques—which might more properly be included in Europol's remit. That has not so far been mentioned.
Therefore, there are a number of problems which I feel are unresolved in relation to Europol. There is the lack of accountability, which was mentioned throughout the report; all the problems of definitions of crime in different judicial systems, and problems of interpretation which have been referred to already in relation to the European Court of Justice.
There is also a major practical problem in the setting up of Europol, which is that at present only Britain and Holland have national crime bureaux of the type envisaged by the draft convention. Indeed, it may be many years before such effective crime databases are set up within the other countries of Europe. Therefore, that will be an additional complication in addition to the need for national ratification, even if the convention is approved in Paris this year. As I understand it, it must be ratified by the individual countries thereafter. If each country has to set up on a national basis a crime intelligence bureau on the scale which we have in this country, which has over 100 staff, it seems to me that it will take several years rather than weeks or months for Europol to be up and running and to be really effective. Several noble Lords have spoken about the urgency of setting up Europol, but I wonder whether that sense of urgency is shared by the other member countries of Europe.
1332
My noble friend Lord Bruce raised the question of Interpol and has asked the Minister to explain the relationship between Europol and Interpol. I apologise for not having given to the Minister notice of this question, but I wonder what is the relationship between the United Nations drugs unit in Vienna and Europol. As I understand it, that is also an arena for the exchange of information about drug smuggling throughout the world, and I wonder whether there is a possibility of duplication and overlap.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and other noble Lords, I too oppose giving operational powers to Europol. I should certainly oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that it should be immersed in the quagmire of European agricultural fraud. That could become a totally all-consuming task. That would deflect it from more proper aspects of crime intelligence. Like all those who have spoken, I welcome this interesting report and its sound conclusions.
7.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and the report of the European Communities Committee which underpins it. It really is testimony to the effectiveness of the scrutiny arrangements that we have put in place for third pillar business. The report represents diligent and painstaking work on the part of the committee under the impressive chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. I know from what has been said already this evening that the House will wish to record its deepest appreciation for that important report.
I am glad to recognise the consensus, not only within the committee but in this House tonight, as to the importance of concerted action to combat the threat of organised crime. Criminal activity is not constrained by national boundaries. Sophisticated techniques and effective joint action are needed to deal with it. That is the opportunity which Europol provides.
But I am equally glad to record and to share emphatically the view that the benefits which can come of those forms of co-operation in tackling serious transnational crime must be balanced by real protection of the rights of the individual and proper democratic accountability. We have sought to emphasise throughout the negotiations the need to have avenues for effective redress through national courts where the innocent individual has suffered injury.
Maintaining that balance between operational effectiveness and the protection of the individual is a proud tradition of our British criminal justice system. I very much welcome this debate as a contribution this evening to maintaining and promoting that tradition in the important work that we are undertaking, with our European colleagues, to promote more effective police co-operation to defeat international crime.
The Government will take full account of the views of the committee and of this House in pursuing that work, both in negotiations to finalise the Europol convention and in subsequent supervision and regulation of the activities and development of Europol itself. My

1333
colleagues and I will answer to this House for the activities of Europol as we do for our own national criminal intelligence and police services.
The committee undertook a great deal of detailed work in a very short time and we have had a very full debate this evening. The issues addressed were wide ranging and complex. I should like to address points in the order in which they were raised in the committee's report. I shall do my best to ensure that in doing so, I also respond to specific points that have been raised in the course of this debate.
The committee began—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, referred to this—by expressing concern that the Europol Drugs Unit (the EDU) had been permitted to begin and extend its activities without a legally binding agreement as to the regulatory framework. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I am therefore able to confirm the Government's response to that by providing a reassurance, not only that the Government took full account of that dimension in agreeing to extend the unit's activities in the Justice and Home Affairs Council but that we shall continue to do so in scrutinising the unit's activities.
The Europol drug unit's activities are strictly limited by the joint action adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 10th March. Like the ministerial agreement it superseded, the text of the joint action regulating the operation of the EDU is clear as to the commitment which member states have made and the rules that will apply. The Government are satisfied that the EDU and member states are acting strictly in accordance with its provisions.
The EDU's activities are limited compared with those envisaged for Europol. The unit acts mainly as an information exchange. Data is only exchanged in accordance with national data protection legislation. But the EDU is also the precursor to Europol itself. It is important to prepare the way for the new organisation as we near agreement on the convention. The types of crime included in the limited expansion of the unit's remit mirror the initial remit of Europol.
Your Lordships have underlined the importance of ensuring that Parliament can make a proper input to the work we undertake under the justice and home affairs pillar of the treaty. That includes ensuring that an input can be made at a time when there is a real opportunity to influence the outcome of discussions. The Government wholeheartedly agree. That is why, as your Lordships know, we have made arrangements to table the texts of documents and to provide memoranda of evidence in advance of the meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. There are, however, occasions when the pace of negotiations is such that documents are issued very shortly before the meetings at which they will be considered. Some presidencies prefer to conduct negotiations by way of separate discussion documents and working papers. They do not provide a full revised text until very late in the day.
Therefore, there are difficulties to be overcome. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that the committee's report and this evening's debate both illustrate ways in which Parliament can and does exercise influence over matters being considered under the third pillar.
1334
I shall now turn to the provisions of the draft convention itself, beginning with Europol's remit. I am given to understand that at one stage there were proposals for a sort of European FBI. But that was not what we, or the majority of member states, wanted. These proposals have not been returned to in negotiations. These have confirmed that Europol staff will have no operational powers.
The organisation will provide, through intelligence exchange and analysis, a sophisticated means of aiding law enforcement throughout Europe and thus an invaluable aid to action to tackle serious, transnational crime. In saying that, I note the exhortation of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, when he talked about state of the art technology to underpin the speedy exchange of that kind of information and providing it when it is necessary. The list of crimes for which Europol may be given competence is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure there is scope to meet developments in crime patterns. This is important. So are provisions which allow the Council of Ministers to control and manage the expansion of the organisation's remit and the priorities chosen for it.
There is, very rightly, a great deal of emphasis on data protection in your Lordships' report as stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. The committee stressed the need for rapid but controlled access to sensitive analysis data; effective protection of individuals by application of national legislation and the Council of Europe Convention as well as suitable arrangements for subject access. Reference was also made to the exchange of data with third parties such as non-member states and the role of the national as well as the Joint Supervisory Body.
National legislation in the United Kingdom already meets the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. The Government are determined to ensure that United Kingdom citizens will have adequate rights and protection in relation to data held by Europol. Adequate training and procedures must and will be adopted. The "need to know" principle must and will be rigorously applied in respect of dissemination of analysis and other data both within Europol and between Europol and national units.
Noble Lords will be aware that many of the provisions of the draft convention relating to data protection are still to be settled. These are also amongst the most difficult aspects of the convention to agree, not least because of the variation that exists in the detail of legislative arrangements and traditions as between member states. However, progress is being made.
There will be arrangements for providing adequate safeguards where the dissemination and use of sensitive data is concerned. Access to sensitive data will be strictly controlled on a "need to know" basis.
Difficult negotiations over subject access are now favouring a position which would base an individual's access to data held by Europol on the national law of the country in which the request for subject access is made. Therefore, our citizens would continue to benefit from the provisions of our own data protection law. There will be national data authorities responsible for checking

1335
exchanges of data between the national unit and Europol. In the United Kingdom the data protection registrar will probably carry out that task.
We shall continue to take account of the committee's recommendations in the course of negotiations as well as in settling subsequent arrangements for handling such matters as the exchange of data with third parties. This evening's debate has provided a further invaluable opportunity to explore, in a balanced way, the important issues which arise as regards both the rights of the individual and the importance of effective law enforcement. The final issue which both the committee's report and your Lordships have raised is the involvement of the European institutions. Again, this is an aspect of the convention which remains to be settled.
The Government believe that a very strong practical justification would be needed to override their basic presumption against involving the community institutions in an intergovernmental agreement such as this. The Government of the United Kingdom are not alone in taking that view. The current presidency proposals envisage no role for the European Court of Justice. There is substantial support for those proposals amongst the 15 member states.
Reference has been made to disputes between member states. The Government note the views that have been expressed by the committee but see no role for the European Court of Justice. We consider that the Council is the right place for handling any interstate and state Europol disputes. It is common in treaties in other international agreements for there to be no final settlement procedure and for obligations not to be accompanied by any means of enforcement. The good faith of the contracting parties is generally considered sufficient and the member states would resolve among themselves any problem which arose. We see no need for individual grievances against Europol to be taken beyond national courts.
With regard to the national supervisory body, our concerns are with the detailed drafting of this article, rather than its substance. We entirely agree that national supervisory bodies acting under national law will have an important part to play in overseeing the work of national units and liaison officers. It is not necessary to give new formal powers to national supervisory bodies. We wish to ensure that the convention does not give any contrary impression.
Under United Kingdom data protection law there is already provision to require the national criminal intelligence service as a data user to assist relevant inquiries, and therefore no new powers of access are necessary.
The power for the United Kingdom data protection registrar to enter Europol premises in the Hague would be unnecessary and impractical. It would be preferable to emphasise the duties of member states and Europol to assist relevant inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised the point about documents that are placed in the Library. I have the same understanding of that issue as the noble Lord, but he will forgive me if I take this matter back to my department and then correspond with him. If other
1336
noble Lords are interested in a reply I shall ensure that it is placed in the Library and that it can be accessed by everybody.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of costs. It is difficult to say what Europol will cost. The Europol Drugs Unit costs the United Kingdom approximately half a million pounds a year. We pay 15 per cent. of the total EDU budget which is a small sum for the added value that the EDU provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and other noble Lords referred to Interpol. Full account will be taken of the role of the European branch of Interpol. The two organisations are already under discussion to minimise any duplication of effort but they are very different bodies: Interpol covers the whole of the world; Europol focuses on 15 states and allows a much more intensive pooling and analysis of the most sensitive intelligence.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked a specific question of which he was kind enough to give me notice, in regard to the UK staff and their status in relation to their representative bodies. It is too early to say what the arrangements will be for centrally recruited Europol staff; that will be a matter for Europol's director and the management board, and will be covered by the staff regulations. All United Kingdom staff on secondment to Europol, both police and customs officers, will retain their existing rights to federation for union representation.
I can confirm that the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, is correct, that the budget for the United Kingdom contribution to Interpol is held by the criminal intelligence services. They also hold the budget for the United Kingdom contribution to the European Drugs Unit. We believe that they will be well placed to judge the value for money that we obtain from these different complementary organisations. I have noted the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and other noble Lords about the importance of keeping a downward pressure on what could be spiralling costs.
There are no plans to fuse the criminal intelligence service and the security service, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, suggested. The diversity of responsibility for tackling terrorism in different member states was one of the reasons why the United Kingdom resisted the inclusion of terrorism in Europol's initial remit. We need time to ensure that satisfactory arrangements can be made with all the organisations concerned to ensure that sensitive intelligence can be handled properly without damaging existing channels.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, stated, the National Criminal Intelligence Service is accountable to the Home Secretary, and he is accountable to Parliament. However, the intelligence service is not a police force, as the noble Lord knows. Its purpose is to gather, to develop and to disseminate intelligence. It supports the activity of individual forces, and chief constables are fully involved in a user's committee which meets regularly to look at the services that the NCIS provides.
My noble friend Lord Hacking referred to individual data protection rights. Although the draft article that provides for individual access to data held by Europol is still under consideration, I am able to provide reassurance to all noble Lords on one point that has been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and my noble friend

1337
Lord Hacking. They referred to a provision by which Europol could refuse to provide data if disproportionate cost was entailed. That provision has been deleted from the latest working document.
This is not, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, a question of dragging feet. This is an important issue. Whilst I understand the need for a resolution, the process of getting agreement between member states and the reconciliation of sensible issues, for example, the protection of the right of the individual, is painstaking work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Aldington that the signing of the convention would be desirable sooner rather than later. We are working to that end. However, there is no wilful dragging of feet.
I have listened to the varied opinions that have been expressed this evening. I have also noted the points made in the report. We shall take the latter into account; as, indeed, we were exhorted to do by my noble friend Lord Hacking. However, I realise that I have missed one point regarding Interpol. It concerns its relationship with the United Nations and was a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. The two organisations are different. The United Nations unit in Vienna does not look at specific drug offences; it looks at patterns of trafficking. There is no real overlap. However, the point made by the noble Baroness regarding possible duplication is something that we need to watch out for both with Interpol and as regards the relationship with United Nations' organisations.
Perhaps I may conclude by thanking your Lordships for the welcome and constructive contribution which both the report and this evening's debate have made to our work on the convention. We are fully committed to the task of defeating international organised crime. Europol can make an enormous contribution in regard to that task. The Government are equally committed to the protection of the rights of the individual. That aspect must not be ignored in such debates. However, those commitments are ones which we share with other member states, whatever the variations of our national laws and whatever the differences in our traditions. I therefore have every hope and expectation of a successful and fruitful outcome to the present negotiations. Once again, I should like to express our sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and to his committee for their report, which has made a very important contribution to the subject.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and especially for her undertaking that the rights of British subjects in regard to data protection and the importance of maintaining the need-to-know principle will be persevered in by the Government. I should also like to thank noble Lords for participating in tonight's debate and for the very warm welcome which has been given to the report. However, in view of the hour, I hope that I will not be thought discourteous if I comment on only a small number of points.
The noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Knights, rightly stressed the importance of the draft convention. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord
1338
Bruce of Donington, apparently thought our report somewhat academic. He appeared to propound the extraordinary notion that lawyers are not practical people. I find that quite a remarkable attitude for any Member of this House to adopt. However, the noble Lord will take comfort from the fact that, in the Select Committee, those voting in favour of the sub-committee's report included only one obvious candidate in that respect, as the others were not lawyers. Therefore, the others must be tarred with the same impractical brush.
I was very sad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was not able to concur with the majority in the recommendation made about seeking to achieve uniformity in the interpretation of the convention. But, as a result of his disagreement, I have learnt that the delights of disagreeing with the noble Lord and debating against him are almost as great as the delights of agreeing with him in the committee. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, outside the committee.
On the question of the European Court of Justice, I should like to make three brief points. If discussion about it and the acceptance of the majority's recommendation were to be the cause of delay, it would be highly regrettable. When we considered the draft convention, there was a provision that the European Court of Justice should have jurisdiction to decide matters of interpretation. Therefore, if there is any delay, it is those who seek to remove that provision who might be the cause of the delay.
There is already a division. I accept the Minister's statement that many states now go along with a proposal to exclude the European Court of Justice. I do not know about that; the Minister knows the details involved, whereas I do not. My information is that a substantial number of member states are still in favour of including a provision giving the European Court of Justice some jurisdiction. However, it is essential for noble Lords to bear in mind the fact that what is being proposed is very limited. In the first place, it is that national judges throughout the member states should have the opportunity—in rare cases, no doubt—to refer to a central court questions regarding the interpretation of the treaty. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I find it quite extraordinary that the Home Secretary should regard it as not in the least disturbing that the convention should be interpreted in various ways, especially in regard to British subjects, in different states which are party to the convention.
Of course, the intention is that that most of those disputes will be decided without any reference. It would also be hoped that disputes between states could be decided in the Council. But the Minister will not be offended if I say that, if that always happened in all treaties, there would be no need for the International Court of Justice or for the many international tribunals which, over the centuries, have been established. I find it very Utopian to suggest that all such disputes will be decided with equanimity and ease by member states in the Council.
I desire to say something that I did not stress before. I believe that all our witnesses, except those from the Home Office, were in favour of the European Court having jurisdiction. Certainly, Justice, Liberty and the Meijers

1339
Committee from the Netherlands, which gave evidence, and others, were in favour of it. It is not just a lawyer's paradise; it is something which people practically engage in in important spheres, especially those underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. They really need to be dealt with.
I, perhaps, made the mistake of saying that I was comforted by the final sentence in the reply of the Home Office stating that it would continue to have regard to the committee's opinion when negotiations were taking place on the question of jurisdiction either of the European Court or of an independent tribunal. From what the Minister said this afternoon, it sounded to me very much as if the door was very firmly closed against any such suggestion. However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that the primary question is not which tribunal; the primary question is whether there should be uniformity.
Finally, in relation to Interpol, I, too, would accept that the latter is very different from the proposed Europol. The kind of data that it considers and its involvement with data protection are very different; it does not engage in the same form of analysis; and, indeed, it is not accountable. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we went into the matter but came to the view that the case for having a separate Europol was fully made out.
At the end of the day there is only one matter between us; namely, the question of a uniform interpretation. I hope that the Minister will stick to what was said in the Government's written response and that she will keep our paragraph 109 firmly in front of her when the discussions take place. I am most grateful to all speakers for tonight's most interesting and valuable debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armagh Observatory and Planetarium (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
8.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the above order is to repeal and re-enact with modern provisions the Armagh Observatory and Museum Act 1791 (as extended by the University and Collegiate and Scientific Institutions Act (Northern Ireland) 1938), while preserving the observatory's historical origins and its mainly ecclesiastical and independent corporation.
The observatory was originally founded and endowed by the Church of Ireland Archbishop Robinson of Armagh in 1790 and established by the 1791 Act, a public Act of the former Irish Parliament. The governors find many of its provisions to be restrictive and archaic. It is for that reason that the draft order is being promoted by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland at the request and with the agreement of the governors of the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium. Consultation on the original proposal has not resulted in any changes to the draft order.
It may be helpful to give your Lordships a brief background to the role and activities of the observatory and the planetarium. The observatory was part of Archbishop Robinson's plan for a university of Armagh, a plan which is now approaching fruition with the establisment of the Queen's University of Belfast outreach centre in Armagh. The observatory is the second oldest in the British Commonwealth.
Armagh has remained at the forefront of observational astronomy and is an important centre of research and advanced education in astronomy and astrophysics undertaken in collaboration with Queen's University Belfast. While astronomical observations are no longer carried out at the Armagh site, its research work involves widespread international collaboration and the use of observing facilities far from Armagh, such as Australia, Hawaii and South Africa, as well as satellite-based telescopes.
The Armagh Planetarium officially opened in 1968. Over the past 27 years the planetarium has gained a worldwide reputation for innovation and achievement in the field of astronomy education. The past three years in particular have seen some dramatic improvements in the facilities, including: a 25-acre astropark designed to give visitors a chance to walk through a scale model of the universe; an eartharium, a 2,000 square metre hands-on exhibition hall devoted to the understanding of the earth and its place in the universe; a hall of astronomy, a 500 square metre hands-on astronomical exhibition area; and a star theatre, equipped with the first digistar virtual reality star projector in the United Kingdom, and interactive response system.
The planetarium's aim is to enhance the public understanding of science, and it is actively involved in science education in Northern Ireland. Over 30,000 school children are expected to visit the planetarium this year. The observatory and planetarium, as well as providing valuable educational and research facilities, provide an exciting tourist attraction, and play an active role in encouraging people to visit Armagh. Tourist numbers have increased from 17,331 in 1991 to over 32,000 in eight months in 1994. Because of the ceasefire the demand for tourism is increasing rapidly, and we can expect to see those figures increase by something like a further three-quarters.
The draft order provides for the continuation of the independent corporation created by the 1791 Act, with its existing powers and responsibilities updated to take account of modern day conditions, and encompasses both existing and possible future functions in regard to research and education. The order will, for example, enable the governors to charge for their services. One of the main changes will be to remove the benefits (lodgings and tax-free income from the observatory lands) applicable to the office, formerly referred to in the 1791 Act as astronomer and keeper, and instead place these at the disposal of the governors for the support of the observatory and planetarium.
Those are the main provisions of the order. The remaining provisions are largely of an administrative nature and are set out in a supporting schedule, the main elements of which cover memberships, staffing and procedures of the governors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, since this order regularises and puts in proper order the affairs of the observatory and planetarium and is supported by the governors and staff, we on this side similarly support it. We are happy to endorse the tributes that have been paid to the excellent reputation that the observatory and planetarium have enjoyed.
I noticed with interest that the Minister described an astropark that was able to define the earth and its place in the universe. I conclude from that that the astropark is not sufficiently ambitious to seek to describe the present Government and their place in the universe since they both seem to be rather vestigial.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to this order. If one were able to ignore a sense of history in this House, which would be difficult, it would be impossible to do so faced with a handful of your Lordships sitting here amending an Act of 1791. It is very interesting to think of a scientific foundation and a wonderful centre of research, which this certainly is, governed by the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, the Dean of Armagh Cathedral, other members of the chapter of Armagh Cathedral and one or two token laymen in the shape of a representative of the Department of Education and an appointee from Queen's University. It makes one realise that in 1791 there must have been considerable anxiety on the part of those eminent ecclesiastics to keep control of the heavens and not let them pass into alien hands.
It is not just a first-class research facility; it is an important unifying influence in Armagh itself. I believe that it plays a constructive role. It attracts 50,000 visitors a year as well as 20,000 schoolchildren. It is nice to have the chance to pay tribute to the useful work that it does. I have only one question to put to the Minister. When one looks at Schedule 2, paragraph 2(1), of the order, one sees that the governors of Armagh Observatory and Planetarium retain their ecclesiastical presence on the board. I should like to have her assurance that the other nominees of the Department of Education and Queen's will be able to represent the wider traditions, and the other religious traditions, of Northern Ireland. With that question from these Benches, I have pleasure in supporting the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for this order. It is indeed an outstanding establishment. I hope that those who have not visited it will find time to do so. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the answer to his question is most definitely yes. One of our major tasks in Northern Ireland is to make sure that the benefits that peace can bring are shared by everybody. That applies to every establishment there. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I now spend my time persuading everybody that Northern Ireland is the centre of the universe. I shall extend that activity to the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arts Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Arts Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 be agreed. I wish to inform your Lordships that as a result of wide-ranging consultation with arts interests it has been decided to drop from the original proposal Articles 4(3) and 9 on powers of approval and directions by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Those articles, along with the original draft Article 6 regarding grants to the Arts Council, and the schedule, paragraphs 7(1) and (3) on the approval of arrangements for committees, were the subject of concern by the Arts Council and a number of others. They felt that those provisions vested some unnecessary powers in the Department of Education for Northern Ireland and could have the effect of undermining the Government's commitment to the arm's length principle which allowed the Arts Council independence to make decisions on matters of artistic judgment and allocate resources in line with those decisions.
The Government do not envisage a situation whereby instructions or directions on such matters have to be given to the Arts Council, and for this reason decided that Articles 4(3) and 9 can be omitted from the draft order. Article 6 and the schedule have also been amended.
The main purpose of the order is to establish the Arts Council of Northern Ireland as a statutory body and provide for its membership, procedure and functions. The order is necessary because government expenditure on the arts has risen from £3.2 million in 1985–86 to a planned grant-in-aid of £6.7 million in 1995–96 and it is now appropriate that the Arts Council should be fully accountable to Parliament for this substantial amount of funds. In addition, the council will be responsible for the disbursement of lottery proceeds to arts bodies in Northern Ireland. These will be worth in excess of £4 million per annum.
It has been decided not to place limits on the size of the membership of the council but it is intended that the present members of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland will be appointed as the first members of the statutory body.
It is important that the arts are available to every section of the community in the Province and that no one is precluded from participating in them. The provisions of Article 4 charge the Arts Council with the responsibility of developing and improving the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the arts, and of increasing public access to and participation in the arts. To ensure that there is co-operation at local level the Arts Council is required to consult regularly with district councils.
A major part of the Arts Council's responsibilities will be giving financial assistance to individuals and bodies. Article 5 provides for these safeguards to ensure the effective and efficient use of public funds.
Article 6 permits the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to attach such conditions to grants as it thinks appropriate for securing the proper management and control of money received by the council and to provide power for the department to attach such other conditions as it thinks necessary in the public interest, but not—I stress the word "not"—to exercise this power with the intention of interfering with the exercise of the Arts Council's artistic judgment.
The council will be required to keep account of all monies received and paid out by it and submit its annual statement of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland for certification. It must also prepare and submit to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland an annual report on the exercise of its functions. A copy of the annual report, together with the certified statement of accounts and any report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, will be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly by the department. While the Assembly stands prorogued, the report will be laid before Parliament.
I have dealt only with the main provisions of the order. The remaining provisions are largely of an administrative nature and are set out in a supporting schedule, the main elements of which cover membership, staffing and procedures of the council. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, similarly, we are happy to endorse the passage of the order. In particular it seems that the consultation process was fruitful, in that the Government recognise the limits on sensible directions and instructions in an area of this kind.
However, the corollary to that is the question of accountability. The Arts Council of Northern Ireland is, as I understand it, the successor to the marvellously named Centre for Encouragement of Music and the Arts which was a company limited by guarantee and therefore was liable to have annual general meetings. I would welcome an assurance from the Minster that general accountability will be fully borne in mind in the operation of the new body. Other than that, I have nothing to add or to question.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her presentation of the order. It is one that we broadly support, not least because it has been welcomed by the Arts Council for Northern Ireland and other arts bodies. From these Benches we support the order because it pursues the policy that arts councils should be devolved in structure. It is worth while to pay a tribute to the Arts Council for Northern Ireland, which has responded to the needs of a divided society in a most admirable way by placing valuable emphasis on community arts, on traditional dance and on crafts, as well as supporting the justly renowned Ulster Orchestra, the Belfast Festival, the Grand Opera House and the Lyric Theatre. Anyone who follows the very lively arts
1344
scene in Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole knows what good work the Arts Council for Northern Ireland does.
From these Benches we welcome in particular the provisions which require that the Arts Council for Northern Ireland consults with district councils. However, the noble Baroness will recognise that district council sponsorship varies greatly. I hope that the Government will keep under review the variable levels of assistance for the arts by district councils so that we can create a more comprehensive arts policy for Northern Ireland.
I should like to take up one issue with the noble Baroness. There is little, if any, reference in the order to the National Lottery. If the Northern Ireland Arts Council receives the anticipated £21 million to £22 million from the lottery for 1995—and, who knows? with the success of the National Lottery the figure may be higher—how will it be implemented? Do the Government intend to maintain the commitment that they have made for the remainder of the UK: that lottery monies will not by used in substitution for existing revenue commitments?
Although the Northern Ireland Arts Council does wonderful work, the noble Baroness will be aware that support for the arts in Northern Ireland has always been lower on a per capita basis than for the remainder of the UK. On a per capita basis, last year's figures were £4.12 for Northern Ireland, £4.73 for Scotland and £4.75 for Wales. Given the vital role that the arts play in rebuilding a civic society in Northern Ireland, and the economic circumstances and geographical isolation of Northern Ireland, should the Northern Ireland Office be looking to achieve at least the same per capita funding for Northern Ireland as is the case in Scotland and Wales? In reply, perhaps the noble Baroness will briefly address that point. Otherwise I have pleasure in supporting the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, again I thank noble Lords for their support. The order is important because there is such a wealth of culture and art in all its forms in Northern Ireland. Sharing that wealth of culture has to be part of the task in the years ahead. It can bring unity where there has not been unity before, and that is exactly what we need.
There is much to do, but the growth has been substantial. I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the grant per capita is higher in Scotland and Wales than in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to be able to reassure him that, in terms of percentage uplift, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland has fared better in the current financial year than any of its counterparts in Great Britain. I hope that that will indicate to him that we regard such funding as an area which requires attention, against difficult pressure from other areas. We shall continue to regard it as a key area.
With regard to lottery money I am delighted to assure him that the Government do not intend that money provided to the Province by the lottery—as he rightly says, it could be substantial—should substitute for that provided from public expenditure. It has been

1345
a clear statement that projects should not emanate from government departments but should emerge from the community. We shall be delighted to watch that occur to the benefit of the arts.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the contribution of district councils to the arts. They believe that it is the duty of the Arts Council to seek to galvanise them into further investment. The Government expect the council to enter where possible into partnership agreements with local authorities with a view to increasing their involvement in the support of local events and arts organisations, and to ensure maximum collaboration and complementarity in the use of public funds.
1346
One of the most pleasing aspects over the past few months has been the determination of the local councils to take responsibility for what is happening in their own communities. That extends from the economic areas to the arts and social areas. What we see occurring in Northern Ireland benefits all sections, all sectors and all communities. It is a great privilege to see that occurring.
I thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Children (Scotland) Bill
First Sitting
Tuesday, 6 June, 1995
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I put the question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage since it is the first Committee of the Whole House to be taken off the Floor. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Baroness Faithfull: Do we have to turn the microphones on?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No.
Baroness Faithfull: They are not necessary. Thank you.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I asked if it was possible for Members of the Committee to speak sitting instead of standing if they find difficulty in standing. That is accorded in the Committee of the Whole House for those who are in a wheelchair and I ask that it should be extended to this Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sure the Committee would like to give the same facility to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I think though that if we can adhere throughout to the procedures in every other respect as they are in the Chamber, we will find that that is the best way forward.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Parental responsibilities]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) if the child is living with him, to promote the maintenance of personal relations and direct contact on a regular basis between the child and the parent with whom he does not live; and").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that both parents understand that they have a duty to their child to act co-operatively at all times. The amendment requires the residential parent to enable and facilitate contact by the non-residential parent. The philosophical basis of this amendment is that it is better for the child to know both his parents than to lose contact with one of them. Continuing contact allows the developing child to identify and understand his inherited nature.
While I accept that there will be some parents who cannot bring themselves to separate the bitterness of their own failed relationship from their continuing task of parenting their children, I believe that it would be very useful to have this positive guidance in the Bill.
Regrettably, studies have shown that 50 per cent of non-residential parents lose contact with their children within two years of separation. In the context of shared parenting this statistic shows how much there is a need for clearly stated principles in the Bill.
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 10. I believe that it follows that if a residential parent has the responsibility and duty to promote contact with the non-residential parent, there must also be a right to expect that the other parent will take up his responsibility and opportunity of contact. Furthermore, the intention of Amendment No. 10 is to plug the gap created by changes made to residence orders during the Report stage in another place.
The Bill is not clear about the position of a parent who has his child living with him periodically. The Bill allows such a parent to acquire a residence order which covers his responsibilities when the child is living with him. The Bill leaves unanswered the question of whether such a parent with periodic residential contact needs also to apply for a contact order to enable contact with the child while he is living with the other parent. The condition relating to contact orders—that is, that that parent does not have the child living with him—seems to prevent a parent with periodic residential contact from applying for a contact order. As we are trying to encourage continuing relationships between estranged parents and their children, I believe these amendments will resolve the problem. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am concerned about the amendment because there is so often such appalling friction between the two parents when they have got divorced. I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 10, but I think the first two amendments create more difficulties than cures.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, agreed to consider the points raised in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 when similar amendments were tabled there. However, following that consideration we have concluded that it is not necessary to provide a specific responsibility for the parent who has the child living with him or her to facilitate contact with the parent who does not have the child living with her or him; nor do we see that there is a need for a corresponding right.

CWH 3
Our concern in particular is how such amendments would impact on the rest of the Bill and, more importantly, what precise effects they would have on all of the parties concerned. Our conclusion has been that the amendments made to Clause 11 in another place are sufficient as they stand to allow the courts to regulate the sharing of the residence arrangements of children to such an extent as to make unnecessary the amendments which the noble Earl has moved to facilitate contact. Nothing is between us on the desirability of such contact being maintained; the question is simply whether we need to include this provision, and our conclusion is that it is unnecessary.
As regards Amendment No.10, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this point, but it should be quite clear that when a child is staying with his parents alternately or periodically, he or she normally should have contact with the parent with whom he or she is not living at that time. It is therefore right that the court should be able to make an order regulating that contact in circumstances of alternating or periodic changes. I hope nevertheless to give the noble Earl this assurance: it is not necessary to spell that out in the Bill. Our view is that the provisions in Clause 11 regarding residence are sufficient; nor is it necessary to require the parent with whom the child is staying to allow the other parent to have his contact. If a court made an order regulating residence and/or contact, anyone who obstructed that order from being implemented would indeed be in contempt of court and serious consequences could flow from that. With that brief explanation I hope I have persuaded the noble Earl that, while there is merit in what he wishes to achieve, these amendments are not necessary.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether we are now in the state in this Bill where we are dealing with philosophy instead of practicability. There is a great philosophy that every child is entitled to two parents. I take the view that some children are entitled to have one parent if the other parent is being a bad parent. In this context I wonder whether the phrase,
"to promote the maintenance of personal relations and direct contact on a regular basis between the child and the parent with whom he does not live".
in fact imposes a social obligation on the partner. Let us forget about people being married, because people do not very often get married these days. Let us take the partner, the father and the mother of the child. Is there an obligation on the mother who has been deserted by the father, perhaps the father of three or more children, who has been away for five years and who has contributed nothing to the household? Is there now a duty imposed by the Bill on the mother, who has taken over the burden of looking after the children, to persuade the children to contact the father? These are very personal issues. Should it not be left to the children in their own due time to make contact with their parents?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord raises a number of matters which are philosophical in their nature and which go to the core of Part I of the Bill. In Clauses 1 and 2 we set out what are parental responsibilities and
CWH 4
parental rights. At the centre of this set of amendments is the order that the court might be making under Clause 11. It is not difficult to envisage circumstances, with which I am sure the noble Lord is familiar, where one parent has simply disappeared, has been an abusive parent, or the like. That parent would not be encouraged and would not be allowed by the court to have contact with the child or indeed the residence of the child.
I sought to explain that within Clause 11 I considered there to be a sufficiently wide range of options to enable the court to make an order that would allow residence to alternate and that during that period there should be the sort of contact the noble Earl wishes to achieve.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I will study tomorrow in Hansard. I hold to the philosophy that it is important for all children to know their parents. This does not mean that I believe that it should be necessarily on a regular basis, but contact should be contact which can be described as regular, albeit perhaps on an annual basis. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Parental rights]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Faithful1 Baroness Faithful1 moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) to have access to identifying information about the child's genetic parents.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to provide access to parents of children who were adopted. The parents of children conceived by donor insemination would be able to obtain information about the children's origins to help in the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.
I realise that this is an extremely difficult amendment. I move it based on personal experience. On three occasions when dealing with children who were adopted or the result of artificial insemination, when the child reached the age of 10 the doctor from the Radcliffe Infirmary telephoned me and said he wanted to know the medical history of the parents of the child. Fortunately, I had the medical history and it was a help to him because the child had developed some peculiar disease.
Secondly, I took part in the proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I am in some difficulty here because I wanted to check with the committee under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 whether this was a wise recommendation or not, but unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is out of the country at the moment and the vice-chairman of the committee, Mrs. Deech, was unable to see me. I shall, therefore, be withdrawing the amendment with a view to bringing it forth at the next stage.
It is right for a child to know its origins, and it is right that the parents of that child should know its origins. But if you have a child who is the result of artificial insemination, will you get any donors to give sperm if they think that their name and their medical history will be made public and made available? On the other hand,

CWH 5
a Dr. MacWhinney has carried out research in Scotland. She says that in Denmark and Sweden the name and the history is given to the adopters so that they know what is the medical background of the child. I just ask myself whether this would be so in England.
I would like to make a suggestion which was also put forward by Family Care in Edinburgh and was supported by Dr. Scarth, the psychiatrist of the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh. I would like to suggest that this should be discussed as between the Association of Scottish Directors of Social Services, the voluntary organisations and the Adoption Society in Edinburgh and, if I may respectfully suggest, the Scottish Home Department, so that we can come to some agreed policy. There is no doubt about it that this should be further discussed in view of the fact that embryology will develop even further and that it certainly is right that children should know their medical background in case of something developing at a later stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As I did not see the amendment until this morning, I have not been able to do any research into the matter. I rather think that an amendment of this kind was moved during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill but was unsuccessful.
I think you would certainly be up against serious trouble if you wanted the name of the donor parent to be disclosed, but I would have thought that there could be no objection to medical history, but without the name being disclosed. That surely would meet the case.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I find this a very distressing area of life with regard to the genetic parents and so on. I just wonder whether we are creating artificial children. I use that phrase advisedly in that we have access to the child's genetic parents who are not the child's natural parents. How far does this go on?
I am not against what the noble Baroness said in principle and I can see that at some time children will want to know who their parents are. But I just wonder how far we can go in this direction without creating some substantial degree of artificiality in society.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I think the whole thing is perfectly frightful, but it is happening and I think that we are not going to stop it happening. Therefore, we must be prepared to mitigate the worst side effects.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have some sympathy with my noble friend's concerns. The Government—indeed your Lordships' House—will be well aware of the conflicting opinions that have been expressed in earlier statutes and earlier debates both for and against the disclosure of "identifying information" in the case of these children. It was indeed a subject of considerable debate during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. My noble friend may recall that regulation-making powers are inserted into the Act to enable necessary regulations to be made to allow for the provision of information to such young people when they reach the age of 18. The UK health departments intend to launch a consultation exercise in due course to gauge
CWH 6
public opinion on that matter.
However, I hope that my noble friend will not return to this at a later stage of the Bill, because I very much doubt whether it would be appropriate for the Children (Scotland) Bill to deal with the issue of disclosure of information about a child's genetic parents, given that such regulation-making powers exist on a United Kingdom basis in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
I also have a specific concern that the words "identifying information" which appear in her amendment could lead to doubt about what is meant. It could mean anything from blood group or genetic information, which I think she is most concerned with, to a name, contact information or address. That is a particular difficulty, but I note with interest that my noble friend intends to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, he did say "aged 18". As, unfortunately, sometimes people seem to get married as young as 16, if this matter to be considered at the next stage of the Bill, I wonder whether the age should not be slightly reduced?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: When I was referring to the age of 18, it was in the context of providing regulations which gave that information to young people, and I take it—but I had better check this and write to the noble Earl if I am wrong—that that is what is provided in the 1990 Act. I was not indicating what I would consider to be an appropriate age should such provisions he included in this Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: I hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister says, and I have great sympathy with him. I am grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken. I shall consider the matter further and at the moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Protection of children from violence.
(" .—(1) In any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) against a person for striking a child, it shall not be a defence for the person to establish that he struck the child in the purported exercise of any parental right if he struck the child—

(a) with a stick, belt or other object of whatever description; or

(b) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing—

(i) injury; or

(ii) pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.

(2) Any person who has care and control of a child but who does not have parental responsibilities or rights in relation to the child shall have no greater right than has a parent to administer corporal punishment to the child.
(3) In section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 the following are hereby repealed—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "assaults," and "assaulted";

(b) subsection (7).").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak from a sedentary position as I find it very difficult to stand for any length of time.
This amendment has all-party support, as can be seen from the list of noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment. I apologise for the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who spoke on this matter on Second Reading, but she is out of the country at the moment. I am quite sure that she is whole-heartedly behind the amendment to which she has put her name.
I very much hope that we shall reach a conclusion on the amendment at this stage. However, if it is necessary to table an amendment on this subject at Report, because this is an all-party issue I hope that it can be treated as a free vote—that is, a vote on which there are no Whips. That is an important matter. When this matter was raised in the other place, unfortunately the voting was on a Whipped basis. I think that it is very important that we should be able to register the opinions of this Committee without the usual "benefit", if that is the right word, of the Whips. There are precedents for this, I think, even in this particular instance of protecting a child from violence. Therefore I hope that all parties will agree this proposal, if and when we come to vote on the amendment.
The amendment is in exactly the same form as the amendment attached to the report of the Scottish Law Commissioners, and to that extent I feel greatly protected, because I have the expertise of their draftsmanship. I will come back to draftsmanship at a later stage. I merely wish to say that this is not my draft and I gratefully adopt the draft of the Scottish Law Commission.
What is the purpose of the amendment? Before coming to the purpose, I should say that the need for the amendment is illustrated by a report which I have not seen myself, although the conclusions have been sent to me. It is a report of a recent, and I think unique, study of physical violence to children in the United Kingdom. It is a study, which is fairly broadly based, of more than 400 families and it is funded by the Department of Health. The report found that one in six mothers reported using what is defined as "severe" physical punishment on their children, and that a quarter of seven-year-olds have been "severely" punished physically. The large majority—that is 88 per cent.—of all "severe" punishments involved hitting children. The guidelines defined punishment as "severe" if it involved,"
"intention or potential to cause injury or psychological damage, use of implements, repeated actions over a long period of time."
The research is based on interviews with mothers and other parents, but mostly mothers, and shows beyond reasonable doubt that a substantial majority of children in the United Kingdom are still suffering abusive forms of physical punishment. They are the kind of abusive forms of physical punishment which this new clause seeks to discourage.
I would say incidentally that there is also good evidence that violence of this kind breeds violence and that children who were frequently aggressive with their siblings were four times as likely as those who were rarely aggressive to their siblings to have been severely punished themselves. I think that statement of the need
CWH 8
for the amendment is absolutely clear and the onus against the amendment lies clearly with those who disagree with severe physical punishment of children.
I would say also that there is a clear change of opinion, not merely in this country but throughout the world, and indeed in the European Union, that severe punishment of children is no longer considered to be necessary in schools. We have a minor exception in this country. Private schools as opposed to state schools can administer corporal punishment with the consent of the parents of the children concerned, but that is a very minor exception. In the home as well as the school it is now considered, I think, not necessary and it can be extremely damaging for physical punishment to be used by parents or schoolmasters.
That is the main need for the amendment. I come to the purpose of the amendment, which is very positive. Here again I am indebted to the Scottish Law Commissioners, because I can read from their report what the purpose of their amendment which I have adopted is. The Scottish Law Commissioners' own explanatory notes state:
"Subsection 1. This subsection clarifies and limits the extent of the parental right of chastisement".
I would say that "parental" is an important word.
"This is done by drawing a distinction between an ordinary safe smack on the one hand, and canings, belting or beatings with objects of various sorts, and any blows which cause or risk causing, injury or prolonged pain or discomfort, on the other. Many other forms of punishment not referred to in this clause are already covered by Section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, which outlaws ill-treatment of children generally.
Subsection 2: This subsection makes it clear that those, without parental responsibilities or parental rights, having care or control of a child, have no greater right than a parent has to administer corporal punishment to a child.
Subsection 3: This subsection removes from the statute book a provision which is unnecessary and which appears to condone ill-treatment of children".
In this new climate of opinion, I am happy to say that Scotland has been at the forefront of reform in children's law for the last 30 years. Following the Kilbrandon Report, which is within the recollection of many, I am sure, the introduction and development of the children's hearing system has been an admired innovation. The 1990s have seen the United Nations convention and other international instruments as well as the kind of weighty research evidence I mentioned earlier, leading to a reappraisal of what is acceptable in the modern day and age of punishment for children.
As I said, Scotland has an opportunity in the Bill to be responsive to these trends and to continue to demonstrate an innovative approach. The clear welfare orientation of Scottish children's law, I gather, would minimise the risk of any such provision working against the interests of children. Scotland being in the lead in this sphere of action, I hope it continues to be so and takes the advice of the Scottish Law Commission, set out in the amendment.
In the other place, the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, made a number of technical objections. I thought it right, in view of those objections, which have not so far been examined in public, to write to the secretary of the Scottish Law Commission to ask

CWH 9
if the commissioners would kindly let me know the basis of their recommendations and also, of course, what their response was to the criticisms of their recommendations adduced by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
The Scottish Law Commission was extremely co-operative and did exactly what I wished. The commissioners wrote a letter which could be shown to anyone, and very sensibly sent it to the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. As the noble and learned Lord has the letter and as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton also has it, it is unnecessary for me to go into any detail in Committee about the technicalities of the proposal. It concerns things like the concept of evil intent and the meaning of assault and reasonable punishment. These things can, of course, he examined later in Committee if necessary but I thought I would provide an opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to give his opinion on the letter if he so wishes.
The letter from the Scottish Law Commissioners is not wedded to this particular form of amendment. If there is another route by which the result can be achieved, they would be happy to consider it. In other words, instead of using the concept of defence they would use the concept of justification; though I believe that if you go down that route there are some difficulties. In any case, in their letter they have shown flexibility and I would hope that the letter of the Law Commission, of which the noble and learned Lord has a copy, will satisfy the Government that we can proceed on a constructive basis with this amendment which has been drafted by the Law Commissioners themselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson and to make three points. He has already made the first point that children who have been physically maltreated, or beaten through malpractices on the parent's part, pass that on when they are grown up so that it passes from generation to generation, and may become either worse or better with each generation. Therefore I support the noble Lord in that respect.
My second point is this. Where you are caring for children, whether your own or other people's, the vulnerable children among them suffer greatly when physically chastised. I believe that we do not realise that for a sturdy little person a whack does not really go too deep. However, for a vulnerable child it goes very deep and lasts a long time. It is not possible to distinguish between the vulnerable and the robust. Therefore, I support the amendment because I believe great damage can be caused to vulnerable children, particularly those in care.
My third point is that this amendment makes it clear both to the community and the people at large, as well as those who have care of children, exactly what the legal position is. For those three reasons I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I also rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. In common with the two Members who have spoken, I continue to believe that the public are keen to receive guidance from the legislation. The clear
CWH 10
message that smacking with an open hand is acceptable but that hitting, beating or causing long-term pain is not will be welcomed in Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I find this a very confusing amendment if I may say so with the greatest of respect to the Members of the Committee who have put their names to it. We seem to be indulging in negative law rather than positive law. The law in Scotland is that you are not entitled to assault anybody and we have had at least two cases within the past two years where the courts have disagreed, but it is all a question of degree and circumstance. If a parent assaults a child, the parent is guilty of assault, pure and simple.
The courts have to interpret the law. The amendment in its present form is negative because it sets out what is not to be the offence. It does not set out what is an offence. It is an offence to assault your child, whether he is one, 10 or 18.
The amendment contains the phrase,
"the purported exercise of any parental right".
I do not know what the word "purported" means. You are either a parent or you are not, and you have a right to look after your children.
There is one aspect of the amendment I do not really understand. I have discussed it during the course of the day. I was told in one of the briefings—I cannot remember from where it came—that the proposal did not stop a parent smacking a child. If that is right, I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Minister, in his time as Lord Advocate, will know very well that parents who shake a child of six months, or slap a child of six months, kill the child. Therefore if the objective is to create some degree of distinction between using a weapon on a child—a stick, a belt or other object of whatever description—and smacking a child, the provisions do not achieve that objective. Asking the courts in Scotland to interpret this amendment in the course of hearing evidence about assault would place a heavy burden on them.
Another matter troubles me. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, can advise your Lordships whether I am right in saying that this amendment does not excuse a smack. I think it was said on Second Reading—I am sure that the Minister agrees—that there is no such a beast as a safe smack. If you hit a child, you hit a child. How do you regulate the quality of a smack? Whatever the Scottish Law Commission may say about there being a safe smack, I do not accept it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I would agree with his view that a smack is a smack. There is no question about that, but it is very much better to have a limitation such as the Law Commission is proposing and to allow only a smack and not the use of something that assists a smack such as an implement of some sort or another. The reason I make this distinction is, in the first place, that if you impose a rule that all smacking of any sort, whatever degree of danger it may import, shall be prohibited, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce; secondly, it would be exceedingly difficult to

CWH 11
distinguish between what the noble Lord calls a "slap leading to death" and a slap that is almost equal to a stroke.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Lord for that exhortation. However, I took up the words that he used. I hope I am not doing him any disservice. He used the words "a safe smack" which is used in the Scottish Law Commission report. Speaking as a parent, I just do not believe there is such a thing. You do not hit children—pure and simple. I do not think the amendment really takes us anywhere.
Turning to the issue of assault, you either assault your child or you do not assault your child in the law of Scotland. We have a very open approach to assault in Scotland. We are not hidebound by statute like the English and Welsh. They get themselves into terrible confusion about actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. We have quite a simple system: you either assault somebody and hurt them or you do not. No problem. I do not know the Government's view of the amendment, but, for example, how is a judge to interpret the words of subsection (1)(b) which states:
"in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing

(i) injury; or

(ii) pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.

Let us imagine an eight year old child coming into court; children sometimes have no concept of time, and a belt across the face is a belt across the face. Will the judge say, "Well, tell me, Jimmy, how long did you feel the pain? How long did you feel the discomfort?" A child will not be able to answer that. I think that the amendment as it stands leads to confusion and will never be properly interpreted in the courts. At the moment, as I have said, we have two conflicting views. The mens rea is the guilty intent to cause injury to the child. I can see no reason why the law of Scotland should be interfered with by an amendment such as this, no matter how well meaning. I certainly would not support the amendment in its present form.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to illustrate the other side of the problem: the odd child who really puts his life at risk. I heard rather an interesting case only a short time ago of a child of eight or nine years of age who started to unscrew a 13-amp wall plug—for fun! And the child had done it twice before. The mother happened to be stirring something with a wooden spoon and in desperation struck the child jolly hard with the spoon. You have to take action occasionally to stop this sort of thing. What are you going to do with a child who is determined to dash across the road in front of a car? If you hit a child with a rolled up newspaper it does not do any harm but it very often stops the child. One really must be able to do that. We have to be very careful what we put into law. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, indicated that it was desirable to clarity the law in Scotland. I do not believe, for the reasons that
CWH 12
have been given, that that would be the effect. We want to start clearly at the beginning by appreciating what the new clause, even if it were to be adopted, would not do. What it would not do is to make it unlawful for a parent in any circumstances to take his or her hand to the child. My noble friend Lady Faithfull gave the example, saying that there might be some sturdy young body in respect of whom a smack would do little or no harm, but on the other hand there might be a more vulnerable child on whom it might have a longer-lasting effect. The new clause does not identify any such distinction between the subjective character or nature of the child.
As we made clear in another place, the Government have some sympathy with the intention behind the new clause. There is nothing between Members of the Committee concerning the view that no violence to children should be justifiable under the guise of punishment, but I am concerned that there are dangers in seeking to amend the existing law in the way proposed. The law as it stands, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, indicated, offers the law of assault. I believe that both statutory law and common law offer sufficient protection to children from assaults by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children.
The new clause would place unnecessary constraints on the power of the courts to take all the circumstances of each case into consideration. This has proved to be a key factor in recent case history. There are many things a court must take into account in determining if punishment is reasonable: for example, the age, the sex, known disabilities or weaknesses, as well as the nature and the context of the punishment, the manner and the method of its execution, its duration and its physical and mental effects. The proposals in the new clause would limit the court to only two—whether an implement was used and whether there was injury, pain or discomfort lasting more than a short time. I fear that this might force a court to come to the decision that it did not feel justified in all the circumstances of the case. It might lead to a court finding against a parent who administered a light tap with some inoffensive implement, while someone giving a much more severe blow with the hand might escape censure.
As was made clear in another place, there is also some difficulty in relating the new clause to the existing law. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, rightly indicated, the new clause is based on one of the draft clauses attached to the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law. It would appear from that report and from the letter of 25th May of the Scottish Law Commission, to which the noble Lord referred, that the Scottish Law Commission takes the view that when a parent administers corporal punishment to a child, this constitutes a crime of assault but there may be a defence to it if the punishment can be established as reasonable. The new clause therefore seeks to restrict that defence by indicating that it is not to be available in certain circumstances. However, with respect to the Scottish Law Commission, this seems to us the wrong approach. Where a parent administers corporal punishment to a child, the law—I would suspect that this would be in accordance with the commonsense of most people—does not regard the parent as committing a crime at all.

CWH 13
That is because the law does not regard a parent as having the necessary 'dole' in Scots law, or evil intent, to commit an assault. Reasonable punishment is not therefore simply a defence; it does not amount to an assault at all. It is only where the punishment becomes excessive that it becomes "assault".
In the Scottish case of Gray v. Hawthorne, which was reported in 1964 in our justiciary cases at page 69, it was said that only if there has been an excessive punishment over what could be regarded as an exercise of disciplinary powers can it be held to be an assault. In other words, the question in all such cases is whether there has been dole on the part of the accused—that is, the evil intent which is necessary to constitute a crime by the law of Scotland. With respect of the Scottish Law Commission, I certainly understand that to be a correct statement of the law.
I turn now to other deficiencies in the new clause. The courts would have some difficulties in interpreting subsection (1)(b), under which a parent would have no defence if the child was struck:
"in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing …
(ii) pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time".
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The concept of "a very short time" seems hard to tease out in this context, and I believe that in the courts it would give rise to real uncertainty. Would the length of the punishment depend at all on the seriousness of the misdemeanour? More importantly, since the test would arise where there was no injury, it is extremely hard to see how anyone could ever tell whether the pain lasted more than a very short time, or whether there had been that risk. An element of subjectivity is involved which would make such a provision difficult for prosecutors and courts to apply.
Beyond that, there are other points which concern me. In subsection (1)(a), the phrase an "object of whatever description" is used. That would cover things which would lead to quite unreasonable worries on the part of parents that they might have committed an offence by, for example, slapping a child while the parent had a duster in their hand. The provisions might also cover a slap with a gloved hand. If, in another place, the concern was to avoid giving a confusing message to parents, what really concerns me is that far from clarifying that confusion, this new clause would, unfortunately, simply add to it. Again, what is meant by "injury" in subsection (1)(b)(i)? Does it mean only physical injury, and, if so, would it include a bruise?
Finally, I am not entirely clear what the effect of subsection (2) is intended to be. On that basis, I certainly cannot reach a view that it does anything to clarify the law.
It is my concerns in general about the confusion that the amendment would add to the law, rather than the clarification that it would provide, that cause me to suggest, either now or at a later stage, that it should he opposed. I appreciate that the noble Lord may wish to return to the matter at another stage, but I hope that what I have said fully sets out the attitude of the Government to the proposal.
The Earl of Kintore: The Minister popped up far more quickly than I thought he would. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that not all beaters then beat their children? I was well deservedly beaten as a schoolboy, but I have not beaten my children, and as they are now 17 and 19, I think that I am unlikely to start.
The Minister mentioned subsection (2) of the new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in his Second Reading speech, suggested that all sorts of nastiness went on at Scottish private schools. I just happened to ring up my son's old housemaster last night to find out what happened at Gordonstoun. I was told that Gordonstoun no longer carries out corporal punishment, and has not for many years, and expressed an opinion that corporal punishment does not exist in any of the Scottish independent schools.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: In many ways I do not see the point of this clause because I think that the only people whom it will affect are the people who already know the law and keep it. Those who are in need of this clause will not pay any attention to it anyway any more than they do to the law as it stands.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very grateful to those who have spoken and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who have supported the amendment.
I have to say that I find it very surprising that a body of such authority as the Scottish Law Commission should be opposed in such root and branch fashion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I, of course, fully respect what they both had to say and one must take into account their authoritative opinions which run counter to those of the Scottish Law Commission. I shall fully take into account what they said and bear in mind the objections of other noble Lords who have spoken today when I consider what I should do with the amendment and whether I should proceed with it at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Acquisition of parental rights and responsibilities by natural father]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No.4:
Page 4, line 6, after ("State") insert—
("( ) executed by both parties before a notary public;").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 has a side title:
"Acquisition of parental rights and responsibilities by natural father".
The clause provides that where a child's father has no parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to him, the father and mother, whatever age they may be, may by agreement provide that, as from the date of the agreement, the father shall have the parental responsibilities and parental rights, and so on. It provides that no agreement under subsection (1) shall have effect unless in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State or registered in the Books of Council and Session.
The amendment seeks to provide that parties who have conceived a child should, if they are making a legal agreement with all the legal consequences that flow from it, have the right to take legal advice before they sign it.
The amendment is not put down lightly and I think we also discussed this matter at Second Reading. If the father admits that the mother was under 16, then he is admitting committing a criminal offence. That is not covered by the Bill as it presently stands. I think the noble Lord and learned Lord the Minister had notice of this at Second Reading as to what the consequence would be where a father acknowledged the parenthood of a child conceived by a young lady under 16 years of age and what the consequences might be for him in the criminal courts.
One of the problems is that young relationships like that are all right at the time the child is born, but then the mother may very well split up with the father and then complain that the husband had sexual relations with her when she was under 16. Putting a form of agreement into the Books of Council and Session would be an admission by the father that he had fathered the child while the mother was under 16.
The purpose of the amendment is to give people the opportunity to take proper legal advice as to how the life is going to go on. The Bill seems to perhaps envisage the problem at the bottom of page 3. It says,
"the father and mother, whatever age they may be",
which obviously anticipates, perhaps in keeping with modern times, that the age of 16 for conception and giving birth to children is perhaps unrealistic. I may sound an old fuddy-duddy, but there you are. The Bill refers to,
"the father and mother, whatever age they may be".
The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that people have proper legal advice before they enter into a binding agreement which might have severe social and personal consequences. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: For the reasons that the nobel Lord has advanced, I have some sympathy with what he proposes. I agree that where parents are about to undertake parental responsibilities and rights agreements, they should give due thought and consideration before doing so. It is therefore correct that that should not just be a casual act, but that the process should involve a formal step.
I believe that that is, in fact, achieved within the existing provisions of Clause 4. In addition, it is our intention, in producing the guidance notes which will accompany the agreement forms, to make it clear to such parents that they are taking a substantial step which will involve a change in their status, and on which they may wish to seek legal advice before committing themselves.
However, although I agree with the nobel Lord's desire to ensure that there is a formal step, I am not convinced that this is the appropriate way to achieve it. It would involve the parties in additional effort and cost. The noble Lord might respond by saying "and so it
CWH 16
should", if such a change of status is going to be accomplished. But I am more concerned that there may still be parts of Scotland where a notary public might not immediately be available. Having to register in the books of the Court of Session is just the sort of formal step that should make people appreciate what is going on. First of all, they would have to find out what the books of the Court of Session were before they went any further.
Although this may not happen all that often, I am also concerned about how the provisions would work if one party was located in Scotland and the other in England. It may be only a temporary separation, but it might be a difficult arrangement to achieve if they both had to appear before the one notary public.
I therefore remain of the view that the existing provisions are sufficient. We are trying to strike a balance between the desirability of having that formal step, and keeping the process as straightforward as possible. I believe that we have more or less achieved the right balance and, for the reasons I have explained, I do not think it desirable to make the amendment that the noble Lord wants.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am reminded by the Minister of an old Irish tale. When the judge said to the counsel, "Has your client never heard of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?" he said, "They talk about nothing else in Ballybunnion every night!". I am sure that in the provinces of Scotland they talk about nothing else but the books of the Court of Session, and say, "Well, we had better get the bairn registered now rightaway"! But that is perhaps a frivolous note.
We are not concerned here only with the rights of the individuals. There is, of course, a consequence for the child. The child is now identified in the register as being the child of the two parties, and that is quite important. There is nothing in this part of the Bill. The more I read the Bill, the more I see bits and pieces that indicate perhaps we should approach it very carefully.
There is no protection for the child. The mother and father of whatever age may agree that they are the father and mother of the child. It may be covered by Clause 11, but the child is then forever registered either in a form described by the Secretary of State, whatever that might be, or in the books of the Court of Session as being the child of the two parents, whether he or she is in fact the child.
I am not being frivolous. This is important from the point of view of the child. I wonder whether the Minister might look again at the clause and consider what the consequences are that flow to the child from the parental agreement, or alleged parental agreement. I would be grateful for that. I have not given notice of this matter because it has just occurred to me as I speak. However, it might be worthwhile having a look at it.
Also, with the phrase, "whatever age they may be", we have to be satisfied that when people enter into agreements with such consequences as accepting parental responsibilities and identifying the child as theirs, they are capable of giving that agreement. To that extent, I think that Clause 4 perhaps needs to be looked at again. That is why I come back to base, so to speak.

CWH 17
I moved the amendment to make sure that people know what they are doing when they register the child. Whether they knew what they were doing when they conceived the child in another matter, but the child is the effective result of the relationship. I would have thought that perhaps it might be of some importance to take the clause back and look at it again. We shall return to it on Report.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Views of children]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("age and").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 12. The effect of these amendments is to take the age of the child out of the consideration of his maturity and understanding, the view being taken that the reference to a child's age as a criterion of the ability to form a view is neither here nor there and that there should be a broader approach to the understanding of the child. That may be another matter the Government wish to examine. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Noble Lords will doubtless be aware that the Scottish Law Commission, whom on this occasion I pray in aid, considered carefully the best form of words to use and decided to follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in recommending the form, "the child's age and maturity." While I appreciate that noble Lord's desire to stress the importance of understanding, I consider that "understanding" is implied in "maturity" and that it is more appropriate to stick to the wording in the United Nations convention. Besides, this wording is also used in Part II of the Bill. Indeed, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, himself uses that wording in Amendment No. 25. I am sure that he will wish to be as consistent as I wish to be.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I certainly do not wish to be inconsistent. There is a level of consistency in this. It is all very well taking the age of 12 out of the clause because it is a judgment that has to be made of the child itself. The other clauses deal with the actual age of the child in a different context; we will come to that matter in due course. In the meantime I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am glad to know that the Government are paying attention to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We look forward to seeing it brought into the law of the United Kingdom. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Appointment of guardians]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 5, after ("parent") insert:
("( ) accepted in writing by the guardian;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 relate to the question of guardianship. I do not know what view the Government are taking, but it seems to myself and others that there should be a more positive acceptance of the post of guardian rather than leaving it up in the air, so to speak. For example, and I believe this came up at Second Reading, Clause 7(3) states:
"An appointment as guardian shall not take effect until accepted, either expressly or impliedly by acts which are not consistent with any other intention".
I believe the point was made on Second Reading that it was the wrong way round; that the appointment of guardian "shall take effect when any act which either expressly or impliedly confirms their taking the post", or words to that effect. I do not know what consideration the Government have given to that but certainly where there is a serious matter in the life of the child it should be properly controlled within the legal system. For those reasons the amendments have been tabled so that the Government can consider whether there is some force in what we are saying, because the whole import of this Bill is to protect the children.
The guardian is one of the most important persons in a child's life in the event of the parent's death, as in Clause 7(1). It is important that the child's rights should be protected by making sure that everything is done within a legal context because, once again, the child has no protection. The parent can appoint a guardian but, again, the child has no rights. I may be misreading the Bill, but these amendments have been put forward so that the Government can perhaps have a look at the matter again before Report stage, to see whether the clause can he tightened up from a legal point of view to ensure that children are not exposed to the whims of their parent, or indeed their guardian, as the case may be, or a combination of both. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I could raise one other question on Clause 7. Let us suppose that a guardian has been appointed mutually between the parents and, say, the father gets killed. Does mother then have to share the guardianship of her two children with the guardian regardless of whether or not she likes that person? That is just one of the points which concern me a little.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The short answer to the noble Earl is, yes, that would be the state of affairs.
So far as the particular amendment is concerned, the Scottish Law Commission proposal on which Clause 7 is based is that there should be a certain degree of flexibility available to the person who is appointed as guardian. That person may accept the office in writing, and is recognised in the amendments and in the existing clause. However, the appointee might also make it clear by his or her actions that he or she accepted the role; for instance, by caring for the child after the death of the parent who made the appointment.
The law in Scotland currently provides that no person is obliged to accept the office of guardian, and that position is retained in this Bill. The SLC recommendation was widely accepted when they sought views on it. They felt it necessary for the person who is appointed to show that he or she has accepted the office

CWH 19
of guardian, and the provision in Clause 7 allows for that while not placing an undue burden on the guardian elect.
As for the child having to give his or her consent in writing, I am afraid that Amendment No. 9 would present some fairly obvious technical problems. First, I assume that the amendment should refer to line 17 rather than line 18. More importantly, I remind the Committee that taking the views of the child into account is covered by subsection (6) of this clause. It may be a rather elaborate subsection to read, with its reference back to Clause 6, but that is what it allows for and that was recommended by the Scottish Law Commission. Could I also say to the noble Lord that as the SLC noted, any child who objects to the appointment of the guardian can apply to a court for the termination of the appointment, and indeed can apply for the appointment of a guardian of his or her choice.
Having considered the matter, I see no reason to amend the Scottish Law Commission's proposals, which received widespread support. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I think we will find working our way through the Bill fairly pedestrian because I note that Clause 7(2) states:
"A guardian of a child may appoint a person to take his place as guardian in the event of the guardian's death; but such appointment shall be of no effect unless in writing and signed by the person making it".
What happens if the person making it is dying and cannot write? I raise that question in passing. However, subject to the explanation that the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Court orders relating to parental responsibilities etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("(7A) In implementing subsection (7) above, the court shall appoint suitably qualified, trained and experienced persons—

(a) to establish if the child wishes to express his views;

(b) if so, to ascertain those views;

(c) to assess the maturity of the child and his level of understanding of the matters under consideration; and

(d) to provide the court, in the light of these enquiries, with an assessment of the best interests of the child in respect of the order.

(7B) A person appointed by the court under subsection (7A) shall not act or be regarded as acting as the legal representative of the child.").
The noble Lady said: This amendment is intended to give effect to the principle of participation for children
CWH 20
in the decision-making set out in the Bill by providing a procedure by which courts may obtain the views of children.
There are presently no regulated mechanisms for ascertaining children's views within the court system. The likelihood of the child's views being sought and the method employed to ascertain the child's views will be an arbitrary reflection of individual judicial decisions. There is, therefore, a need to regularise and equalise the child's access to the right to express his view.
An essential preliminary to ascertaining the child's views must be an assessment of the child's understanding of the situation affected by the decision to be taken and an assessment of the child's capacity to form an opinion on the issues involved. That needs to be undertaken by an individual with the appropriate training and expertise. The training currently received by those involved in the legal profession or the judiciary is not intended to prepare them for such a task. While it might be possible to adjust the training received by lawyers, sheriffs and judges to take account of the demands of listening to children, it is unlikely to be appropriate or practicable for those individuals to be involved in the process in the court.
If it is to be achieved adequately, the process of ascertaining the children's views will involve more than a one-off interview. The legal representatives of the two parties in the case and the sheriff or judge are all part of the adversarial process of decision-making. Their first interest must be the satisfactory resolution of the dispute between the parties.
While it may be possible for those individuals to step outside the adversarial role when they are involved in talking to children, it is unlikely that children and young people will find it easy to achieve a similar shift in perception. For the child or young person to have a sense of the significance of his or her views, and the confidence to express them, it is of the greatest importance that the process of ascertaining views should be undertaken by an individual independent of the adversarial process.
There are particular difficulties inherent in ascertaining the views of children in matrimonial cases—and a lot of these cases will be matrimonial cases. There are difficulties in separating the accurate views of the child from the views of the parents. An understanding of the range of responses to parental separation which children experience is essential to any informed understanding of the expression of children's views in this situation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I rise to support my noble kinsman's amendment. I believe that the delicate task set by the Bill (of ensuring that the child's view, where practical, is obtained and made available to the court) demands that an independent person be appointed. This person would need to have special ability in relating to children and would be skilled in enabling a child to develop and establish a view on his or her own future but without influencing the child's decision. This would be an advanced form of mediation, rather than counselling or advice, and would undoubtedly require more than one interview.

CWH 21
I am particularly keen to go along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Lord President of the Court of Session, when he expressed the view at Second Reading that the procedure should be decided upon before enactment, as otherwise it would take some years of trial and error before the best practice evolved of rules of court.
Baroness Faithful: Perhaps I may ask two questions. Who is to be this person, the suitably qualified and trained experienced person? Is it to take the form of a guardian ad litem? Secondly, would not the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (d) be fulfilled by the social worker dealing with the case with the family?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am somewhat reluctant to essay an answer in circumstances where the amendment is not moved by the Government but is moved by my noble friend Lady Saltoun. But it does go to the centre of some of the difficulties in this area.
Taking the views of children is a very important theme which runs throughout the Bill. Indeed, there are some who might consider that this is the most important innovation that it introduces into the law. One has only to look, for example, to Clause 6 or to Clause 16, to appreciate how importantly that approach is developed.
The procedure as to how the child's views are obtained are just as much a matter of court procedure and practice as if the child was giving evidence in court. I understand that the Sheriff Court Rules Council has already been considering how best to achieve this. I understand that work on the preparation of one of the necessary rules of court has already begun. As noble Lords will be aware, it is the normal practice to leave the details of such issues to be carried through into practice via the rules of court. Expertise is available in the Sheriff Court Rules Council whose membership includes practitioners experienced in family law and lay members as well as the judiciary and which is well versed in the preparation of provisions which relate to procedure. In preparing such rules of court the views of independent parties and experts are sought through both formal and informal consultation.
I understand that, so far, the consultation that has been undertaken suggests that the existing flexibility of the rules is valuable and there appears to be no one method of taking a child's views that is appropriate in all situations, taking account of the age of the child and the circumstances of each case. It is not difficult to envisage that if a child was still in its carrycot, under the age of one, it really would not matter how suitably qualified or trained or experienced a person might be—the obtaining of the views of the child would be impossible. It may be in other circumstances—and, possibly inadvertently, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, did not move his Amendment No. 13—one way in which you might obtain the views of the child would not be by having a suitably trained person but by having a curator ad litem. What comes through to me is that there is such a wide variety of circumstances that it is difficult to see that there is any one answer.
If I move away from the carrycot to the boy who is 15 years and six months, I would guess that he is pretty capable of expressing his views without the intervention
CWH 22
of a third party. In those particular circumstances, the best way to do it would be to have the young lad speak to the sheriff or the judge and express his own opinions.
In all the circumstances I take the view that we should leave these matters to the rules of court. I do not pretend that it will be a particularly easy task. Like the noble Earl, I noted what the Lord President of the Court of Session said in his maiden speech on Second Reading of the Bill. Given what I said about the importance of carrying this through into practice by the rules of court, I can give an absolute assurance that the Lord President will be intimately involved in any discussions about how the views of such children are best obtained in particular cases.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, can I take complete responsibility for not moving Amendment No. 13. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I hope that the Government will take the content of the proposed amendment into account before the Report stage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have already taken it into account. I would not like to see a curator ad litem appointed in each and every case; I think that that could be wholly inappropriate. The noble Lord will appreciate that such a power to appoint a curator ad litem is already vested in the court. I would suggest, consistent with what I have just said, that if there is a case where the court considers it appropriate to appoint a curator ad litem it can already do so.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply, but I must here apologise for not being able to answer the two questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The fact is that the amendment is one which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, had hoped to move. Unfortunately, she is not very well and is not able to attend. I said that I would move the amendment for her. That is why I do not have the answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restrictions on decrees for divorce, separation or annulment affecting children]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 15, after "whether") insert(":

(i) if this has not already been done, to refer the parties to the action to a specified family mediation service or parent education programme, or

(ii)").

The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is to put the use of family mediation services and parent education programmes on a stronger footing within the legislation. At Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, indicated that he would look sympathetically on suggestions to further the use of mediation, recognising that mutually acceptable decisions made by separating parents are more desirable than those imposed by a third party, which is usually a court.
At present the rules of court allow referral to mediation but the emphasis is rather late in proceedings when attitudes may have hardened. As they are reacting to the rules of court, sheriffs have interpreted the use of this facility widely. In the sheriffdoms where referral to mediation is used widely, there has become a trend whereby solicitors arrange mediation sessions in anticipation of a formal referral. The benefits of early referral are two-fold. Parents are made aware of their continuing responsibilities to their children within the context of their own failed relationship, and, secondly, in the non-adversarial atmosphere of mediation sessions a mutually acceptable decision about the family's future is more likely to evolve.
The recent passage to the statute book of the Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act ensures that disclosures made in mediation sessions will not be admissible as evidence, which renders this opportunity to resolve the arrangements more likely. I hope that the Minister will see the merit of the inclusion of family mediation in the legislation, particularly at an earlier stage than currently mentioned in the rules of court. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have considered carefully whether some reference in the Bill to mediation is necessary because I understand and strongly support much of the mediation work already being undertaken in Scotland and consider that the present arrangement, whereby courts can refer cases involving children to mediation under the rules of court, to be working successfully.
If it is necessary to extend this provision, it can also be done through the rules of court. I think the noble Earl will appreciate that where new rules of court are formulated, that follows—as I have already indicated—upon extensive consultation with the relevant interests wherever possible.
Perhaps I may give this indication to the noble Lord that, as things stand at the moment, such changes can be achieved through the rules of court, but it is likely that the rules of court will make provision for referral to mediation at all stages of a family action, so that may indeed include making such reference at an earlier stage than is possible at the moment as well as a later one.
I do not think there is any significant disagreement between us over this matter and I hope the noble Earl will be reassured that what he effectively wishes to achieve can be done by the rules of court.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am indeed heartened by what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am particularly grateful for his supporting words about mediation. I persist in the view, of course, that the earlier couples get to mediation then probably the better, but I also take the Minister's point that the rules of court probably allow that anyway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 13 [Awards of damages to children]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10. line 40, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
The noble Earl said: In this amendment I am suggesting to your Lordships that on this occasion we should use the word "child" rather than "person", because the clause is definitely dealing with people who are not adults. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: After that short but powerful speech I rise to indicate that the noble Earl will have the first of his customary triumphs on the drafting of a Bill. However, before the noble Earl decides it is time to embark on a lap of honour, I fear I can only extend agreement to the first six of his proposals to leave out "person" and insert "child". I am prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 16 to 21, but I do not accept that in the context of his Amendment No. 22 it would indeed be appropriate to substitute for the word "person" the word "child".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 17 to 21:
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Jurisdiction and choice of law in relation to certain matters]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment corrects a printing error which was pointed out to us by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I am grateful to both of them and would wish to express my gratitude and appreciation for the attention paid to the detail of the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In answer to the Minister's observations, neither myself nor the noble Earl have any intention of doing a lap of honour on this occasion:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Welfare of child and consideration of his views]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert (", and they or it shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is perhaps a bit

CWH 25
semantic in its form, but it re-emphasises the philosophy behind the Bill by seeking to add at the end of Clause 16(1) that there shall always be regard paid to,
"the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child".
One would hope that that is always in the mind of people who are dealing with the welfare of children, but I do not think it does any harm to restate it in the statute. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can agree with the general sentiment of the proposed amendment, but I do not accept that we need to spell it out in primary legislation. The clause already makes it quite clear that the welfare of the child throughout his childhood should be the paramount consideration of the hearing or the court. I think we can safely assume that courts and hearings will realise the importance of their own behaviour in relation to the child's welfare and will conduct their business accordingly.
In my view this is another amendment which raises issues which would best be left for guidance or rules. I would approach the matter in this way. It could be argued that this single provision would not achieve much because it is very difficult to see how, in its broad terms, it would be enforceable. I believe that it would be very much more effective if we were to find in the rules of court that detailed timetables were set out providing that such matters had to be dealt with in so many days or in some circumstances perhaps even in so many hours. It could be argued equally that other matters of this type, relating, for example, to the conduct of business and the type of accommodation which should be used, might require specific mention in primary legislation. I should have thought that all those matters are best left to the courts or the hearings. With that brief explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is now satisfied.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. In light of what he has said, which no doubt others who are involved in these matters will also read with great care in the Official Report, I hope that the Government will bring forward some amendments at an early stage before Report stage so that they may be considered by those who deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move AmendmentNo. 25:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("() Where under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, a local authority decide any matter with respect to a child, the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be their paramount consideration.
() In making any such decision a local authority shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if he wishes to express them) of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity: and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a child of 12 years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.").
The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need to say much about this amendment except that I may have
CWH 26
scored an own goal. I believe that the Minister has already pointed out the slight contradictions. I should like to have another look at this particular amendment and, unless the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wishes to speak to it, I shall seek leave to withdraw it and reconsider its form.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to put a question on Amendment No. 25. It is laid down that, as far as possible and practicable, one should try to keep children with their families, and that one should do all that one can in terms of preventive work to maintain the family however difficult the child may be. That being the case, should we not apply the word "paramountcy" to the children—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: May I ask the noble Baroness whether she wishes to move this amendment? It has not been moved.
Baroness Faithfull: I beg your pardon, I thought it had been moved.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With the leave of Committee, perhaps I could formally move the amendment. I do not know whether that is possible within the rules. Obviously this is a matter that should be debated by someone who has views on it, so that it can properly be taken up at Report stage. If it is incompetent, then it is incompetent. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for allowing me to speak on this amendment.
As I said earlier, one thing that social workers really seek to do is to keep children with their families as far as possible and as far as practicable. That means doing a great deal of preventative work with the families in the community.
That being the case, I believe that the word "paramountcy" should apply to the children in the community who need help from the social services departments in order to meet their needs, to help them to stay with their families, and to protect and to promote family life and the welfare of the child within the family and within the community.
Therefore, I hope it would be possible to apply paramountcy to those outside care, outside residential accommodation, as well as those with their families.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As this debate has opened up briefly, might I respond to it and try to set in context both Clause 16 and Clause 17, to which the amendment relates.
Clause 16 sets out the basic ground rules for the way in which courts and hearings should deal with children who come before them. The importance of taking the children's views into account and regarding the welfare of the child throughout his or her childhood has paramount consideration and that is made abundantly clear. The clause deals with these formal sittings of the courts or the hearings in some detail, but what Clause 16 does not do is to consider the more general role that might be played by the local authorities and the social workers who are employed by them. That is not because the matter is unimportant, but because that issue is

CWH 27
covered in respect of children looked after by local authorities within the terms of Clause 17. If the noble Lady cares to look, the beginning of Clause 17 says that,
"Where a child is looked after by a local authority they shall, in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe—

(a) safeguard and promote his welfare (which shall, in the exercise of their duty to him, be their paramount concern)".

There is a Government amendment to extend the definition of children "looked after" by local authorities, and so Clause 17, including the requirement for the local authority to regard the child's welfare as its paramount concern, will reach all the appropriate children. The amendment proposed to Clause 16 seems altogether too general and could lead to some confusion.
I hope that the approach proposed in the Bill—placing in Clause 17 a specific duty on local authorities in relation to the children whom they look after—is a more appropriate way to deal with the situation. Indeed, I believe it entirely meets the concerns of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like to state that I cannot speak for Scotland, only to what is happening in England. I think that it is generally agreed that in England there is concern that because we have had so many difficult cases before the courts very often social workers are concentrating, and local authorities have felt themselves needing to concentrate, on children in care who have suffered difficulties as a result of, perhaps, the staff in a children's home, and so on. I want to emphasis the need to prevent these children from coming into care and also to prevent them having to be in residential care. In some cases that has to be, but unless the social services, the social workers and the directors of social work realise that it is of paramount importance that the children in the community should be cared for, we shall have some real difficulties. I thank the Minister and will consider what he said.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 26:
Page 13, line 11, leave out ("the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4) below") and insert ("making a decision or determination under or by virtue of this Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is one of a series of amendments, Amendments Nos. 26 to 31, all relating to Clause 16. Having heard what the Minister has said, I should like to have another look at them. Unless the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wishes to move them, I do not intend to do so.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Duty of local authority to child looked after by them]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14. line 10, leave out ("looked after") and insert ("cared for").
The noble Lady said: This group of amendments falls basically into two halves. The first half comprises Amendment No. 32 and the consequential amendments to it, which are Nos. 34, 35, 38, 40, 81, 83, 84, 88, 91 and 92. and the other half comprises Amendment No. 70 and those amendments consequential upon it, Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 74 to 80 and 82.
The point of Amendment No. 32 is that it would restore the requirement on local authorities to provide the care and good parenting which has been the position in the distinctive system operating in Scotland since 1948. The amendment would replace the lesser duty implied by the words "looked after" which have been hastily imported from the Children Act 1989.
There is currently a deficit in the Bill with regard to children defined as being in need of care, both in the provisions of Clause 22(1)(a), (b) and (c) which relate to voluntary care with the agreement of the child's parents or carer, and in Clause 48(2)(c), which relates to compulsory care through the children's hearings system. The amendment would actually serve to provide such children with the care which they require rather than the lesser status and duty implied by the term "looked after child".
The Government stated that the term "looked after" was a generic term to cover voluntary care, respite care, compulsory care and the care of 16 and 17 year-olds in regard to whom a duty to provide care and accommodation did not previously exist. I do not know why they preferred "looked after" to "cared for". I think there was a feeling that a stigma attached to having been "in care". If so, the same stigma will very soon attach itself to being "looked after", and what an awkward mouthful "a looked after child" is compared with "a child in care".
It can clearly be argued that even in the cases of respite care and 16 and 17 year-olds who request and are readmitted to a children's unit, those forms of accommodation will only be offered where it is felt that the child or young person concerned requires an element of care, whether due to a parent's inability to offer such care or because the young person concerned is deemed too immature or unable for other reasons to survive on his or her own in the community.
Local authorities will welcome the positive parenting role and responsibilities which are implied in the concept of caring. In comparison, the term "looked after" clearly implies a lesser duty, albeit that that was not the Government's stated intention. The word "care" itself has synonyms such as nurture, foster, like, love, nurse, protect, tend, watch over, all of which terms appropriately describe the needs of children who do not live with their own parents. To "look after" implies more tasks such as chaperoning, guarding, keeping an eye on, minding, supervising, watching over. When local authorities set out the duties and training for residential care staff, it will be extremely important that those staff are clear that they will be expected to care for, and not simply look after, the children for whom

CWH 29
they have responsibility. I am afraid that too often in the past looking after is all they have got, and sometimes not very much of that. Primary legislation should therefore be set out in such a way as to leave no room for doubt on the matter.
The effect of Amendment No. 70 and consequent amendments is that the inherent deficit in the Bill as it stands will be corrected; namely, a child or young person described in Clause 32(1)(a), (b) and (c) as in need of care and accommodation should not simply be provided with accommodation without the element of care also required. A study of the clause as it stands shows up the dissonance between a child in need of care, as defined in Clause 22(1) (a), (b) and (c), who is simply offered accommodation by a local authority. A baby cannot simply be placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. Surely, it is accepted that such a child, like all other children defined by the clause, requires a care element in addition to any accommodation provided by the local authority. Hence the proposed term "care and accommodation" neatly clarifies those two important elements.
Clause 17(6) would also more appropriately define a child cared for by a local authority as a child for whom it is providing care and accommodation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support Amendment No. 32 and the others. The term "looked after" sounds a little too casual; it does not really describe what is taking place. Most parents would agree that they care for their children and that looking after them is part of meeting their day to day needs. A child minder also looks after a child for a brief period. I hope that the more serious terminology of the amendment can be adopted.
Baroness Faithfull: I too support the amendment. A number of single parent mothers feel that they must get out. However, they find that they cannot leave because there is no one to look after the child. Often, they bring in a young child as a child sitter while they are out. There was a very serious case a little while ago where a mother actually said to the court, "I arranged for the child to be looked after" when the child was really being looked after by another child and therefore not being cared for. I strongly support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether this is the right thing to do. A parent cares for his or her children. Anyone else can really only look after them. They will not necessarily care for them with that love and affection which the word "care" brings to mind. I have thought a great deal about this amendment. I prefer the drafting of the Bill: it is rather safer if it goes to a court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before replying to the specific amendments, it may be useful if I set out the background to the terminology used throughout Part II of the Bill—but, first, the essential features of the new terminology. In setting out duties of local authorities towards children, Clause 17, as has been pointed out, uses the term "looked after". This is indeed a collective term which embraces children who are accommodated under Clause 22, children who are subject to a supervision requirement determined by a children's hearing, and children who are subject to a warrant or order under Part II of the Bill. The changes in
CWH 30
terminology are aimed at clarifying responsibilities and rights in relation to children and removing uncertainties, not least for children and their parents, surrounding use of the expressions "care" and, in particular, "in care". Incidentally, I should say that the word "care" is not absent from the Bill; indeed, it is applied to children in the care of their parents. We think that this is right and in keeping with the policy conveyed in Part I about parental responsibilities and rights. In our view, this reinforces the need for us to reconsider the statutory definitions to be included in the part of the Bill which we are now considering, Part II, which brings in the duties and powers of public authorities towards certain children.
The words "in care" feature prominently in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That Act, as I readily acknowledge, was a milestone in the development of children's legislation in Scotland, and it has served us well. It not only established social work departments as major components of Scottish local government but also introduced the children's hearings system. But it was also a product of its time. Twenty-seven years on, the social work departments have developed a considerable degree of expertise and the children's hearings system is held in high regard, but there is a growing awareness of the responsibilities and rights of parents, and also of the rights of children. It is therefore appropriate that the Bill should not only reflect the needs and expectations of the times but also build on the experiences of the past.
For both these reasons, the use of the term "in care" has been the subject of extended consideration. Some noble Lords will be aware that in this respect we are not breaking new ground. Ten years ago the Government published a Department of Health report entitled Review of Child Care Law, which concluded that the use of the term "care" in services designed to support families was,
"seen to be stigmatising, associated with poor or inadequate parents, and with a lack of participation by parents in their child's care".
That report went on to argue for a service which provided a greater partnership with parents wherever possible and a more generously voluntary form of care. That review, indeed, led to the Children Act 1989.
More recently, our White Paper Scotland's Children highlighted the need for local authorities to discuss with parents at the outset the nature and the duration of the support needed for a child and for a clearer understanding of the extent to which local authorities may make decisions concerning the care of the child on the parents' behalf.
Against this background the "in care" terminology sits uneasily. As we see it, it has contributed to uncertainties about where responsibilities and rights lie in relation to children. Rightly or wrongly, the words are seen as stigmatising the parents' ability or willingness to care for their child and as such can only inhibit parents from seeking support. The words "in care" have also been perceived as giving a particular package of powers to the local authority. This runs counter to our aim of providing a more flexible provision, determined by the individual child's needs and the responsibilities and rights of their parents.
Nevertheless, I recognise the concerns behind the amendments; they are understandable. It has been

CWH 31
suggested that this change in terminology implies that local authorities may somehow take less care of young people, and I hope that I can reassure the noble Lady on that point. The necessary responsibilities which a local authority has to a child who is accommodated or looked after by it are no less than it has under existing legislation; indeed, they are, if anything, greater.
The new terminology is backed by two themes of major importance enunciated in Clause 17: that the welfare of the child is paramount, and that the views of the child should, so far as is practicable, be taken in matters affecting him or her. The translation of these two themes into practice is bound to depend on a caring approach to the needs of a child in social work practice.
This is an approach which has already been emphasised—for example in the Skinner report. Another Kind of Home,—and which we will emphasise in the guidance which follows upon the Bill. Our aim will be to build upon best practice and, indeed, to develop it further. The essential difference which we wish to convey in the Bill is that the local authorities' responsibilities are to be determined by the ability and the willingness of each child's parents to meet their own responsibilities. This seems entirely appropriate.
I hope that the effect of this terminology will be to promote a greater public and professional awareness of the important role which parents should continue to play in caring for their child, even where that child is living away from home.
I have taken a moment or two longer in responding to these amendments than I have in replying to other groups of amendments in order to set out our thinking. I am aware that in Scotland there has been an extended debate among professional people who have been worried about the matter and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has similarly indicated that he has reflected long and hard on whether the term "looked after" was indeed appropriate. I am particularly concerned about the stigmatisation argument, and it is for that reason that, like him, having thought long and hard as to whether a more appropriate synonym might be used, I have come to the conclusion that this change is indeed a desirable one. But it is in no way to be taken as an indication that the responsibility for the attitudes that local authorities have to children should be in any way diminished.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for that reply. But let us suppose that a woman arranges for a babysitter, agreed 12 or 14, to look after a child and she then goes out. The child either has a bad cough or is ill; the child does not really know what to do. The case then comes before the court. Would not the court say that she did arrange for the child to be looked after, but the child was not cared for?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The term "looked after" is here used, as I have been seeking to explain, in particular context of what are the responsibilities of local authorities in Scotland. It is set out in Clause 17(1):
"Where a child is looked after by a local authority".
CWH 32
What I have been seeking to set out is the range of rights and responsibilities that a local authority may have in a variety of circumstances. The type of case to which the noble Baroness has referred would not, I think arise in any sense under this provision. I am not sure what the comparable provision is in England, but in Scotland it would come under the 1937 Act—neglecting a child—and I do not think it would matter at all whether she said that the child was being "looked after" or not. Objectively, the court would look to see whether the child had been neglected, and conviction or acquittal would follow on a proper consideration of all the circumstances relating to the looking after of the child.
Lord Northbourne: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may illustrate another possible difficulty. If, as I understand it, this category of children would include children who are in what I would call the care of the local authority—that is to say living in a children's home or in a foster home under the responsibility of the local authority—but are in fact living at home with one or more parents, are they then not being looked after by those parents?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: They are being cared for by their parents, as I indicated, in terms of Part I. We want to focus very clearly on what are the rights and responsibilities of parents. What I hope we would achieve by this is that those parents should not think, if we were to continue with the existing terminology, that they could shrug their shoulders and ignore their responsibilities towards their children. What I sought to demonstrate by my quotation was that we want to encourage as best we can a greater sense of partnership between the parents of the child and those who have responsibilities within the local authorities, and not bring about a situation where the parents effectively abdicate their responsibilities.
I consider it desirable, particularly in that context, that we should use the words "looked after", because if a stigma is attached to "in care" at the moment it would be even worse if it were in a sense to be extended to cover those children who were not even in residential homes, but were still living with their parents.
Lord Northbourne: Would there not then be a confusion of responsibility if the child is being looked after by its parents and by the local authority? Who actually is in charge?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With respect, I do not think there is. If the noble Lord would like to look to Part I of the Bill he will see that it is there very clearly spelled out what are the rights and responsibilities of parents. Now that we have reached Part II it does seem desirable that we should adjust the terminology to make it clear that the responsibilities of local authorities are rather different.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to pursue this. I think that perhaps things must be different in Scotland from in England. Perhaps that is where the problem lies and perhaps I ought not to be speaking. To me, "looked after" means that you have seen that the child is looked after, but you need not really care for it. Perhaps in Scotland "looked after" means "cared for". Speaking from experience as a director of social services in England, if a parent or a person running a children's

CWH 33
home gave me the excuse "Well, I looked after them", I would not necessarily understand that to mean, "I cared for them".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not want to continue this indefinitely, but I must explain that the "looked after" expression covers, in statutory form, a wide range of responsibilities vested in a local authority. Knowing the noble Baroness's concern about this, I do not think she could object to the definition to be found in Clause 17, which states:
"Where a child is looked after by a local authority they shall … safeguard and promote his welfare",
and that that duty to that child shall be "their paramount concern", so there really is no diminution at all in the extent of the "care", if that is the word that the noble Baroness would prefer. Indeed, if anything—looking at some of the aftercare provisions—the Bill provides a useful extension to the powers and responsibilities of local authorities.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Who cares for a child who is lost and abandoned, as in Clause 22(1)(b)? Such children are looked after only then.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lady anticipates my argument in terms of the later government amendment because she will see that we are proposing to adjust that which would allow for a far clearer arrangement for the child. Perhaps I may return to this at a later stage because there is a government amendment that covers the matter of a child being lost and abandoned.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I still think that the aim should be that where a local authority has charge of a child, it should be "care" that it is given, not just "looking after", and that that is something that one wants to write into the Bill. As I have said already, I do not really accept this business about stigma because the stigma will still be there. It will merely attach itself again to the new phrase.
However, that is as may be. I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord has said and to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 15, after ("parents") insert ("or relations").
The noble Earl said: While I realise that there seems to be adequate provision for the parents being brought into having responsibility for care and everything else, I feel that the local authority should also take into consideration any case where a relation might also be brought in perhaps with the idea of taking on responsibility for the children. This is basically a probing amendment-I am sure that it would be defective otherwise—merely to raise the question of bringing in the relations. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister replies, I should like to raise one minor matter that arises from the previous debate. When talking about "parents", are we talking about genetic parents or "parents" as defined in the Bill?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We will not go back to that. The provisions mean "parents" as defined in the first part of the Bill.
Turning to the amendment, of course I agree that relations can play an important part in bringing up children, especially where the parents are unable, for good reasons or bad, to provide that succour and support. The amendment seeks to ensure that that is recognised within the clause. However, as we discussed in a previous group of amendments, Clause 17 deals specifically with children looked after by a local authority. The main purpose of subsection (1) (b) is to ensure that when looking after a child a local authority should make use of the services which ordinary parents might be expected to use in looking after their own children. I cannot envisage circumstances where granny, as it were, might make use of services which mother and father might not consider to be appropriate services. In fact, I find it difficult to think of any example at all.
I hope with that explanation the noble Earl will appreciate that adding relatives in this context would not necessarily be helpful.
The Earl of Balfour: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: There are two amendments to be addressed, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. If Amendment No. 36 is approved, subsection (5) of Clause 17 disappears, but I am assuming that that will not happen.
There is an important issue of principle about the rights of children. Clause 17(5) states:
"If, for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm (whether or not physical harm) a local authority consider it necessary to exercise, in a manner which (but for this paragraph) would not be consistent with their duties under this section, their powers with respect to a child whom they are looking after, they may do so".
I must say that that would not qualify for the first prize in the plain English competition for this year. It takes a bit of understanding of what it is all about. What I think it is all about—I may be wrong and no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am—is that if a child in Scotland is seen to be such a menace to the public that the local authority will then disregard the duties put upon them in the Bill to look after children and to do something with them (I am not quite sure what they can do) then in fact this clause seems to be superfluous.
In Clauses 64 and 69 the local authority has complete power to determine the children's hearing, and the local authority has powers to put unruly children away, if I may use the broad sense of the word. The powers are already there and I do not understand why this clause has been introduced.
Furthermore, quite apart form anything else, it is an arbitrary power that is given to the local authority without any reference to the right of the child. If I read

CWH 35
Clause 17(5) correctly, a local authority can ignore its duties towards the care of the child, whether it is being cared for or looked after being neither here nor there. To use a colloquialism, they can "just bung them away somewhere". I do not understand why that is there.
Certainly, since the Minister at an earlier stage talked about the children's rights and the UN convention, the clause would seem to override completely the whole of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be offered an opportunity to express his or her view as to what should happen to them.
Many things would have to be determined. First, someone would have to determine as a matter of fact that the public had to be protected from this particular individual. I do not know what the phrase "whether or not physical harm" means—I suppose it might mean threats of some kind or physical harm—and the child involved should have the opportunity to be represented to speak against being put away by the local authority on whom the duty to look after children is being imposed by the Bill. It may be of some interest to know where the child fits into this decision in Clause 17(5). I shall note with interest the Minister's answer. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support Amendment No. 37. I accept that some children do exceed the bounds of acceptability and must briefly be dealt with in a manner which gives priority to other concerns. By retaining the minimum of "a primary consideration", I believe that we can ensure that a child is detained for the minimum period necessary while he comes round to a more reasonable point of view and is likely to behave more acceptably in future. In no way must the suspension of the paramountcy be on a determinate sentence basis. It must be determined by the child's own actions and his social worker's understanding of his progress.
The paramountcy of a child is of course central to the Bill and should only be suspended in extreme circumstances. There must not be any "throw away the key" mentality involved. I believe this to be a useful amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am thrown into some confusion because I had understood that Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 were to be grouped with Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. I appreciate that the noble Lord may move them at a later stage if he wants to, but I had certainly understood that they went together. As I see it, they make something of a coherent package.
The noble Lord's concern is to understand how we propose in future to deal with a situation where children in Scotland show a degree of anti-social behaviour such as potentially to present a serious threat to members of the public. As he well knows, for more than 20 years we have operated a system of children's panels where as much attention has been paid to the needs of the children as to the deeds of the children. We have the foresight and wisdom of Lord Kilbrandon to thank for that unique system of juvenile justice. I am sure it can
CWH 36
continue to address the needs of children and young people throughout the 1990s and beyond as it did in the 1970s. For the record, I remain firmly committed to it.
I can well understand the concern which gave rise to the amendments, but I am not convinced that Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are desirable. I believe there is a limit to the amount by which we should qualify or temper our approach. The Bill is clear. In general, the welfare of children is paramount. That is a very high standard and we think it right and proper. It is entirely appropriate that we should be concerned about safeguarding and protecting the wellbeing of young people and about promoting their welfare. But if those young people threaten members of society with serious harm we also need to consider how to deal with that situation. We are very keen to ensure that the needs of all children are properly addressed.
For children who offend we are developing a range of measures in Scotland including, not far from the noble Earl's home, innovative community-based projects where even persistent young offenders will be obliged to face up to the consequences of their actions with the aim of changing their behaviour and without resort to the traditional route of taking them possibly into secure accommodation. I make the point simply to emphasise that I am in complete sympathy with noble Lords who feel that the needs of the children must be addressed, even where they exhibit anti-social behaviour or other behavioural difficulties.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that while we have to balance that set of difficulties against the paramountcy of the needs of the child, we are not departing from that principle of paramountcy where there are circumstances where other action may be necessary. It does not mean that because you must
"have regard for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm",
that as soon as you satisfy that test, or come within that context, any consideration of the paramountcy of the welfare and the needs of the child flies off. I hope I have explained how we seek to continue to achieve that balance.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I might take this opportunity to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the fact that Scotland is concentrating on community projects rather than on residential projects. I know that some children have to go to residential care, but the community projects are so much better.
I have lately visited various projects in the community involving children who have done considerable damage to people's cars. They have stolen them and then gone joyriding in them. That has been a great sorrow and a great trouble to the neighbourhood. Nevertheless the local authority has set up community projects. It has built a garage. It has supplied men and insisted that the children attend from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. and at the weekends, repairing cars. I do have to say that this was giving primary consideration to the children and to the parents. The children themselves were asked what their opinions were, whether they wished to go to residential care or whether they would stay in the community and subscribe to the projects offered to them. They chose

CWH 37
the latter, and there has not been a single case of re-offending. I congratulate Scotland on its views on project-based social work.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I respond with gratitude to my noble friend. I trust that I am not investing too much hope in some of the projects that we are developing; we certainly want to approach them with all vigour and enthusiasm. If the outcome of all that is that fewer children have to be taken away from their home and held in secure accommodation, I think she will recognise that we will consider that to be a very considerable advance.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sure that those of us who live north of the Border are always grateful to receive plaudits from south of the Border, and I would endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said. As the Minister has made quite clear, we have a system— the children's hearing system—set up by the late Lord Kilbrandon, which is looked upon with world-wide regard. The Minister probably attends more of these things than I do, but people come from all over the world to see how the children's system is working. We are very proud of it, but that does not mean to say it is perfect.
With this amendment we are seeking to deal with "a little monster" in society, a person who slashes car tyres, who breaks car windows and who is out of control. What is the paramount consideration? I do not know where the word "paramount" comes from. I think it is an Americanism, but it is a horrible word. It does not mean anything, but anyway it is in the Bill. Where does paramountcy go in achieving the balance between society and the individual?
The problem with Clause 17(5) is that it does not tell the local authority what to do with the person. It says "You have all these duties under the Act but if this person is a little monster or a menace in the eyes of the local authority, do something with him". But it does not say what the local authority is to do with him. If I were advising a local authority on someone who had slashed all the car tyres down the street, what advice would I give to the local authority on disposal? There is nothing in the Bill; no guidelines are given except perhaps in subsection (7); but it does not seem to meet the problem. The local authority is just being landed on the one hand with looking at the paramountcy of the child's welfare, and then when the child gets out of control it is told "Just dump him".
That is not even provided for in Clauses 64 and 69. Clause 64 specifies that the children's hearing can arrange for secure accommodation. Clause 69 states that the Secretary of State can do so. While I agree with the Minister that a balance must be kept within society and that young people cannot get away with it all the time, on the other hand the local authorities have to have some guidelines set out for them as to where such young people can go. I am not sure whether these provisions ignore those of Clauses 64 and 69.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps the noble Lord might like to look at the inter-relationship of Clauses 16 and 17 again. The aim is not to leave the local authority
CWH 38
abandoned and unclear about what it should do next. It is to give it a signpost as to what it should do next. In the circumstances set out in subsection (5), it is anticipated that the local authority will go to the children's hearing to see what would be the most appropriate disposal for that child. So we are not leaving local authorities without a clear view of what they should do. It would not be for them to take that decision anyway. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said when accepting the compliment from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, it would be for our unique system of children's hearings to reach a decision.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, the point I was making was: might it not be better to include in Clause 17 (5) a reference back to Clauses 64 and 69 so that local authorities know where to go? As the clause stands at the moment, they do not know where to go. Perhaps this is a matter that can be considered between now and Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 39 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 2, leave out from ("child") to end of line 11 and insert—

("(a) for whom they are providing accommodation under section 22 of this Act;

(b) who is subject to a supervision requirement and in respect of whom they are the relevant local authority ("relevant local authority" having the meaning given by section 65(3) of this Act);

(c) who is subject to an order made, or authorisation or warrant granted, by virtue of Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of this Part of this Act, being an order, authorisation or warrant in accordance with which they have responsibilities as respects the child; or

(d) who is subject to an order in accordance with which, by virtue of regulations made under section 29(1) of this Act, they have such responsibilities.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is essentially of a minor and technical nature, intended to offer yet further helpful clarification of the definition of a child who is looked after by a local authority. This is part and parcel of the new terminology which we have discussed and I hope that noble Lords who have been concerned about this particular piece of phraseology are encouraged by how clearly it is now expounded upon for them.
The Earl of Balfour: This is certainly helpful to me. I know that I have raised a few questions on that point, but I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved]
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Local authorities to provide independent person to advise children
(" .—(1) Section 5B of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4A) The local authority shall ensure that any child looked after by a local authority shall have access to an independent person to provide advice and support and, if the child wishes, make representations on the child's behalf.
(4B) In subsection (4A) above, an independent person shall mean a person who is not employed by the local authority or the establishment providing care or foster care.
(4C) In this section, a child who is "looked after" by a local authority, is to a child for whom they are providing accommodation under section 22, or under any provision of Chapter 2 of Part II, of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or in respect of whom either they have been granted a parental responsibilities order or have rights and obligations under an order which, by virtue of regulations made under section 101 of the Children Act 1989, has effect as if it were a parental responsibilities order.".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is that it gives children in local authority care who wish to make a complaint the right to an independent advocate. Who the advocate would be is not specified, but that person could be drawn from a range of sources, for instance, from safeguarders or voluntary organisations representing children. The amendment is a specific request from young people who have been in care who wish to have someone they perceive as independent from the children's homes.
Perhaps I may make a few observations from an explanation that has been provided by some of those children. They want to know who cares. The Who Cares? organisation in Scotland represents, and is composed of, young people with experience of care. We sometimes forget that there is a big resource out there if we are willing to dig in and take the trouble to find out. They say:
"When you are living in a Children's Home, it is very difficult to make a complaint in confidence to a member of staff. Staff are bound by the procedures of the local authority and may have to report issues to their line managers."
If anything happened which was difficult, and made life in the institution rather difficult, anyone who had not passed up a complaint to their line manager would be in serious trouble. Therefore, you are asking the line manager to take a very serious step.
A young person living in a home might have a complaint about the way a decision about sanctions was arrived at, if he had pocket money withdrawn or had leave denied. If the person arriving at that decision was the head of the home, who would the young person complain to? The young person might get on very well with his or her key workers, but would feel inhibited from going to the key worker as he or she is accountable to the head of the home. In extreme cases abuse—physical, sexual or emotional—may be taking place within the residential setting. Who, then, does the young person go to, because that is a very serious matter to approach anyone with? If he approaches a member of staff, will he be believed? Who will deal with the complaint?
Many young people have frequently stated that they wish to have access to someone outside the social work department or, at the very least, someone who is
CWH 40
independent of the particular children's unit, to act as an adviser and to be advocate in these situations I understand that the overall opinion of young people with experience of care is that access to independent advice can also act as a safety valve. Not all contacts with independent agencies will lead to formal complaints or advocacy being undertaken, but it may offer the young person another avenue to check out his rights, legally or as stated in policy, or to sound out information.
It must be within all our experiences that if, for some reason or another, we thought our parents in the past when we were much younger were overdoing something in whatever way—such as withholding pocket money—most of us had someone to go to, such as a grandmother or grandfather. There must be some person outside who is still part of the caring society that you are associated with, who can speak to those who have the authority to try to get to the bottom of a problem and perhaps come back and say, "I have done it. They know about it and they will take care"; or, "This was the reason they stopped your pocket money". It is quite important that young people should not feel isolated and not able to make any sort of complaint at all. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in this amendment. I believe he and I were both at the same meeting when we heard some of the children—they were no longer children—from Who Cares? telling us of their experiences. In particular, if there was any kind of case of abuse, possibly with the manager involved, who would the child go to? He could not go to a junior member of staff to complain about the manager because the junior member of staff would have to pass it on to the manager. This is very important.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This is a very useful amendment which draws its inspiration from the reports of young people who grew up in care. They pointed out how awkward it can be to raise a complaint within the departmental structure. I believe it is necessary to have a system rather similar to that used in prisons and young offenders' institutions, by which I mean the appointment of a visiting committee type of organisation. Independent people with powers to investigate would help to solve difficulties, real or imagined, soon after they arose.
Lord Northbourne: I, too, support the amendment. It seems to me that if such a situation had existed in England over the past two or three decades, we might have avoided some of the distressing things which have gone on in some residential children's homes here.
There is another more positive aspect to the matter. I believe that if a child feels that somebody from outside cares about him or her, that can have a very important therapeutic value.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with everything that has been said, but I am slightly puzzled about the role of a social worker who is allocated to a child. Every child should have a social worker who knows him or her and the family background. That social worker should, under all our rules of social work, be in constant touch with the child. I am afraid that that does not happen in many

CWH 41
social departments, so I understand the need for this provision, but I rather deplore the fact that it is proposed that that role be taken away from the social worker who is responsible for the child and who should act as a parent to the child, visiting the home, taking the child out and getting to know him or her. I would not oppose the amendment, but I do feel slightly worried by it.
The Earl of Balfour: Would it be possible to bring in some sort of junior citizens' advice bureau which could help such children? With reference to Clauses 30 and 31, I feel that the same problem is faced by children being educated in this country whose parents are British citizens overseas or foreign people who send their children to this country to be educated. I am perhaps way ahead of your Lordships in terms of the Marshalled List, but I feel that such young people can sometimes be very lonely and desperately looking for help. They cannot go to the superiors where they are resident. They need to be able to go to somebody independent. From that point of view, I feel that the amendment deserves support—as does a child in the care of a local authority or any other child in the care of anybody else, including his or her own parents.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This has been an interesting debate. A central feature has been that contributors have fixed particularly upon the circumstance where a child is in residential care and where there is a hierarchy of responsibility within the home, be it secure accommodation or elsewhere. Noble Lords have focused on the difficulties there may be in making a complaint because of the nature of the management.
However, what I need to point out immediately is that given the way in which the new clause is framed, it would go far wider than that. Indeed, in the context of the Bill it would mean that where children were still living at home, someone would nevertheless need to be appointed in this independent advisory capacity: if I may take up the noble Baroness's line, I would have very much hoped that in those circumstances in Scotland there would be a social worker who was well aware of his or her responsibilities towards that individual child.
There are many ways in which children in Scotland can get advice and support. The Scottish Child Law Centre has an advice side if it is legal advice which is sought, and Child Line Scotland is also well established. All local authorities should have properly established complaints procedures. Many local authorities in Scotland now have children's rights officers, whose job, as the title would suggest, is specifically to look after the interests of children.
Having said that, I can envisage circumstances where it would make good sense for an independent adviser to be appointed, perhaps for example, to mediate between a difficult child who has particular problems and the staff who have been assigned to look after that child. For staff who are having considerable difficulties in achieving a proper level of communication notwithstanding their best intentions, such an independent intervention might have constructive consequences.
Having accepted that there may be such circumstances, I suggest that the better way forward
CWH 42
would be to establish it as a matter of good practice and include that within guidance rather than primary legislation. I am bound to resist the idea that in each and every circumstance where a child—if I go back to my terminology—is looked after, there should be a duty on the local authority to appoint such a person.
I hope that there is real scope for progressing the very laudable aim behind the amendment through good practice and good guidance. I certainly undertake to see that proper attention is given to such guidance and good practice.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister. I believe that the visiting committee idea is too cumbersome for what we are trying to do. If all social workers were like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I would be only too happy to allow that, but the problem is that for someone living in a residential home the possibility is that the child or young person looks upon many social workers as part of the establishment of that home. Whether or not they are actually employed in the home, the young person will associate them too much and again be slightly scared unless the social worker has established a very good relationship. I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts he has made. I think he is showing great empathy towards the suggestion I am making. I hope we shall hear later the actual words he would suggest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Local authority plans for services for children]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("relevant").
The noble Earl said: The aim of the amendment and indeed of Amendment No. 46, which I also wish to discuss as it is consequential, is to ensure that the published plans for children's services are extended beyond the local authority's own services and include services provided by voluntary organisations and health authorities.
As I am very concerned about the difficulties that exist when agencies attempt or, more to the point, fail to co-operate I believe that there should be a sound statutory basis for co-operative effort on the part of all agencies involved with services to children. Only in that way can we ensure that children and their families do not fall through the safety net into neglect or get the run-around from different agencies. While legislation cannot guarantee co-operative effort, it is a good start. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Earl is aware, this clause is important in the way it relates to the plans that local authorities have to prepare for services for children. I wish to indicate at the outset that I am as keen as the noble Earl to see local authorities plan their services carefully and on a proper strategic basis. If that planning is to be successful, it will have to be very clearly focused. To remove our definition of relevant services—which this amendment would require—would run a very serious risk of allowing the

CWH 43
plans to become so diverse and all-embracing as to be virtually incomprehensible.
Our experience with community care plans, for example, shows how easy it is to end up with a document which is very difficult to understand when dealing with the range of services provided by a number of agencies to meet the complex needs of individuals. Community care planning was new and lessons were learned as it developed. In the light of that experience, I am sure that the plans for services for children should be very tightly drawn around the local authority's services relating to social care and welfare, obviously having proper regard to the consultations which authorities are required to carry out with health boards, health service trusts, voluntary organisations, housing associations, and so on. All this is provided for in subsection (4).
We must meet the aims to ensure that plans are comprehensive and also to ensure that they are comprehensible. Removing the word "relevant", I fear, would make it too embracing and, while I entirely share the noble Earl's objective, to delete that word would make it even more difficult to achieve that strategic, comprehensive set of plans that we want to see across Scotland.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I had interpreted "relevant" as meaning only their own plans and was obviously trying to incorporate a wider group of organisations. The inspiration of that is my own social work experience where I think that my colleagues and I spent a fair amount of time encouraging the housing department, social security and the health boards to do what we considered to be their job. Therefore, one of the themes which runs through some of the amendments is encouraging co-operation between agencies. However, I take the noble and learned Lord's point that if we were to remove the word "relevant" and tried to put every single service that was offered in an area into the document, we would never be finished. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 23, after ("the children") insert ("and their families").
The noble Earl said: The aim of Amendment No. 44 is to ensure that when local authorities are preparing their plans for children's services they always focus on children and their families, the family being the essential basic unit. In reality, we know that they will be doing that anyway. I believe that it should be on the face of the Bill so that it is clear that services are always to be provided for families as well as for those children whose families have regrettably disintegrated in any way. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Again, I well understand the reasoning behind the noble Earl's amendment. There are indeed some services which would be provided to
CWH 44
the family with the aim of helping the family look after the child. Strictly speaking, they would not be children's services; they would be covered within Clause 18(1) as drafted through the expression,
"services for or in respect of children in their area".
In other words, in my view, the clause as drafted covers the point that the noble Earl has raised. If we were to include services for families we would again be bringing in too many services which would not be of direct relevance, and with the very serious risk that we discussed in relation to the previous amendment of undermining the key purpose behind the planning arrangements.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Once again we seem to have reached a point where I wish to be explicit and the noble and learned Lord the Minister wishes to be implicit. Again, I take the point that one could have to make too wide a plan. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 23, at end insert (", with due regard to children's religious persuasions, racial origins, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 45 is simply to ensure that the local authority's child service plans adequately consider the diversity of children's backgrounds in the planning of services. This matches a promised government amendment to Clause 20 which should ensure that service provision has due regard to this diversity. This is wholly appropriate in an increasingly multicultural Scotland, and the best way to tackle it is to plan for it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is not only in Clause 20 that local authorities have to take into account race, religion and the like; it is also in Clause 17. I think I can shortly answer the noble Earl by saying that if they have a duty in relation to any child looked after by them in these respects, they will also accordingly have to plan for that. I do not disagree with him that between us is again whether it is necessary to be explicit about it and make specific mention of this in Clause 18. I do not consider that it is, but, as the noble Earl has already identified, there are other points where reference is made to these factors.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I look forward to the Minister's amendment on this point which we are coming to shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): If Amendment No. 46 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 47.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 25. after ("authority") insert ("or by other providers, in particular by voluntary and private organisations, of services which the authority have power to provide").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 47 is aimed at ensuring that local authorities' plans for children's services are comprehensive and should include the services provided by all children's agencies, both statutory and voluntary, operating in their area. For example, there is the child protection work done over many years by the RSPCC. If all children's services are incorporated in one plan, it will be possible to take an overview. Only then can it be determined whether the provision is adequate in all respects. The other benefit is that the organisations will have to co-operate. I apologise for the fact that the amendment sounds distinctly like one which we discussed not that long ago. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I may ask my noble and learned friend for some information. The Bill says that we should co-operate with voluntary and private organisations. I regret to have to say that in some cases where there is a particularly difficult and emotionally disturbed child, a recommendation has been made by social services that that child should go to a special therapeutic community. For instance, I run a therapeutic community myself and we had a child who saw his father murder his mother. In such serious cases, one must provide particular therapeutic treatment for such a child, but my experience in England—not in Scotland—is that although this has been recommended, the city treasurer has said that it is far too expensive and therefore cannot be acceded to. Where would that fit into this amendment?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think it would but it is a very interesting and important point. It takes us back to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. The noble Baroness may recall that we had an interesting debate on the status of the chief social work officer. An important part of that Act was that we ensured the arrangement that in each of the new unitary authorities in Scotland there should be such a chief social work officer who would be in a position having duties and responsibilities that if the treasurer (as the noble Baroness described it—not a terminology I immediately understand but I know what she is driving at!) sought to exclude from provision a particular accommodation or whatever it might be because it was considered too expensive, the chief social work officer would be brought into play having the best interests of the child at heart.
This is dealing with the situation where you have planning for these children's services within a local authority area. In relation to an earlier amendment I said that our experience with community care planning showed how easy it was for plans, however well intentioned, to become lengthy, over complex and difficult to understand.
I agree that where the local authority is planning as part of its childcare provision to make use of services provided by the voluntary or independent sector, that should be shown in the childcare plan. Indeed, I would hope and expect that local authorities in Scotland would make use of both. However, it does not seem appropriate to require a local authority simply to include within the plan details of all the services which happen
CWH 46
to be provided in the area, even if that authority (acting with the best of intentions) cannot see that there is any need to make use of them. That would seem to me an unnecessary complication, and it is only on that basis that I resist the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister. It appears to me that perhaps those other services should go on to what I shall choose to call a "supplementary list" and that they should merely be noted as existing rather than be fully described in the childcare service plans. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (4) below, issue directions as to the carrying out by a local authority of their functions under subsection (3) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: As we have been discussing, Clause 18 makes important provisions requiring local authorities to prepare and publish plans for services for children. It is expected that the plans will be produced on very much the same basis as those dealing with community care services for adults—that is, a new plan every three years, subject to annual reviews and such modifications at that time as may be appropriate. That is not spelled out in the Bill. Indeed, it is the sort of detail which is best left for subordinate legislation, direction or guidance after due consultation with all the interests involved.
It is on that basis that we propose to introduce a new subsection (3)(a), which provides a useful safeguard in allowing the Secretary of State to issue directions should that prove necessary in the light of experience. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In the proposed subsection it is suggested that the Secretary of State should have the power to make directions to local authorities or social workers. It worries me slightly that that may be a backdoor way of using many more private, not even voluntary, homes. I have been round many such homes. Some were extremely good. You felt that some had been done up especially for the visit—that is, if you had any nouse you felt that. Is it proposed under one of the powers given in this clause that the Minister and the Secretary of State, or whoever was acting for him, would be able to direct a social worker, in, say, one of the larger towns saying "No, you will not keep a social work hostel for people over a certain age; you will use some other local authority's hostel for that"? I just want to know why this provision is proposed.
We want flexibility, but the flexibility has to be very carefully looked at. After one or two of the things that we have been reading in the papers about private organisations doing certain types of social and health service work, we want to be very careful that we do not make any more mistakes and that, quite inadvertently, the Scottish Office is not spending money that could be better spent in other ways,
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing sinister in what is proposed. The direction that would be given would be of a very limited nature—that is to say, it would relate to how frequently local authorities ought to be reviewing their plans and updating or modifying them. It would not be a direction that they must provide children's services in any particular form. It is to do with timing and the nature of the review.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 16, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("including children, young persons and persons with parental responsibility,").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly minor amendment but it has some social significance. It deals with the persons who have to be consulted by the local authority, which are dealt with at the bottom of page 15, in Clause 18 (4) (a) and (b) and then on to page 16. The final bodies to be consulted are:
"(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct."
The amendment was tabled because, in the context of this Bill, the children within the local community area are most important, and that is what the Bill is all about. It is, perhaps, an enabling or an explanatory amendment to indicate to the Secretary of State that he should certainly include—I am not sure about children, it depends how you define a child—but young persons and persons with parental responsibilities.
We go back to Clause 6 of the Bill, where the Government are encouraging people to enter into agreements on parental responsibility, whatever their age may be. It might be that, to reflect the provisions of Clause 6, something should be said. I may have the wrong clause, but it is the one where there was agreement about parental responsibility, whatever age the parties might be. It might be fair to indicate to the Secretary of State that he should include, if not children, then certainly young people, as proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Subsection (4) sets out the various boards, trusts, voluntary organisations and individuals to be consulted by local authorities when they draw up these plans. Paragraph (f) makes it clear that they must also consult:
"such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct."
There is absolutely no qualification about who those people might be and so the Secretary of State would be free to define children, young persons, or persons with parental authority, in just the way that the noble Lord has suggested. It is, however, tempting to ask who else might be included within the consultative process and, if there are others, whether they should not also be shown on the face of the Bill. I would prefer to leave it in this broader way so that such individuals could indeed be consulted.
It is also worth nothing that the plans which local authorities will produce under this Clause 18 are of a strategic nature. It is likely that most individuals, even if they were service users, would have a relatively limited contribution to offer. It is perhaps more likely that
CWH 48
representative organisations of such young people could undertake the task more effectively. They are, of course, included within paragraph (b)(i). I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree that the point he is concerned about is adequately covered in the clause.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that reply. However, the clause is headed:
"Local authority plans for services for children".
and the only people who are not mentioned in the consultation process are children.
If we look at paragraph (c) we find that the principal reporter is consulted and at (d) the chairman of the children's panel for that area is consulted. I quite appreciate the point the Minister is making about achieving a consultative basis on a group basis, but there is no provision for consulting with children or their representatives—apart from the principal reporter, who will only be dealing with children when they have been up to no good or require the decision of the children's hearing, and the chairman of the children's panel.
So where do the children who do not get into trouble feature in this consultative stage? They seem to be missing out altogether, and the amendment is tabled so that the Secretary of State will at least bear in mind that it is children who this Bill is all about, and they should be consulted in one form or another.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At one point the noble Lord added to his remarks "children or their representatives" and I rather agree with him that I suspect that if anyone is to be consulted, it is unlikely to be individual children. It is more likely to be some group representative of them. He says that there is no reference to children. It may not be expressly stated, but it relates to what I said about subsection (4)(b) (i). It is such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use, or are likely to use, the relevant services, and in those circumstances one would hope that there were organisations representing children in the local authority area and, if there were, they should be consulted as subsection (4) makes clear.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I take on board what the Minister says, but I wonder why the subsection says "voluntary organisations" which are supposed to represent the interests of children. Should there not be a broader base than that? No doubt the Government may wish to take some time to think about that and see whether this can be expanded to include children who are not dependent on voluntary organisations, not dependent on the principal reporter and certainly not dependent on the chairman of the children's panel for the area. It may be a matter for consideration. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The local authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that those who might benefit from the relevant services receive the information relevant to them in a form which they can comprehend (including, in particular, appropriate languages

CWH 49
and formats).").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 50 is concerned with communication between the local authority and the possible users of its services. Clearly, the local authority's child service plan will end up being a weighty tome and probably regrettably necessary. What I believe will also be required is a simplified easily-read booklet which should be freely available. That would probably be best described as a guide to services and should definitely be user friendly.
Just as the children's service plans have to be reviewed and updated regularly, so it will also be necessary to republish this proposed popular guide to children's service plans. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Earl looks to the government Amendment No. 51, he will see that a local authority shall, within such period after coming into force, and so on, prepare and publish information about relevant services which are provided for or in respect of the children.
I very much see that what we seek to achieve under that new clause is essentially what he wishes to achieve under his Amendment No. 50. I suggest to him that where his amendment is inappropriate is that he wishes to amend Clause 18, which relates to the preparation of strategic plans. Some of that, as he doubtless knows from his own experience, might contain a considerable degree of turgid detail which would be of little value or interest to those who might use the services. I would suggest to him that what we propose in the amendment, which we shall shortly reach, is a better way forward.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I anticipated that I would have to make my mind up whether I was to not move Amendment No. 50 and let Amendment No. 51 run through. What I decided was that Amendment No. 50 was more weighted towards a readable version. It was for that reason that I decided to move the amendment. However, I accept the noble and learned Lord's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Publication of information about services for children.
(" .—(1) A local authority shall, within such period after the coining into force of this section as the Secretary of State may direct, and thereafter from time to time, prepare and publish information—

(a) about relevant services which are provided by them for or in respect of children (including, without prejudice to that generality, services for or in respect of disabled children or children otherwise affected by disability) in their area or by any other local authority for those children; and

(b) where they consider it appropriate, about services which are provided by voluntary organisations and by other persons for those children, being services which the authority have power to provide and which, were they to do so, they would provide as relevant services.

(2) In subsection (1) above, "relevant services" has the same meaning as in section 18 of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: When the Bill was being discussed in another place, amendments were
CWH 50
tabled requiring local authorities to publish information about their services. These were not considered to be satisfactorily drafted, but my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State agreed with them in principle and we now have our response in the shape of this new clause.
It places a specific responsibility on local authorities to publish within such time as may be directed by the Secretary of State information about the range of services they provide in respect of children. Your Lordships will note that the new clause embraces all children, including those who are disabled or who are affected by disability. This then allows the deletion of subsection (4) from Clause 21. The new clause also allows for the publication of information about services provided by voluntary organisations when considered relevant by the local authority.
It is not difficult to imagine where it would be entirely appropriate for the authority to draw the attention of residents in their area to the availability of specialist services; for example, for children with special needs. We had originally considered that by preparing and publishing plans local authorities would make adequate information available about their range of child care services but there is no doubt that the new clause presents the requirement in a much clearer and more focused way and I hope the information will be presented in a readable fashion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Promotion of welfare of children in need]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 16, line 25, at beginning insert:
("(A1) A local authority shall—

(a) safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area; and

(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, promote the upbringing of such children by their families,

by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 52 I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 53. The amendment springs from the concern that has evolved about the possible misuse of the category "child in need". There is a danger that local authorities will develop child service plans for this group of children and families which will leave them stigmatised. The local authority's plans may become disjointed with lack of a comprehensive range of services for children. The merit of the amendment is that it will ensure that the local authority focuses on providing a broad range of services to all families, not just an isolated group who, as I said before, may become resented.
For example, while it is current practice for disabled children to be integrated and schooled alongside their able-bodied counterparts, the Bill might lead a local authority to develop plans and services which actually militate against such good practice. Similarly, a local authority might misunderstand its duty to children and plan only for the tiny minority. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps the Minister can tell me when replying whether there is any definition of the phrase "children in need" within the Bill and if not whether it is left to the judgment of the local authority or to a matter of opinion. In particular I wonder whether there is not a danger that the phrase will be used to restrict the category to children with special needs. Perhaps he can also tell me whether it would be likely to include children who are not in need at the time but who, unless something is done, are likely to become children in need.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may respond first to that request. Yes, indeed, there is a definition of "in need". It is to be found in Clause 84. Of greater relevance is an amendment we have yet to reach, Amendment No. 201, a government amendment, which re-defines what "in need" means. I understand that that amendment has been welcomed by those who have an interest in ensuring that children in need are properly covered and that the extent of the definition is seen as being wide enough.
The amendments we are discussing now would require a local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The qualification in the clause as originally drafted that the children should be in need has been lost Part II of the Bill is essentially about public intervention in the lives of children and their families. I believe that we need a suitable trigger. We do not want a local authority to have carte blanche to intervene when it is not necessary. Some assessment of need is surely appropriate and we cannot expect local authorities to promote the welfare of children where such action is not required, and, perhaps more importantly, where it is not desired by the child's family. The noble Earl seeks to keep families together and I agree that that is a desirable aim. The clause as drafted already reflects the need to take the child's and the parents' views into account where the local authority is making any decision. I have no doubt that if families wish to stay together, that will be arranged, if possible.
While I do not believe that it would be appropriate to move away from the concept that the children should be able to trigger access to the services, we have, as I have already indicated, extended our definition of "in need" in Clause 84. I hope that that will be of sufficient encouragement to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As he will no doubt have guessed, in some respects this amendment is the first to protest against the description "child in need". We have been concerned that that sounds as though it has too narrow a focus, but this may be another of the semantic arguments in which we have already indulged this afternoon, so I do not wish to pursue it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 31, at end insert—
CWH 52
("() In providing services under subsection (1) above, a local authority shall have regard so far as practicable to each child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 55 (proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie) and the Government's alternative amendment, Amendment No. 56, seek to achieve the same objective. The aim is to ensure that when local authorities are considering the provision of services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need, proper regard should be paid to children's backgrounds. We have already acknowledged elsewhere in the Bill the great relevance of a child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
The government amendment represents the preferred form of drafting and since it will achieve the result desired by the noble Earl, I invite him to withdraw his amendment in favour of the Government's. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I think that that has already happened. I congratulate the Minister on tabling such an excellent amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 16, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Where it appears to a local authority that a child within their area is in need, the authority may assess his need for services for the purposes of this Act at the same time as any assessment of his needs is made under—

(a) the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;

(b) the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;

(c) the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

(d) section 21(3) of this Act; or

(e) any other enactment.").

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken when any child's needs are being assessed. Many potential users of services will not be aware of the full range of services available to them. It would therefore be useful if an assessment could focus on the full range of unmet needs and not just on the aspect which may have provoked the inquiry. That will have the merit of causing all the agencies to take a co-operative view of what is required and to begin planning their combined approach right from the start. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have no doubt about the good intention which lies behind Amendment No. 57. It seeks to promote arrangements for the assessment of children under various enactments which are as non-intrusive as possible by providing the means whereby assessments under different enactments may be carried out at the same time. I note that the enactments referred to in the amendment are concerned with persons with disabilities. It may therefore have been better to add the proposed new subsection to Clause 21. Even then, however, I think on balance that it would introduce into the Bill considerable detail which would in turn undermine our intention to keep this important clause as simple and as focused as possible.

CWH 53
I would not want the noble Earl to feel that I am in any way in favour of multiple or repeated assessments where they can be avoided. I can therefore assure your Lordships that we shall bring the essential and important intention of the amendment into the guidance which we shall be preparing for local authorities. With that clear assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 57.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for that reply. He is quite right that multiple assessments must be avoided and that when an assessment is done it should be as comprehensive as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 16, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) the services mentioned in that subsection shall include respite services, and the Secretary of State shall make regulations for such provisions; and
( ) for the purposes of this Part—
"respite services" are arrangements whereby children affected by disability or at risk of family breakdown are provided with a break from their primary carers for a short period.").
The noble Earl said: This is an important amendment which will assist a broad range of families. Respite care has been a useful development in recent years, enabling families to continue looking after their children and at the same time knowing that there will be a break coming up every so often.
The provision of respite services needs to be mentioned in the legislation because it does not match the concept of children in need of accommodation. The parents of a child who would benefit from respite services are, of course, able to provide accommodation.
I believe that local authorities are in a quandary about the statutory nature of respite care. The inclusion in the Bill of a subsection specifically dealing with it would wipe away those doubts. The consequence would be that the new social work authorities would be able to plan for respite care provision, confident that they were acting statutorily.
The rather varied levels of provision of respite care at present in Scotland could then be brought up to a higher and more beneficial standard. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to support the amendment because I believe that respite care can do an enormous amount to enable disabled children particularly and children in need to be able to live at home and to enable their parents to cope with them. This must be an important objective.
I should like to take the opportunity of the amendment to ask the Minister whether he really means "provision" throughout the Bill and in particular this clause. Surely it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government for local authorities to procure services as well as to provide them. I happen to be president of an organisation which provides respite care to severely damaged Down's Syndrome children. I believe it is extremely important that provision or procurement by the local authority should be included in the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: May I say to the noble Lord that it is a very good point and I entirely agree with him. I certainly do not intend to indicate in the way the Bill is drafted that the only organisation to provide the actual services is to be the local authority itself. In the way the Bill is drafted—and I will look at it again—I certainly intended that it should be conveyed that the local authority, in providing such services, might procure them, as he would describe it, from either the voluntary or the independent sector. He is absolutely right. It is very desirable that there should be that range of opportunity provided.
May I also say in relation to respite services that I acknowledge the great desirability of having such services and the very important part that they can play in keeping families together. It was in the light of a discussion on this very matter in another place that we considered very carefully whether it would be helpful to bring in a definition of the type brought forward in this amendment.
However, it is not only those respite services which can be of great assistance in keeping families together; so can other support services of various types, including support within the child's own home. We do not know what new and innovative services might be developed in the future. On balance, and I stress on balance, we believe that it would not be helpful to highlight one particular service in primary legislation in the way proposed by the amendment, nor would it be appropriate to require the Secretary of State to make regulations. What might be practicable in one area of Scotland might not work at all in another. Local authorities in our view would be best placed to develop services to meet local needs.
With the indication I have given of the desirability of such respite services, I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that we are going for very much the same objective but do not want to single out one range of services.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with him that respite care is a very valuable contribution. It is certainly quite new, and I can say as a social work student from round about 1970 that that word did not exist then and nor did the concept. It is certainly a new idea, and a very useful one. I believe that local authorities have the go-ahead to develop respite services on what amounts to a statutory basis, so on that basis I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 16, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Every local authority shall make such provision as they consider appropriate for the following services to be available with respect to children in need within their area while they are living with their families—

(a) advice, guidance and counselling;

(b) occupational, social, cultural or recreational activities;

(c) home help (which may include laundry facilities);

(d) facilities for, or assistance with, travelling to and from home for the purpose of taking advantage of any other service provided under this Act or of any similar service; and

CWH 55

(e) assistance to enable the child concerned and his family to have a holiday.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment has the purpose of spelling out how the local authority shall go about its task of providing services to children. It goes so far as to state the range of ways that a local authority may help a family in their own home. The amendment provides a lead to local authorities by suggesting a practical minimum level of services which they should be maintaining. Some of the services are domestic; some are in the form of guidance; others have a "use of leisure" input, and the final subsection suggests a practical form of respite care. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I have already indicated, I readily accept that the types of services listed in this amendment would, in appropriate circumstances, be of great value and help to children in need. However, I again make the point that I doubt whether it is helpful to introduce quite this degree of specification. Specifying one particular type of service and not another could, I fear, give rise to the notion that one particular service is necessarily more important than another, or more seriously—I think that there are those who are concerned about the drafting of the legislation—that services which were not specifically mentioned could not then be provided. I am sure the noble Earl would not want that to happen.
We prefer the approach presently adopted by the Bill which enables local authorities to provide a range of services for children in need, and which offers a flexibility not only in terms of the child's current needs, but also in terms of his or her changing needs. With that further explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for his reply. These very detailed amendments stem from concern that the category of "child in need" is too narrow and that it is therefore necessary to spell it out in order to establish that "child in need" does not cover just a very small group of children, but relates in fact to many children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 16, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area, and provide them and those who might benefit with information on available services.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is concerned with the local authorities' efforts to find out the scale of need among children in their area. The amendment will have the beneficial effect of causing the various agencies to co-operate with one another and ultimately make joint plans. Finally, the amendment requires the local authority to publish information about its services in an easily read form. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to seek information from the Minister. We are talking all the time about
CWH 56
children in need. I wonder whether we are right in doing so throughout this clause. It seems to me that the needs of the whole community should be looked at—not only the needs of children in need, but the needs of the whole community partly to supply a service but partly to prevent children from becoming "children in need". I wonder whether one ought not to be recommending that the community be looked at and that services be started to meet the needs of the community. Then, one would hope, the children in need would be referred to whatever organisation there is.
For example, I do not believe that we should put all children in need together; they should be mixing with normal children. With a difficult child you might, arrange for him or her to join, for example, the Scouts or a club. We should perhaps be looking to the community to encapsulate the requirements of children in need. We should not start up organisations just for children in need; we should start them up for the community so that the children in need can attend alongside normal children.
I think that my question about this covers Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 and, therefore, the next amendment, but I should like some guidance from my noble and learned friend the Minister.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I previously indicated to the Committee, the definition of a child in need is modified by Amendment No. 201. I offer the view to the Committee that that is now sufficiently wide. Initially there were some misgivings about the narrowness of the original definition, but while I understand my noble friend's desire to see children properly established and cared for within the community, I am bound to say that we have gone sufficiently far in the new definition that we have provided for in Clause 84. Amendment No. 201 is the one which amends it.
As regards this amendment, perhaps the noble Lord might reflect on the government amendment, Amendment No. 51, which I moved and allows for the provision of information for those children who have needs. In the light of the amendment that the Government have introduced, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was right in saying that preventive services were very important. As we have not yet reached Amendment No. 201 we are still having to deal with the old definition of children in need; hence the worries about the definition being too narrow as it stands at present. I suspect that when Amendment No. 201 is dealt with we will move into a broader and more desirable category. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): If Amendment No. 62 is agreed to, I

CWH 57
cannot call Amendment No. 63.
Clause 21 [Children affected by disability]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("effect") to ("and") in line 5 and insert—
("on any—

(i) disabled child who is within the authority's area, of his disability; and

(ii) child who is within that area and is affected adversely by the disability of any other person in his family, of that other person's disability;").

The noble and learned Lord said: I am pleased to have been able to have tabled Amendment No. 62 in response to an undertaking given in another place. We think it is right that when a local authority is providing services for children affected by disability in their families, the services should be designed so as to minimise the effect of the family's member's disability on the child adversely affected by it and to give that child the opportunity to lead a life which is as normal as possible. Amendment No. 62 would ensure that that happened.
Amendment No. 66 would also ensure that the same definition of disability applies to both children and adults for the purposes of this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 17, line 5, after ("disabilities") insert ("or those of their family member,").
The noble Earl said: The aim of Amendment No. 64 is to put on the face of the Bill a duty on local authorities to take an active interest in, and give support to, those young people who are caring for other family members. These children are distinctly affected by the disability of others. For example, a 12 year-old boy may have many extra tasks placed on him at home because his mother is confined to a wheelchair. It is only reasonable that children who are patiently helping their immediate family members in this way should be recognised by the local authority and given every assistance. This could include access to respite services and day trips, which their disabled parent would have difficulty in organising and leading. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In view of the amendment I have moved, Amendment No. 62, it may be that the noble Earl in a position to move Amendment No. 64 when he could not move Amendment No. 63. Nevertheless, as I understand it, what he is seeking to do with Amendment No. 64 is effectively embraced within what I have introduced by way of Amendment No. 62. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 17. line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this Act—
CWH 58

(a) a child has a disability if he has a physical, mental, or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out activities associated with the expected stage of children of a similar age without a disability;

(b) 'impairment' means any damage to or loss or absence of a physiological, psychological or anatomical function; and

(c) an adult has a disability if he has a physical, mental or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, including the normal activities involved in caring for a child.")

The noble Earl said: In Amendment No. 65 I am aiming to update the terminology used in the Bill. The amendment gives a definition of a child who, according to the Bill, is chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder. The words in the amendment more accurately reflect current thinking about disability in children. It also has the merit of being more in line with the Disability Discrimination Bill.
In particular, the terminology of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act used in the Bill is fairly inappropriate when dealing with children. Few young children would be classed as mentally ill, although they might have emotional or behavioural problems. Furthermore, a clear diagnosis of a child's problem is often not made for several years. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether I may put a question here. Some children suffer from tremendous activity which I am led to say can sometimes, particularly with homeopathic medicines, be helped quite considerably. They can, however, be the most awful problem children. In answering the question of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie would consider these children who can have quite serious problems with this hyperactivity, as it is called. It is quite a well-known problem with children.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It certainly is known that there are children with such problems. Here we are seeking to replace the definition of a disabled child in Clause 21(2) and provide instead an extended and new definition. It was considered briefly, I understand, in another place, but it was not thought to be necessary to bring in a more detailed definition as the definition already in the Bill seemed to cover the types of disabilities relevant to the clause.
I can appreciate the temptation to introduce particular types of conditions within the definition of disability, but going down that road carries the risk that some specific condition, perhaps of the type to which the noble Earl is referring, may be omitted, which would have the effect of putting the child with that condition outside the definition of a disabled child. I have no doubt that none of your Lordships would wish that to happen.
The definition already provided in the Bill has, as I see it, the twin advantages of being flexible and also of being familiar to local authorities in that it is drawn from the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Before suggesting to the noble Earl that he should withdraw his amendment, I would repeat what I said in relation to Amendment No. 66, which would apply the definition in the Bill not only to a child but also to an adult.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may seek some information from my noble and learned friend. If we are in the future to have small unitary authorities, will there be the level of expertise necessary over a wide range in one area for children with disabilities? I am thinking particularly of blindness, glaucoma and other disabilities. I do hope that it is going to be possible, despite the small authorities, to have that specialist help and advice for assessment and treatment of those children.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: One would certainly be very concerned if there were to be children with these disabilities in any particular part of Scotland who, because they happened to live in a small unitary authority, would not be provided with the necessary specialist services. It may be that not each and every one of those new authorities will wish to provide the full range of specialist services but we certainly wish to ensure that and I believe there is no reason why they should not be provided in one form or another either by an adjoining local authority or by having resort to the independent or voluntary sector to provide them. After all, as the noble Baroness knows from her own experience, these specialist services are frequently provided throughout the United Kingdom not by the local authorities themselves but by their having access to either voluntary or other charitable organisations which can provide the services that are necessary.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble and learned Lord smiled at me when referring to small local authorities. Yes indeed there is a fair challenge for Clackmannanshire to provide these services and I believe it will be done by arrangement with others. May I also say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that the problems of hyperactivity are definitely acute and that we have much more to learn about how hyperactivity is triggered off. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("child") and insert ("person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 17, line 11. leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) A local authority may, if the parent or guardian of the child agree—

(a) combine an assessment carried out under section 61 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980; or

(b) include in the assessment an assessment of need for services which the local authority could provide in the exercise of any of its powers and duties under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

(3A) If, while they are carrying out their duty under subsection (3) of this section, it appears to a local authority that there may be a need for the provision to any person to whom that subsection applies of any service under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 by the Health Board—

(a) in whose area he is ordinarily resident; or

(b) in whose area the services to be supplied by the local
CWH 60
authority are, or are likely to be provided,

the local authority shall so notify that health Board and invite them to participate in a joint assessment of the person's needs.
(3B) Where a local authority are making an assessment under this section and it appears to them that the person concerned is a disabled person, they shall—

(a) proceed to make such a decision as to the services he requires as is mentioned in section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 without his requesting them to do so under that section; and

(b) inform him that they will be doing so and of his rights under that Act.").

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the purpose of the assessment procedure for children with disabilities and to promote a multi-disciplinary approach to the assessment of children with special needs. The amendment would allow the assessment of a disabled child to be co-ordinated with an educational assessment and also to consider the housing and health needs of the child.
At Committee stage, in another place, the Government opposed a similar amendment saying that it imported arrangements from community care assessments. In fact, the problem is that the Children (Scotland) Bill falls far short of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in creating a clear framework and purpose for assessments.
This amendment might appear to make things more complicated for statutory agencies, but it would certainly make things a lot simpler for parents and children. Parents who submitted evidence to the consortium campaigning on the Bill clearly stated that disabled children already had too many assessments, including those for health needs, housing needs, education needs, and for entitlement to various welfare benefits. Simply adding another assessment is not going to help families. What is needed is for the agencies to work together to deliver a co-ordinated package of care with one agency taking lead responsibility.
The amendment would create the possibility of a one-stop assessment which would look at the needs of the whole child rather than perpetuating separate assessments which are primarily for the needs of the service agencies.
The amendment also rectifies another omission from the Bill, which is the failure to connect the new assessment procedure with the existing assessment procedure for disabled children, introduced by Section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That section allows a disabled person, including a disabled child, to request an assessment of the person's needs under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That is important because the 1970 Act created entitlements of great importance to many disabled children, including to help in the home, adaptations and holidays. Because that has not been linked with the new assessment procedure, it would be quite lawful for a social work department to carry out an assessment without considering those needs. Parents would be expected to know that they would have to request separate assessments under the Bill and under the 1986 Act. Not only is that unreasonable; it is different from the provision for adults. When an adult receives a

CWH 61
community care assessment, the needs of the person under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act must be considered without formal request.
I hope that the failure to make the link with the 1986 Act can be rectified to ensure that disabled children receive services to which they are legally entitled. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In response to an earlier amendment which had a similar purpose behind it, I indicated that I had some sympathy with that essential intention; namely, the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of assessments.
However, I again doubt whether this is the way forward. What I would suggest is that the question of the avoidance of duplication of assessment should feature in the guidance that we shall be preparing following on the enactment of the Bill. The noble Earl certainly has my assurance that the desirability of what he argues for is effectively without question.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I certainly thank him for the assurance that these aspects will be covered in guidance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 17, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 68 when speaking to Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause:
Assessment of ability of carers to provide care for disabled children.
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in any case where—

(a) a local authority carry out under section 21(3) of this Act an assessment to determine the needs of a disabled child and

(b) a person (in this section referred to as the "carer") provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for that child,

the carer may request the local authority, before they make a decision as to the discharge of any duty they may have under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or under section 20(1) of this Act as respects the child, to carry out an assessment of the carer's ability to continue to provide, or as the case may be to provide, care for that child; and if the carer makes such a request, the local authority shall carry out such an assessment arid shall have regard to the results of it in making any such decision.
(2) No request may be made under subsection (1) above by a person who provides or will provide the care in question—

(a) under or by virtue of a contract of employment or other contract; or

(b) as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation.

(3) Where an assessment of a carer's ability to continue to provide, or as the case may be to provide, care for a child is carried
CWH 62
out under subsection (1) above, there shall, as respects the child, he no requirement under section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (carer's ability to continue to provide care to be considered in any decision as respects provision of certain services for disabled persons) to have regard to that ability.
(4) In this section "person" means a natural person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill contains a provision dealing with the assessment of the ability of carers in England and Wales to care for, or to continue to care for, children with disabilities. Because of certain differences in the legislation in Scotland, it was not thought appropriate for that important provision to be extended to Scotland in that Bill.
During the earlier stages of that Bill in another place the Government agreed to amend this Bill to provide a corresponding provision dealing with the assessment of carers of disabled children in Scotland. At that time we said that it was our intention to achieve the maximum consistency with the reform south of the Border on this issue. The amendment now tabled honours that commitment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: May I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain subsection (2) of his new clause? Is it to cover people such as nannies who are employed, or something like that? I feel that it is surprisingly restrictive.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There are two things that worry me about the new clause. There is no word of support for the carers in caring. You may get a disabled mother caring for a child. There is no word about support in doing that. The other worry is that the carer must ask for an assessment.
I would be happier if the assessment were offered without having to be asked for, which no doubt will mean filling in forms by somebody who is already very busy overworked.
Finally, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? Subsection (4) of the new clause says:
"In this section 'person' means a natural person."
I am very ignorant but may I ask the noble and learned Lord what an unnatural person is because I would like to know?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There are in law persons other than natural persons and there might, for example, be a partnership in Scotland which I think the noble Lady appreciates is a separate legal persona.
I respond to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, by saying that no assessment of the carer will be made where the carer provides the care under, or by virtue of, a contract for employment or other contract or as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation. The type of person it is intended to cover is the sort of person I think he would appreciate. It is perhaps the parents or grandparents of the child.
The Earl of Balfour: Thank you.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I commented that I did not see any word about the support for the carer and also I was not very happy that the carer had to ask for

CWH 63
the assessment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I will look into the matter, but it seems to me that it would be quite difficult to ensure that everyone who might need assessing was already known to the local authority. It might be a virtually impossible task for them to identify without some request being made to them for such an assessment to be carried out.
I apologise to the noble Lady for not answering her question. All I can say about this provision is that we are not dealing here with issues of support. It is just the narrow point of providing assessment in the context of the Scottish provisions to mirror as best as can be achieved those provisions which' are found south of the Border in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill which I believe is about to complete its passage through both Houses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Provision of accommodation for children, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 82 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Manner of provision of accommodation to child looked after by local authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause:
Day care for pre-school and other children.
(" .—(1) Each local authority shall provide such day care for children in need within their area who—

(a) are aged five or under; and

(b) have not yet commenced attendance at a school,

as is appropriate, and they may provide such day care for children within their area who satisfy the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) but are not in need.
(2) A local authority may provide facilities (including training, advice, guidance and counselling) for those—

(a) caring for children in day care; or

(b) who at any time accompany such children while they are in day care.

(3) Each local authority shall provide for children in need within their area who are in attendance at a school such care—

(a) outside school hours; or

(b) during school holidays,

as is appropriate; and they may provide such care for children within their area who are in such attendance but are not in need.
(4) In this section—
"day care" means any form of care provided for children during the day, whether or not it is provided on a regular basis; and "school" has the meaning given by section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have tabled this new clause to provide a clear statutory authority relating to the provision of day care services for pre-school and other children and of facilities for those who care for them or accompany them in day care. Such services for children as well as services for adults are presently provided under Section 12 of the 1968 Act, but given
CWH 64
the opportunity of the new legislation in relation to children only, and the proposed amendments as a consequence to remove references in Section 12 to services for children, we wish to make specific statutory provision in relation to day care services. I am sure this will be welcomed, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: Under Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 I made points which I had meant to make under Amendment No. 85. I am a little worried. I think Amendment No. 85 is a very good amendment, but should we not consider the community as a whole? If we just look at children in need we will stigmatise children in the community. I can understand perhaps if we had nurseries just for children in need, but should we not look at what are the needs of the community, first, so that we do not stigmatise the children in need, and, secondly, because if we then have the services applying to the whole community we are carrying out a preventative measure. Having made this point earlier, I apologise for repeating it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand what my noble friend is saying. This new clause allows that each local authority shall provide such day care for children in need who are aged five or under and have not yet started school and gives local authorities a power to provide day care for children who satisfy these conditions but are not in need. It is necessary to have some degree of restriction on the duty to provide day care. I recognise that my noble friend would like to see that duty extended on a broader basis, but I am sure that she appreciates that that is as far as I can take it at this time.
Baroness Faithfull: May I just pursue this point'? Am I inferring from what my noble and learned friend says that we are having the narrower interpretation because of lack of resources?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, what it says is that each local authority shall provide such day care for children in need within their area who are aged five or under and have not yet commenced attendance at school as appropriate; and they may provide such day care for children in their area who satisfy the conditions mentioned in (a) and (b) but are not in need. It is therefore somewhat wider, but it does not impose an absolute duty upon them.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Looking at the Bill as it stands and the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, why do we ricochet between "may" and "shall"? I do not quite understand it. Clause 23(1) states:
"A local authority may provide accommodation for a child looked after by them".
Then Clause 23(2) reads:
"A local authority may arrange for a child whom they are looking after".
We then come to the amendment which states:
"Each local authority shall provide"
Subsection (2) of the amendment then states:
"A local authority may provide".
Subsection (3) then reads:
"Each local authority shall provide"

CWH 65
However, at the end of subsection (3) of the amendment, we go back again to "may". We have the "may" and the "shall" difference. What does it all mean?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Absolutely. It is not invariably a rule of construction, but in these circumstances a duty is imposed where the word "shall" is used, and where "may" is used that would empower the local authority to provide those services, and if it did so it would have the statutory authority of Parliament so to do.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Where the word "shall" appears it is an obligation upon the local authority to provide the service contained in Clause 23 of this Bill. May I ask who will pay for it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is what I said. The noble Lord is sufficiently experienced to know that, as it
CWH 66
goes through the statutes, "shall" can sometimes mean "may". It usually means "shall" but not invariably. Here there is a duty to provide the services referred to and it is probably because there are clearly questions of resources that that is not the broadest of duties imposed. If the noble Lord wishes to offer a guarantee to the people of Scotland that these are to he provided, I would be very interested to hear him say that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  War Crimes Act 1991: Prosecution Decisions
  War Crimes Act 1991: Prosecution Decisions
  MAFF and DoE: Merger Proposal
  MAFF and DoE: Merger Proposal
  Nolan Report: Implementation of Recommendations
  Nolan Report: Implementation of Recommendations
  Youth Training Courses
  Youth Training Courses
  Volunteering
  Volunteering
  Boundary Commission Report
  Boundary Commission Report
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Advisory Committee Recommendations on Regulations
  Social Security Advisory Committee Recommendations on Regulations