Sitting of 29 June 1995

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

  ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 July.

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
  (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Monday 3 July at 7 o'clock.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 6 July.

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 6 July.

  BELL'S BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the privatisation of British Rail on the economy of Northern Ireland. [29801]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): None.
    Mr. Foulkes: That is a pathetic answer, but typical. The Minister must be aware of the economic and strategic importance of the line to Stranraer, not only for south-west Scotland but for Northern Ireland. Will he seek some assurances from British Rail that that line will continue if the ill-thought-out privatisation of British Rail goes ahead?
    Mr. Moss: The question of the Stranraer rail link is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we have decided not to
    1066
    carry out an assessment of the impact of rail privatisation for the following reasons: most business between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is road-based, for logistical reasons. We believe that privatisation will result in a more efficient rail system in Great Britain, thereby offering welcome choice for Northern Ireland businesses.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be well aware that, even though many cars travel between Larne and Stranraer, a considerable number of foot passengers travel from Belfast to Glasgow and vice versa. They use the line that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and it is an essential line for that reason.
    When the Minister consults his hon. Friends in the Scottish Office, will he also remember that the terminal facilities at Stranraer are vastly inferior to those available in Larne? Perhaps he would discuss obtaining some funds from Europe to update those facilities in Stranraer, which would help the economy of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Moss: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the future of the Stranraer rail link is part of the minimum service requirement. It is included in the proposed ScotRail franchise, and that is currently out for consultation. The hon. Gentleman said that foot passengers use the ferry, but only about 1 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports arrive at those ports by rail, and only about 10 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports to Great Britain complete their journey by rail.

    Economic Outlook
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the economic outlook for the Province. [29802]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The outlook is very encouraging. Employment and output are rising and unemployment is falling. Business confidence and investment intentions are at high levels. New opportunities are opening up for tourism and inward investment, and exports are increasing as our indigenous companies expand. With continuing peace, Northern Ireland's economic prospects are the best that they have been for a generation.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland has reached its lowest levels since 1981, that manufacturing output increased by 7 per cent. last year and that exports from Northern Ireland are growing faster than the United Kingdom average? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of the proposed £100 million investment in the Province by a major supermarket chain which will bring with it 2,000 new jobs? Finally, I suggest that much of that success is due to the wholly improved atmosphere in Northern Ireland which is due in large part to the initiatives undertaken by my right hon. and learned Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I certainly endorse the welcome that he gave to the investment that we are now seeing. I thank him for highlighting the improvements that are occurring in the Northern Ireland economy. It is indicative of how much things have improved that not only has unemployment

    1067
    fallen to its lowest levels since 1981 but also, as of March this year, the number of those in employment has reached a record high. That figure speaks for itself. It is evident that enormous opportunities are available to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of economic growth if peace is sustained and political stability can be achieved. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are asking of their political representatives.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that permanent peace will provide a prize in economic terms in which all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland can share? Does he accept that the new investment arising from the successful conferences held in Belfast and Washington, which were promoted by Prime Minister Major and President Clinton, will be of greatest economic benefit if the new jobs created are accessible to both sections of the community so that all can share in the prosperity that follows?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is absolutely right to underline the fact that peace is the key to future growth and prosperity in Northern Ireland. It is not just temporary peace that will achieve that outcome, but confidence that the peace is permanent. At the end of the day, that can be underlined only by the creation of political stability through political agreement.
    I also endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments that inward investment, particularly as a result of the two conferences to which he referred, will bring the greatest degree of confidence to the community in Northern Ireland if the benefits of that investment are shared as widely as possible.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the economy of Northern Ireland would be boosted considerably if Shorts, as part of the Westland team, were successful in securing the Ministry of Defence's order for attack helicopters with its Apache version? Does the Minister recognise that that would open the way for Starstreak to be used in the United States? Does he accept that the Government should push from within the Cabinet to ensure that the order goes to Westland and that Shorts benefits as a result?
    Mr. Ancram: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I agree with what he has said and I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been talking to the appropriate people in this instance, in particular Commerce Secretary Brown.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position over the peace process. [29803]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We wish to establish beyond doubt that the permanence of peace is truly intended. Therefore, we continue to press Sinn Fein and the loyalist parties alike to address the decommissioning of arms and to continue with exploratory dialogue to that end.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Secretary of State explain what he meant in his letter last week in The Times when he said that the future prospects of Northern Ireland have already been much damaged by the quarrelling among
    1068
    Tory Members of Parliament? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that whoever happens to be elected leader of the Tory party in due course—be it in the first, second or any other ballot—will be committed fully to the peace process and to the framework document? Does he agree that the peace process is far too precious to be sacrificed through Tory quarrelling and civil war in the party ranks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, very uncharacteristically, is engaging in party political games on a subject that is far too serious for that. Of course everybody in the present Government is fully committed to what has come to be called the peace process, and of course it is the case that instability in the position of any Prime Minister having the commitment demonstrated by my right hon. Friend has a deleterious effect. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. If he does not, he can read my article in The Daily Telegraph today.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: No doubt the Secretary of State read his own piece in The Daily Telegraph today, but did he read the report of the release of an IRA prisoner who was found guilty in Germany? Did he read the outrageous remarks made by the judge, who said that prisoner was being released although guilty because of the connotations of the peace process? The judge said also that the Roman Catholic people of Northern Ireland had a desire to bomb their way into a united Ireland and that there was never any religious or civil liberty in Northern Ireland for Roman Catholic people. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something to correct the German authorities about the present situation?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is important that the true facts about Northern Ireland, its democratic status and the applicability of the rule of law there should always be made clear at home and abroad. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, tempting though it is I do not believe that I should depart from my rule of not commenting on judicial decisions.
    Mr. Trimble: Can the Secretary of State assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that the peace process and political considerations will not be allowed to interfere with the normal operation of the criminal justice system—so that when, as is likely now that we have had peace for some time, witnesses are prepared to come forward and give positive identification in respect of specific criminal acts, the normal processes will be followed? If so, there would be no further repetitions of the reported incident in which a leading member of the IRA identified as the trigger man by a witness was released in breach of normal procedures, simply because the police feared that the Northern Ireland Office would be upset if a major provo were charged.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course. The remaining parts of his question proceed on a number of premises that I do not accept. The Northern Ireland prosecution system, as I recall from the many years that I had responsibility for it, is entirely independent and impartial. The Law Officers of the Crown are there to ensure that it remains so. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friends will do so.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of widespread support for his insistence that the

    1069
    provisionals cannot take part in substantive talks unless there is acceptable progress on decommissioning and for his assertion that substantive talks can start without the involvement of the provisionals?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I gave that assurance. A certain amount of turmoil resulted from a remark that I made when doorstepped a couple of days ago. I have looked at the transcript and it seems entirely orthodox, and in fact rather trite. It was put to me that Mr. McGuinness has said that there was not a snowball's chance in hell of decommissioning until a political settlement had occurred—to which I replied, if that was the case, the political talks process would continue in the absence of Sinn Fein. I cannot believe that anybody in the House wishes that I had replied otherwise.
    Dr. Hendron: Does the Secretary of State agree that the peace process cannot be considered meaningfully without taking account of prisoners? I make no apology for raising this matter over and over again. Many believe, as I do, that Private Lee Clegg will be released shortly. If that happens, will the Secretary of State ensure that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons, who did not kill anyone, will be released forthwith? While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing that, will he consider the question of Irish prisoners in Britain, have them returned to Northern Ireland and look with generosity at the whole question of republican and loyalist prisoners? Some of us, at least in Northern Ireland, could truly say that there but for the grace of God go I, depending on the environment at that time.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman raises five or six items, on each of which, perfectly properly, he feels strongly. He cannot expect me to deal with them all.
    It is extremely important to note the distinction of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State under statute in the case of a power to release upon licence someone who has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and the absence of any jurisdiction on the part of the Secretary of State to second-guess the finding of a court as to guilt or innocence.
    I must not comment in response to the hon. Gentleman's question upon the other case that he mentioned, and I do not propose to do so. These matters arouse great passions and feelings and it is important that they should be dealt with in a cool and analytical way. That is not to ignore the human aspects of any of them.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept an endorsement of his remarks following the death of Senator Gordon Wilson, whose contribution to an end of violence was an example to all people? Will he accept also that although there is reason to be cautiously pessimistic about the continuation of the period of no more deaths since the tragic murder of Frank Kerr of Newry, Gordon Wilson's courage in meeting the IRA, although he thought afterwards that it had been a failure, may have been one of the triggers for success?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I think that anyone who knows the family of Senator Gordon Wilson, or even of it, will wish to extend profound sympathy to his widow. He was a wonderful man. He left no avenue unexplored in a search for peace
    1070
    after having demonstrated most extraordinary human qualities following the death of his daughter in Enniskillen.
    Ms Mowlam: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, pay tribute to the life and work of Gordon Wilson and offer our condolences to his wife, Jean? My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is not with us this afternoon because he is attending Gordon Wilson's funeral in Enniskillen on behalf of the Opposition.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that political progress will be achieved only through dialogue, and that it is imperative that all parties involved avoid vetoes and retain flexibility to create a climate in which progress can be made on the basis of the joint framework document?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, we would like to offer warmest congratulation ns to the hon. Lady on her marriage. It is important in politics, as in marriage, to seek consent and to try to avoid imposition. It is by that simple rubric that both in our marriage and in our politics the Government will proceed.
    Mr. Robathan: The House knows how well my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his team have done in carrying forward the peace process. However, should some or all terrorists return to violence, is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure the House that the security forces are in a position to reinforce as necessary, that their intelligence is up to speed and that they will not be taken by surprise should there be a return to violence?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend raises important questions. I can answer in the affirmative. Nothing that has been done to adjust the security response to the threat since the ceasefires is irreversible. There can be a reverse in a short number of days, and that is important. Of course we want to reach the point when, by actions as well as words, we can be confident that the permanence of peace is what is truly intended.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals he has to legislate for human rights in Northern Ireland. [29804]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is my intention that legislation on the general lines of the Race Relations Act 1976 should be introduced in Northern Ireland. We will also be considering, in the context of the talks process, how civil, political, social and cultural rights might best be further protected.
    Mr. Soley: I am grateful for that answer. May I urge on the Secretary of State that he and his Department give careful thought to the possibility of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which could go some way to reassure all sections of the community that in the future, whatever that holds, civil and human rights will be preserved and enhanced?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long taken close interest in these matters. We have said for a long time that we would be prepared to enhance protection for human rights in Northern Ireland. There is obviously a passage in each of

    1071
    the framework documents that bears upon that. If all the parties were to agree that the best means of such protection were a Bill of Rights, the Government would obviously take account of that view in the light of prevailing circumstances. At this juncture, we would not wish to rule anything out or in.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important human right of all is the right to life? Is not it remarkable that there has been freedom for such a long time from sectarian killing and destruction in Northern Ireland, a situation that many people thought would never happen? Is not that due in large measure to the brilliant negotiating skills of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. I do not believe that any body of opinion in Northern Ireland would disagree with what he has said, both as to the Prime Minister's skill, and certainly his commitment, and as to the level of surprise that what has come about in the past 10 months has occasioned. The right to life is the most fundamental human right of all, and one must always continue to stress that, not least when discussing the activities of people who presume to impose punishment without charge, without trial and without appeal.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the Ulster Unionist party tabled specific and detailed proposals for a Bill of Rights at the very start of the 1992 inter-party talks and was the only party to do so, but that neither the Irish Government nor the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party showed any interest in discussing those proposals?
    In the light of the decision by the IRA's northern command to embark upon what it calls "a rolling resumption" of violence, how does the Secretary of State envisage that he will be able to sustain human rights for the greater number of people in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's party did introduce substantial proposals for a Bill of Rights. I readily acknowledge that. The question of a Bill of Rights gives rise to an interesting debate, which is not all one way but, as I said, and I now repeat, if everyone agrees upon it, that will obviously weigh heavily with the Government.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting my right hon. Friend last night and making him aware of information that has come to him. That is the only source of such information in the Government's possession at the moment, but I simply say that if anyone in Northern Ireland has any intention to return to violence, that will meet with outrage from the people of Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the security forces will take all appropriate precautions to ensure that it is thwarted.
    Mr. Mallon: I associate myself with the remarks about Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a friend and a colleague and someone for whom I had enormous respect. That is also the view of my colleagues.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that in any society based on human rights there are two principles—one is the principle of equality before the law and the other is
    1072
    the principle that those who govern and those who are governed at all times and in all circumstances uphold the primacy of the law?
    Does the Secretary of State further agree that if he makes a decision in the Clegg case, an Executive decision made by a politician on the advice of civil servants, which overrules a decision of the Northern Ireland High Court, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, that, in effect, will devalue and demean the whole process of law in Northern Ireland?
    Will the Secretary of State accept from me that at this moment that would be tantamount to throwing a lighted match on to a tinder-box in Northern Ireland and, moreover, would rub salt in the wounds of those who have served long sentences according to due process, not according to Executive decision? Will the Secretary of State answer that? Does he uphold the primacy of the law and will he in this case?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I will. I have no intention of overruling, nor have I any jurisdiction to overrule, the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, or the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that notion with the concept of the jurisdiction that Parliament has conferred upon the holder of my office—as it has conferred it on the Home Secretary in Great Britain—to deal with the question of whether a sentence for life should mean for the whole of someone's natural life or not. I imagine that there are many people in prison of whom the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge—though very little sympathy, I feel sure—whom he would not wish to see languish in prison for the rest of their natural lives simply because that is the character of the sentence that has been imposed upon them. He can be perfectly certain that any individual case that falls within my jurisdiction will be dealt with in the best way that seems to me to accord with the rule of law and the jurisdiction conferred upon me by Parliament.
    At the risk of going on for too long—I hope I am not—I can say that of course we uphold the concept of equality before the law. That does not mean to say that every individual case receives equal treatment in terms of years or whatever. It means that the same considerations are applied, but does not mean that the identical result appears in every case. If that were the case, the individual circumstances would be neglected
    Ms Mowlam: In view of the breadth of the issues that have been raised in the House this afternoon, and the strength of feeling about decommissioning and prisoners, would the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House to bring those matters up in his discussions with the Tanaiste tomorrow and tell the House a little more about the nature of the study group set up with Dublin following the Cannes meeting earlier in the week?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The proceedings of intergovernmental conferences are always confidential and I think that it is right that they should remain confidential. It is very important that the two Governments, who have now established a long practice and experience of talking freely and frankly with each other, should be able to do so in circumstances of confidentiality. Most things that are relevant to the jurisdiction of each Government get discussed.

    Education Plans
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for future relations between grammar schools and education and library boards. [29805]
    Mr. Ancram: The Government have proposed that the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland should in future be undertaken by the education and library boards. No change is proposed to the governance of these schools, which will remain under the sole management of their boards of governors. Representations on these proposals have been received and will now be carefully considered before any final decisions are reached.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that some people on the governing bodies of the grammar schools are concerned that the relationship that they have had with the Department may alter, especially in the light of those grammar schools which are already controlled by the boards? When a board, in the case of, for example, Wellington college, recommends a major modernisation, the Department sets it aside and cannot even yet tell us when it will get the funding to upgrade that school's premises.
    Mr. Ancram: I have had representations from a number of quarters, including representatives of the Governing Bodies Association and from far further afield. I will wish to take full account of those representations including, I should add, representations from the hon. Gentleman's party, which supported the proposals. I wish to take all those representations away and give them the fullest consideration. In the proposals, we were seeking an administrative simplification of the system, not to alter any of the relationships in terms of control. Were I, following my consideration of the representations, to think that the proposals were going further than intended, I would take it into account.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current assessment of potential inward investment to Northern Ireland. [29806]
    Mr. Ancram: The climate for investment in Northern Ireland from overseas has been greatly enhanced by a sustained absence of violence. It is expected that a continuation of peace will result in an increased flow of inward investment.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply but, in the context of his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), is he not deeply concerned about the gross inequality in the distribution of job creation in Northern Ireland? The southern part of Northern Ireland has been neglected by inward investment projects. He will be aware that, for the years 1990 to 1995, 39 projects were created, but none in my constituency of South Down; in fact, only 3 per cent. of the inward investment visits of the past 10 years have come to South Down. Will the Minister take direct action to redress that inequality through a new inward investment strategy, allied perhaps to a decentralisation of jobs from Government Departments to the more rural areas?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for that particular aspect, but I shall certainly
    1074
    ensure that Lady Denton is made aware of his remarks. He will have heard me say that it is very much the intention of the Government to ensure that the benefits in terms of inward investment which will, we hope, flow from a sustained peace will be shared by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. That deals with the sort of points that he raised.
    Rev. William McCrea: Surely the Minister can understand the feelings of a number of hon. Members considering the inequality of the distribution of prosperity and jobs, bearing in mind the fact that very little has been directed towards the likes of Mid-Ulster. Prosperity and jobs have been directed to the Foyle constituency or to Belfast, West, to the neglect of Belfast, East and the constituency that I have the privilege to represent. Surely there should be proper equality of distribution. Bearing in mind the shots that were fired in Downpatrick last night, does the Minister agree that it is only with a clear renunciation of violence and the proper decommissioning of weapons that we shall make real progress in the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has already heard what I had to say about the importance of peace in terms of achieving the type of inward investment that we want. I hear what he says and he has heard what I have to say about trying to ensure that the benefits of peace are enjoyed across the community. Clearly, in terms of inward investment, there has to be some recognition of the fact that those coming to invest will be attracted to certain areas. The job of the Government is to ensure that, as far as possible, the areas that require investment are given sufficient exposition to make them attractive to investors.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that, although inward investment in the retail industry is welcome in that it increases choice, what Northern Ireland really needs is more investment in manufacturing industry? Will he therefore support the efforts made recently in Washington and at the earlier conference in Belfast to ensure a significant increase in investment in manufacturing industry, not only from the United States but from Great Britain and further afield?
    Mr. Ancram: We are as aware of the importance of trying to attract manufacturing industry, with its export potential, as of the other basic industry which is clearly going to flourish—tourism. There has to be a balance to ensure that the benefits of the prosperity that can be achieved through peace are spread as widely as possible.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that inward investment in Northern Ireland is greatly encouraged by the fact that we have not signed up to the social chapter or the minimum wage?
    Mr. Ancram: I could not have put it better myself.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister agree that job retention and job creation are a crucial part of economic development in Northern Ireland? In that context, is he aware that the recent round of compulsory competitive tendering in the Down Lisburn health and social services trust resulted in the loss of 55 jobs and that more than 80 per cent. of those affected were women? That is a pattern repeated in trusts all over Northern Ireland and is a direct result of the Government's policies. Is the Minister aware

    1075
    that we have recently been advised that the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines, which are intended to ensure that departmental policies have no adverse impact on, among other things, one gender as compared to another, do not apply to market testing in the health service? Does he accept that it does not help—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman relate his question more to inward investment, which is what it is all about?
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that it does not help inward investment policy for the Government to be seen to be ignoring their own PAFT guidelines?
    Mr. Ancram: I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's question to inward investment, so I can reply only that the inward investment in health goes to patients, to ensure that they get the best care possible.

    Integrated Education
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government policy on, and progress towards, integrated education in Northern Ireland. [29807]
    Mr. Ancram: The Government remain fully committed to supporting the development of integrated education and have recently approved proposals for a further four grant-maintained integrated schools. In addition, I have approved a proposal for an existing controlled primary school to become a controlled integrated school from next September. That brings to 28 the total number of integrated schools in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister will be aware that a survey showed that only 12 per cent. of Catholic and Protestant students at Queen's university had friends from the other community. However, the figure for Lagan college is 44 per cent. That makes a solid case for integrated education. I am pleased to hear about the measures that the Minister has mentioned, but is there not a case for turning mobile provision into permanent schools and for adding to capital investment in new schools?
    Mr. Ancram rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, may I ask that conversations be a little less noisy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well to say, "Hear, hear," but you are all having very loud conversations.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for Government policy. We have long recognised the important role that integrated education can play in bringing the two parts of the community together. Indeed, in the schools that I mentioned in my answer about 5,000 pupils are now involved in integrated education. At the moment, the impetus comes largely from new integrated schools being set up, but the Government want to encourage existing schools to become integrated. I was delighted to be able to announce in my answer that that had happened recently with one primary school—it is in Portaferry—and I hope that there will be many more such schools.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I commend the Government on their work in that important area and encourage them to press on. Is the Minister aware of the 1991 report that
    1076
    says that children who attend such schools are unlikely to become involved with paramilitary organisations when they leave?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no doubt that the more that children from both parts of the community are encouraged to get together at an early age, not only through integrated education but through other policies such as education for mutual understanding, the less likely they are in future to succumb to the sort of divisions to which their parents have succumbed.

    Democracy
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to make a start on restoring accountable democracy to the people of Northern Ireland. [29808]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Our aim is to strengthen accountable democracy through local institutions allowing all elected political representatives to exercise local responsibility and accountability—the sooner the better. But that should take place on a basis that has first been agreed through political dialogue involving the main Northern Ireland parties.
    Mr. Molyneaux rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I am reluctant to interrupt the conversations to which you referred earlier, Madam Speaker, but perhaps I have your permission to do so. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Come along now, let us have some order in the House. It is all very well hon. Members giving me their support when I ask for order, but it does not happen.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I am indebted to you, Madam Speaker.
    As the four constitutional parties have been engaged since 14 July 1987—eight years ago—with the Secretary of State and his two distinguished predecessors, does he feel that he can now proceed to reward those parties and that ministerial diligence and patience by giving us at long last some real influence over the affairs of our Province?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That would be well deserved indeed, but it must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the other parties—[interruption.] I knew that that would receive approval. It must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the leaders of the other parties have agreed; otherwise, if I seek to impose it, it will not stick. So I welcome the evidence that the right hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party are beginning to come together.

    Arms Decommissioning
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of arms and explosives held by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. [29809]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The Government have made clear the practical necessity for progress in the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in order to build an adequate foundation of trust and confidence for inclusive political talks. The exploratory dialogue continues to provide the right forum in which to discuss these issues.
    Dr. Spink: I am grateful for that robust response. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to be guided by the three-point plan which his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his Washington speech? The three points are that there will be clear agreement on the principle of decommissioning, that there will be agreement on the means by which that decommissioning will be achieved and that there will be practical evidence that the decommissioning is under way.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of departing from those three conditions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29831]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mitchell: The President of the Board of Trade said on radio yesterday that the Prime Minister consulted him about his barmy decision to hold a leadership lollipop scramble. Is that correct? If it is correct, is it not rather like inviting Lucrezia Borgia to provide the wine at the party?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is that I informed my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the absolute horror with which the one third of the north-east's GPs who are currently budget holders will greet Labour's proposals? Do not the proposals show that the Labour party is completely against any form of success and innovation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Everyone in the House wishes to ensure that the national health service is successful, and that it can continually provide a better service and treat more patients. I do not believe that the proposals introduced by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Opposition spokesman on health, will achieve that.
    "There have been enormous changes in the NHS reorganisations and Labour should be wary of threatening more wholesale organisational change."
    [Interruption.] I am interested to see that Labour Members disagree. Those were not my words but the words of the Socialist Health Association.
    Mr. Blair: As we now know that the former Secretary of State for Wales strongly disagreed with the whole
    1078
    direction of Government policy, should he not have resigned from the Cabinet a long time ago, irrespective of the leadership issue? If that is right, should not the present members of the Government who, we well know, agree with the former Secretary of State for Wales also resign?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) resigned from the Cabinet because he was devastated that I had resigned as leader of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Blair: I wonder whether that is the view of all the members of the Cabinet; I rather doubt it. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that the leadership election would clear the air? Surely all that has become clear is the divisions, the hatred and the anarchy that exist within his party. Is it not the case now that whoever leads the Conservative party will, in effect, lead not one party, but two? Those divisions can never be reconciled.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman certainly has a cheek, since 40 per cent. of his party voted against him when he was elected leader recently. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, said 1 million. I did not realise that a million people voted against the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they did.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To be serious, does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the leadership contest is that it is distracting attention from the remarkable technical and engineering achievement of the reopening tomorrow, only three weeks after a devastating fire, of Southend pier? Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a spirit of unity, prepared to congratulate the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative councillors of Southend-on-Sea, who have worked in the spirit of the battle of Britain to restore one of Britain's great national assets?
    The Prime Minister: I enjoy the odd battle myself, so I am entirely happy to congratulate my hon. Friend and all those whom he mentioned on the success at Southend pier. It is amazing what can be done under good government.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29832]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister tell us what word he would legitimately use to describe those Cabinet Ministers who, while professing loyalty to him, are setting up telephone lines in campaign offices for the second round of the election?
    The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of that. I can say that the speed at which these matters can be done is a tribute to privatisation.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Julian Brazier.
    Mr. Brazier rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. This is great fun.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why it is that, of the 10 cases considered earlier this month

    1079
    by the Northern Ireland review board, nine, including a number of former IRA and Ulster Defence Association terrorists, have now been told the outcome of their review at least in outline? Why has Private Lee Clegg alone not been told the outcome of his review and when is he likely to be told?
    The Prime Minister: Any decision in the case of Private Clegg, first, will be reached as soon as possible and, secondly, will be advised to Private Clegg before any further statement is made.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29833]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: If the Prime Minister is so keen to avoid prejudging the outcome of the Scott inquiry, why does he keep suggesting that he and his colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have no case to answer? Is it not now time to put up or shut up?
    The Prime Minister: I set up the Scott inquiry and I have made the point repeatedly that I will consider the Scott inquiry when it has reported. I have no intention of being tempted down the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29834]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, to whose support as leader of our party I am fully committed, and before the long years that lie ahead in which he should have ample time to give me a job, whether, in view of Chancellor Kohl's ardent, continued support for a single currency or a core currency, both of which would of course be dominated by Germany, my right hon. Friend will ensure that, as leader of any Government whom he heads, no decision will be taken to join either of those organisations until the British people have been given an opportunity to say whether they regard it as being in their long-term interest by means of a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's offer of support, which has been made both publicly and privately, and I welcome that.
    Hon. Members: What about a job?
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: On a referendum, let me set out the position for the House. The first thing of course would be for the Cabinet to determine whether the country should enter into a single currency. If the Cabinet decides that it does not believe that it is right to enter into a single currency, the question of a referendum does not arise, although, as I have said in the past, were the Cabinet to decide that it did wish to proceed, as my hon. Friend says,
    1080
    there would be a serious question to be asked about a referendum. I repeat what I have said in the House before: I do not propose to rule one out.
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29835]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: In the course of his busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the Employment Select Committee report on the pay and remuneration of people in the gas, electricity and water, now privatised, utilities? Is that not a disgraceful example of greed, and is it not high time that he took action to curb those pay increases, or is it that perhaps he is looking, if the worst comes to the worst, to move to the City with a pay increase?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of responding at all to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which, knowing him, he may come to regret in due course.
    On the Select Committee's report, no, of course I have not had the opportunity of reading it in full yet, but I understand that, like me, it believes that pay rises and remuneration packages should be justified by company performance and affordability. But from what the hon. Gentleman says, it is clear that he speaks for the bulk of his party and that Labour's industrial policy is becoming clearer. It will be, yet again, the Whitehall-knows-best attitude, a commissar in every boardroom and no changes from what we have seen in the past. So much for the charade of ditching clause IV.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend find time to consider the remarkable similarity between Henry Ford and the new model Labour party? He may recall that Henry Ford said that one could have any colour for one's car, provided it was black. The new-look modern Labour party says that one may have any candidate one wants, provided she is female, particularly if she happens to be the chairwoman of Lancashire county council.
    The Prime Minister: There is, of course, in addition to those similarities, one difference, I suggest to my hon. Friend: persistently, Henry Ford tended to win.
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29836]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoon: In the light of the recent local and by-election results, what advice would the Prime Minister give to those Conservative Members who try to get mortgage protection insurance, only to be told that their future career prospects are so uncertain as to be uninsurable? Has the Prime Minister tried to get such insurance lately?
    The Prime Minister: No, I have not, nor do I need it.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the time under the last socialist Government when Britain was regarded as the sick man of Europe and we could take only £50 on each trip abroad? Does he

    1081
    agree that the Government should retain the influence of this country in the rest of the world and not close off any options in relation to Europe or elsewhere before we need to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly recall the time when we could take only £50 abroad on holiday under the last Labour Government. Of course, that point is not that relevant because under the last Labour Government very few people had £50.
    Q7. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29837]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: When speaking to Tory party chairmen recently, the Prime Minister resorted to the language of Gerald Ratner in describing the processes of the European
    1082
    Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Tory Government are also trying to sell cheap and tawdry products to the British people? At the next general election, under whatever Tory leader, the Tories will pay the same price as Gerald Ratner.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to a private remark that appeared to have been bugged by the BBC at some stage over the weekend. I have learnt that, from time to time, one mike can be left on by mistake. However, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he take no notice of that. He should concentrate on the fact that under this Government the changes that we have seen in prospects and prosperity for the future are greater than any that we have seen for many years. Not within his adult lifetime has this country ever faced the benign economic prospect for the future that we can today honestly offer the British people.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Public Service or Private Markets in Healthcare: the Choice before Britain" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 4 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:
Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]
Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [Lords]
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [Lords]
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
THURSDAY 6 JULY—Motions on the structural and boundary change orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 7 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 10 JULY—Opposition Day [16th allotted day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committee will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 5 July, as follows:
European Standing Committee B, European Community Documents 6398/94 relating to cinema and television films; COM (94) 523 relating to films policy.
[Wednesday 5 July:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6398/94, Cinema and Television Films; COM (94) 523, Films Policy. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xx (1993–94), HC 48-xxvi (1993–94); and HC 70-xix (1994–95).
Thursday 6 July:
Structural and boundary change orders—Relevant orders: Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order; Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order; Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order; Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order; Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order; Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order; Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order; East
1084
Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Changes) Order; Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order.]
In the following week, the provisional proposed business is: on Monday 10 July and Tuesday 11 July, the 16th and 17th allotted Opposition days; on Wednesday 12 July, the debate that I have already announced on the economy; on Thursday 13 July, subject to the progress of business in another place, consideration of any amendments that may be received to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill and the Criminal Appeal Bill, and, in addition, the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order will be set down for consideration; and, on Friday 14 July, private Members' Bills.
The House will have noticed that there is rather more business that may run after 10 o'clock in this statement than has been customary in recent months. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge and, indeed, accept that that is not unconnected with the indication that I am able to give the House that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess on Friday 21 July.
Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information on future business as far as he knows it? On this somewhat momentous day, will he join me in asking you, Madam Speaker, as the first woman to occupy your position, to send a message of congratulations on our behalf to Lisa Clayton, the first British woman to complete a lone, non-stop, around-the-world voyage in her boat, the Spirit of Birmingham?
On the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given us, what is the status of the business that he has announced, especially from Tuesday onwards? Is that business provisional and conditional on the outcome of the Conservative leadership election, or does he speak with the authority of both candidates? If so, will the economic debate, which he confirmed will take place on 12 July, be a new Budget debate and would he care to speculate on who might open that debate for the Government?
Also, in view of the contempt shown for the House by the Prime Minister and others last Thursday, what steps will the Leader of the House take to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of the constitutional implications of any uncertainty that may arise next Tuesday as a result of the Conservative leadership ballot, especially in the event of a second or subsequent ballot, or, indeed, of the Prime Minister receiving only a bare and unconvincing majority?
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that, constitutionally, the Prime Minister should be able to command a majority in the House and the support and confidence of the country, and that what the British people want is not an internal contest in the Conservative party, but a general election?
Mr. Newton: I think that I can deal with all that relatively easily. First, on the hon. Lady's initial request that you, Madam Speaker, should convey the congratulations of the House to Lisa Clayton, I am sure that that would command unanimous support. As far as the rest of her questions are concerned, I shall say simply this. I understand why she felt that she had to ask them, but they are pretty silly questions and I do not intend to answer them.
Mr. Michael Alison: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1267 on the prosecution of British paedophile tourists, which has been signed by at least 140 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House and is likely to acquire further signatures in the next few days and weeks?
[That this House notes that over 300 members from all parts of the House have recently expressed their deep concern at reports about citizens of developed countries travelling overseas as tourists to procure child prostitutes and pornography in poor countries in Africa, India, and Asia; noting further that the Governments of Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America have legislated, or are in the process of legislating, to give their domestic courts jurisdiction to prosecute such residents and nationals for sexual offences inflicted on children abroad; further noting that prosecutions under such legislation have proved feasible, urges Her Majesty's Government to give British courts extra-territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting such offences committed by British nationals abroad either by enacting the Private Member's Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [Lords], or by introducing a comparable government measure.]
In particular, will my right hon. Friend note the two options at the end of the early-day motion, including the possibility of the Government introducing a measure that would give effect to its aims? Could he arrange for the Home Secretary to monitor progress on the Bill and, if necessary, make a statement in the House about what Government action may be forthcoming?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the Government share his concern about the activities of western tourists travelling overseas to procure child prostitutes and are considering whether effective measures could be taken to tackle that problem. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look carefully at both the suggestions in the early-day motion and the remarks that my right hon. Friend made.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: First, will the Leader of the House confirm that the 16th and 17th Opposition Supply days that he announced will give him an opportunity to allow my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats to choose the subject for one of those two days, as it is now time that a Supply day was allocated to one of the minority parties? Secondly, will he look at the possibility of bringing forward at an early date a by-election writ to fill the vacancy in Littleborough and Saddleworth? If that is not done before the summer recess, it will leave electors in that constituency unrepresented for an untoward period of time. Thirdly, will he look at early-day motion 1258 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1476), dated 8th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th June, be annulled.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order contains detrunking orders for a raft of roads throughout the length and breadth of Scotland and it would be to the advantage of hon. Members on both sides of the House if we could debate that important order before the summer recess.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the last matter that he raised is for discussion through the usual channels and I am sure that he is pursuing that. The second matter is clearly not for me to discuss on the Floor of the House, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of those who may be concerned with moving the writ. On his first question, the answer is yes. My only doubt is how those two days will be allocated among the various Opposition parties.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1322, in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and a number of other less significant Members of Parliament, seeking the dissolution of Parliament?
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: 'Most Gracious Sovereign We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to seek Your Majesty's agreement to dissolve the present Parliament so that the British People may decide, through the ballot box, in a general election, which party should form a government, led by a Prime Minister who would be the leader of that party'.]
May we have an opportunity to consider that and to refresh our memories that no such motion appeared when Lord Callaghan replaced Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, so that we can demonstrate the monumental humbug of Opposition Members?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend uses very direct language. Although I am accustomed to putting matters in a more circumlocutory way, I agree with him.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1300?
[That this House warmly welcomes the stepping up of the campaign by the non-party political group, the Families of the Disappeared, to put increased pressure on Sinn Fein/IRA to release details of those killed by the Provisional IRA and buried in unmarked graves; supports this group's sole objective of allowing the relatives of the disappeared, who number at least 12 people, to bury their loved ones with Christian dignity; welcomes the public pleas of many, including President Clinton, to Sinn Fein/IRA to accede to this basic humanitarian demand; notes that, as a result of these appeals and the excellent campaign of the Belfast Telegraph on the issue, Sinn Fein has acknowledged the aims and validity of the campaign by the Families of the Disappeared but have so far failed to provide any significant information; and further notes the campaign's decision to popularise the wearing of light blue ribbons as a symbol of hope.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time to discuss the impact of the peace process in Northern Ireland on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland? The early-day motion shows that the families of the disappeared, just like in El Salvador, would like the bodies of their loved ones returned for a decent Christian burial. Is he aware that when I was in Belfast last week, people told me that, on the streets of both west and east Belfast, people are still being beaten up by paramilitaries in an abandonment of the rule of law, which should cover the ordinary people of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? May we have a debate to stop the expulsions from Northern Ireland by paramilitaries of people whose lives they think they can govern? When may

1087
we debate the return of the rule of law to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, so that they can have a peace that is not just a peace process at national level, but peace on the streets of their towns and cities?
Mr. Newton: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have a great deal of sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that I announced Northern Ireland business for next week, including a motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order, when it may be possible for him to make some of those points. On the first part of his remarks, I am sure that the whole House will join him in supporting the call expressed in the early-day motion for the return of the remains of those abducted and killed by terrorists to their loved ones.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the organisation and financing of local government, so that I can bring before the House the resentment of my constituents in Ealing, North at Ealing Labour council's sacking of teachers, home helps and other people with essential jobs in the community, while it has some £39 million in the kitty for other purposes? My constituents bitterly resent that and the House should know how Labour is behaving in local government in Ealing.
Mr. Newton: There is of course a debate in the House tomorrow on the conduct of local government and, in the light of what my hon. Friend said, I would hope that he might seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I speak as a signatory of early-day motion 1322, and as one who has, I should think, made a far more significant contribution to democracy than the rather elderly hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). Why does not the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House about the current rabble, called a leadership election? Does he not agree that the British people have a right to elect their Prime Minister through the ballot box, rather than leave it to a handful of people in this place, who simply want to save their own skins at the next election?
Mr. Newton: I am quite astonished that the hon. Lady should have the nerve to make that point in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said, who recalled precisely what happened when the Labour party changed its leadership in 1976.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate soon on housing, so that we can learn more about the Government's excellent proposals to bring much-needed private enterprise into Labour-dominated council estates?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that suggestion in mind, not least in view of the excellent proposals in the Government's White Paper.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange business in such a way next Tuesday, the date of the Tory leadership ballot, so that when that ballot finishes at 5 o'clock, the Division Lobbies will be made available, and those voting for the Prime Minister can go into one Lobby and the others voting for the ex-Secretary
1088
of State can go into the No Lobby? The British people would then be able to see exactly who had voted for whom; the deceit would end and everybody would know the identity of the abstainers. There would be no secret ballot and the process would be much cleaner than the current hole-in-the-corner method, by which Tory Members of Parliament are telling journalists and others that they will vote for both candidates and have not got the guts to tell the British people what they are going to do.
Mr. Newton: Coming from the party with the trade union block vote, that is just amazing.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May I say that all hon. Members condemn agism, which is politically incorrect? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should be ashamed of herself.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on industrial relations, given that August will be the 17th anniversary of the start of the Grunwick dispute? That was a vicious, left-wing, union attack on a free enterprise institution. That trade union attack was led by a Mr. Jack Dromey, now representing new Labour, or is it old deceit?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Dromey was, recently, not as successful as he would have wished, nor was he as successful as he would have wished on that earlier occasion in causing prolonged trouble to British industrial relations. The imp Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Dromey was, recently, not as successful as he would have wished, nor was he as successful as he would have wished on that earlier occasion in causing prolonged trouble to British industrial relations. The improvement in those relations in the intervening period is a testimony to the Government's achievements.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I feel that the Lord President is unaware that the Labour party at least records the votes cast by Members of Parliament when deciding a leadership election, so that everyone knows exactly how we vote. Perhaps he ought to consider that method as a possibility for his party.
Given the shambles of the Conservative party and Conservative Government at the moment, does the Lord President think that he might be able to guarantee a debate soon on the fact that Dorset police now have to use a sponsored vehicle because they cannot afford to buy their own police cars? Does he agree with the chief constable of Dorset that it is outrageous that sponsorship is the only means by which the force can afford those cars? Does he not agree that that is such a disgraceful situation for a police force to be in, that it is high time that we had a debate about it; otherwise traders up and down the country will be sponsoring the arrest of criminals? Should that be the case, does he not agree that it is beyond belief?
Mr. Newton: If the standard of questions reflects the standard of government that we would have were the Labour party to achieve its ambitions, the prospect facing the country is indeed a depressing one.
However, the debate on the structural and boundary change orders, which I announced for next Thursday, relates to parts of Dorset.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on financial responsibility in the administration of the national parks, following the announcement last week that the Peak District national park is to buy the shooting rights to 1,000 acres of moorland at an estimated cost of £40,000, not for

1089
conservation reasons, but simply to stop shooting taking place there in future? Is not that an appalling misuse of public funds and taxpayers' money, and may we have an early debate on the matter?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot promise an early debate, especially as we have just had two days on the Environment Bill, including provisions relating to national parks, I certainly hope that those at whom my hon. Friend's remarks are directed will take note of them.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1030?
[That this House, concerned at the anger felt amongst the British Sikh community about the impact on the employment prospects of Sikhs of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, introduced as a consequence of a European Directive, notes that British Sikhs have for many years been exempt from wearing hard hats in many areas, including service in the British Army and on construction sites; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation urgently so that British Sikhs may continue to work in all non-construction employment whilst wearing turbans.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government are always keen to show how they have sought to protect United Kingdom employment from the encroachment of the European Union. If that is so, why do they not do the same towards the Sikh community and seek to protect their jobs rather than witness their jobs disappearing, as they will as a consequence of that directive?
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in that matter is long established and understandable, is aware that implementation of the directive was an obligation on the United Kingdom, and obviously that has been a factor in that.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will make a statement on their response to the consultation document about the disposal of waste from the nuclear industry, especially the ludicrous suggestion that low-level waste from that industry should be tipped on public refuse tips, in particular the Beighton tip in my constituency, which has caused 10,000 of my constituents to sign a petition opposing that proposal? Will the Government give a clear idea of when a statement will be made and say that they will drop the nonsense of waste from the nuclear industry being put on to public refuse tips?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date at the moment, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will make the position clear in the light of the consultation as soon as possible.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is highly unlikely that in the next couple of weeks Lord Donaldson's assessment will be concluded and the response to it given. In view of the fact that the House will go into recess shortly, will the Leader of the House approach the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that, when the recess ends, he will come to the House at an early date to make an statement on the results of Lord Donaldson's assessment of the MV Derbyshire?
Mr. Newton: Of course I will, in the usual way that I respond to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, ensure that that request is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the movement of nuclear materials and public safety?
In some ways, that request would relate to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) because, on Monday this week, a container with nuclear materials in it split open in an accident in my constituency in Nottingham. As a result of the investigations that have been carried out by the local newspaper this week, it appears that there is great confusion about the lines of public responsibility for such accidents, that there is no consultation with public authorities about the safest routes for the movement of such materials and that there is no public knowledge about the frequency of movements of nuclear materials through public areas. The House and the public urgently need to know the answer to those questions.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the rigour of the arrangements and various ways to ensure the safety of anything connected with the nuclear industry in this country is considerable. I am sure that, in the light of the incident that he described, the matter will be very carefully examined by my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Harry Barnes: People are interested in the poor condition of our electoral registers only when a general election is on top of us. As we are now in a position of political instability and we do not know what will happen in the future—whether, for instance, we might be moving into a general election some time soon—should we not have an urgent debate, before the House rises on 21 July, about electoral registration, which is in a bad state and should interest us all?
Mr. Newton: There will be an opportunity before too long to have what is now the usual three-hour Adjournment debate on the Wednesday before the recess, and I shall note that the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that subject then.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not a matter of urgent necessity that we debate early-day motion 1248?
[That this House deplores the decision of the Government of France to resume testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific; notes the universal hostility to that decision by the countries in that area, who form a voluntary nuclear-free zone; considers that the safety of the weapons excuse proffered by France for resuming the tests is lame because there are plenty of computer simulations of nuclear explosions available, and the same argument could be used by any nuclear state following the introduction of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty thereby destroying such a treaty; further notes that these proposed tests run contrary to the obligations entered into by nuclear weapons states at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference; further notes that the response from No. 10 Downing Street to the announcement of these tests was a pathetic absence of any criticism whatsoever; and so this House urges the French Government to change its mind and abandon these deplorable nuclear weapons tests.]

1091
That would be particularly appropriate at the moment, as groups of children from Chernobyl are seeking aid outside the Ukraine for the thyroid cancers that they contracted after the Chernobyl accident. Is it not an act of ultimate stupidity and irresponsibility on the part of the French President to plan nuclear tests in the Pacific? Is not our Prime Minister's response weak and supine in the face of the antagonism displayed by many other states in Europe?
If France goes ahead with nuclear tests, there is a danger that we might repeat the worst peacetime contamination of the atmosphere, other than Chernobyl, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s principally as a result of Chinese nuclear tests. Other nations may follow France's example and test their nuclear weapons in the atmosphere and in the ground. Does not the threat of poisoning and polluting our planet concern not just Europe but the entire world?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with his description of the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend referred to the matter following his statement yesterday. He made it clear that the French Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of a comprehensive test ban treaty, which is very much the aim of the British Government.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), can we have an early debate on the shambles of the Government's law and
1092
order policy in the light of this week's statement by the chief constable of Warwickshire police that the police will need to charge those who make calls to the police for any attendance by police officers if the £6.5 million deficit in the police budget is not dealt with this year? That constabulary will lose 50 officers in the course of the year and it is therefore essential that the Government respond urgently to that problem.
I see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), entering the Chamber. I hope that he realises that, unless the condition of Warwickshire police force is dealt with urgently, those police officers will remember it at the next general election.
Mr. Newton: Happily, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has now arrived in the Chamber and has heard the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am spared the task of drawing them to his attention. I am sure that he will have taken note of them.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House study the remarks of the former Welsh Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), several weeks ago when he said that the Prime Minister was building on the legacy of his predecessor? In view of that, could he arrange a debate, to start at 6 o'clock on Tuesday, about the legacy of Thatcherism?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and all Conservative Members have been steadily developing Conservative policies for some 16 years. The success of those policies—particularly in relation to industry and the economy—is, as my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, increasingly and very clear.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1

  ADVICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
  '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the body ("the Panel") appointed under section 5(3), in the discharge of its advisory function pursuant to section 5(6), to advise the Secretary of State on—

  (a) the effectiveness of the Scheme;

  (b) the efficiency of the administration of the Scheme;

  (c) the amounts of compensation set in the Tariff;

  (d) the amounts of compensation set under section 2(2); and

  (e) provisions made under section 3(1).

  (2) The advice given under this section may be given formally or informally, as the Panel determines.

  (3) Where advice is given formally, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish that advice, and to lay it before Parliament.

  (4) It shall be the duty of the Panel to make a report to the Secretary of State on its work before the end of each calendar year, which shall be formal advice for the purposes of subsection (3) above.

  (5) When sitting in its function as an advisory body, pursuant to this section, the Panel shall have power to frame rules regulating its own proceedings (including its quorum).'.—[Mr. Michael.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I urge the House to support new clause 1, which would establish a proper system of independent advice to the Home Secretary about the way in which victims of violent crime are compensated. In Committee, the Minister made a number of concessions. He accepted our proposal that the adjudicators who deal with appeals should form the membership of an advisory body that would include trade unionists as well as employers and those with medical and legal experience, and he agreed that they should give wide-ranging advice, not just advice arising out of their experience on appeal cases.
  So far, so good. However, the Government amendment is vague, and leaves everything to the Ministers. We are invited to trust the Home Secretary about the way in which the promise is delivered, and that is where the problem arises. The Home Secretary has demonstrated a total incapacity for seeking advice when that is necessary and for listening to advice when it is offered.
  There was no lack of advice when the Home Secretary sought to change the criminal injuries compensation scheme illegally, without the blessing of Parliament. Labour told him not to do it, lawyers and victims' representatives advised him not to do it, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board told him not to do it—yet only after being dragged through the courts of the land and being told by the Law Lords that which we had told the Home Secretary all along did he finally and grudgingly accept that he was wrong.
  1094
  The Home Secretary seems just as unpopular when he seeks to give advice as when he is trying to avoid taking it. Yesterday, The Guardian recorded that the Home Secretary's unilateral decision to join the Prime Minister's campaign team
  "was not, it was thought, greeted with much joy by the loyalists".
  That seems to have something to do with the Home Secretary's response to the manifesto of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The Home Secretary said:
  "it is not rooted in the real world"
  and a few minutes later said that the manifesto
  "substantially reflects Government policy."
  Those statements taken together sum up the state of the Conservative party, but the Home Secretary's colleagues may be forgiven for thinking that his words best describe the right hon. and learned Gentleman's frenetic, ill-judged attempt to cut the cash without proper regard for the victims of violent crime.
  The amendment will not guarantee that the Home Secretary or his successor will listen, or that his judgment will improve—but it will at least ensure a statutory advice framework and that the whole system is out in the open. U-turns have been forced on the Home Secretary, which is why the Bill contains some provisions for loss of earnings and care costs arising from violent crime, inadequate though they are.
  The fact remains that the Conservative party, on the Home Secretary's own figures, is cutting compensation to the victims of violent crime by £700 million over the next five years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still disregarding advice to such an appalling extent and has ignored the possibility of consensus offered by Labour's clear promise, "If you don't cut the cash, we won't cut the cash," we need a system of independent advice at the heart of the Bill, not just promised verbally in Committee.
  On Tuesday, the Minister sought to persuade us that we can leave it to him to make sure that an advisory system is implemented according to our principles. Since then, I have seen a letter in which the Minister personally rejected the possibility of receiving expert advice. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers offered its help and advice. It sought to share its concern with the Minister in good time for him to give prior consideration to its views, instead of having a public debate.
  In view of the fact that the last time the Minister ignored the association's advice, he ended up in the House of Lords losing an appeal, one might have thought that the Minister would jump at the chance. But no, the association received a letter dated 19 June from the Minister's assistant private secretary, saying in essence that the Minister was too busy.
  The whole point of an adequate system of advice built into the Bill is to ensure that Ministers receive good advice at an early stage and consider it before coming forward with proposals. Hard, half-hearted, half-baked, headline-grabbing obstinacy by a Home Secretary who would not listen has turned criminal injury compensation into a live political issue, when it should be a topic for consensus.
  Despite the history, we have sought to protect Ministers from their own worst instincts and the consequences of their folly, as we do in this new clause—which the Minister should accept as a positive and helpful

  1095
  contribution to the Bill. It would guarantee an independent source of advice when establishing or changing tariff levels or making provision in relation to loss of earnings, special expenses or fatal cases, and in relation to other key aspects of the scheme in clause 3(1).
  That is vital, to ensure that changes to the scheme are made on the basis of expert advice and that the Government do not again fall into the trap of making proposals for criminal injury compensation that are opposed by anyone with knowledge of the effect of criminal injuries on victims.
  It would have been more impressive when the Minister suggested that people who deal with appeals might also offer advice if there had been anything in the Bill or in the notes on clauses provided by the Minister to suggest that was his intention. I believe that he has given some way, sensibly, under pressure from the Opposition. It would be far better, however, for the changes that we recommended to be included in the Bill so that they become clear or transparent. They should be guaranteed for the future. We should not have to depend on the Minister's interpretation being continued by future Home Office Ministers.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): There were lengthy debates in Committee about the need for an independent body to advise the Secretary of State on tariffs, the other heads of damage and the general running of a compensation scheme for criminal injuries. At first, it was suggested that yet another new body should be set up to fulfil that role. We, the Government, said that that was unnecessary, because there would already be an independent body with the necessary expertise to provide such advice—the appeals panel. We argued that it would be established to consider appeals against awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
  We argued also that the panel, with members drawn from the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the medical profession, commerce and industry, the TUC and other organisations, was the ideal body for the purpose. We made it clear that we would expect the panel to offer advice to the Government on any matters relating to the scheme, both when asked for such advice and of its own accord when it felt that matters should be brought to the attention of Ministers. Although it was not necessary, we amended the Bill in Committee to provide that the scheme included provision on the giving of advice by the panel to the Government.
  We want the new, enhanced tariff scheme to be user-friendly. It should be flexible and capable of responding quickly to the needs of victims or to wider interests. We do not want a scheme that is hidebound by overly detailed rules and procedures that militate against speedy reactions to needs or demands because of an imposed structure that is overly bureaucratic. We want the panel to be able to operate flexibly. We do not want to restrict its freedom of action by imposing a duty on it to advise the Secretary of State on a range of prescribed issues, especially a duty that, while clear enough about the issues to which it relates, fails to make clear by what circumstances it is triggered.
  Exactly when should the panel give its advice? The amendment refers to both formal and informal advice. It is yet another recipe for internal bureaucracy. I am content
  1096
  to leave the panel to provide whatever advice it thinks appropriate when it thinks appropriate, without it having to decide whether it is giving it as formal or informal advice.
  The new clause would give the panel another duty. It would require it to report any formal advice that it gave to the Secretary of State. Clause 6 already contains a provision about annual reports to the Secretary of State by such persons as he thinks appropriate relating to the discharge of their functions. The report will be laid before Parliament. The scheme will make it clear that the panel will be required to produce an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. That will have to cover advice that is given in accordance with the scheme.
  The panel will be free to record any other comments that it feels it right to make about the scheme and its operation. There is no need, therefore, for the part of the new clause that requires a report to be made "each calendar year". I am happy for the panel to decide how it wants to give advice to the Government. It is unnecessary to include express provision for that.
  I respect the point of view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), as always, but I consider the clause to be unnecessary. We have made it clear that we shall look to the panel as a ready source of expertise and advice on any matters touching on the tariff scheme. We have made it equally clear that the panel is free to give unsolicited advice to the Government if it wants to do so. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the scheme will include provision for panel advice. We shall ensure that the scheme deals adequately with that. The over-prescriptive new clause before us is not necessary for that purpose.
  The Government are interested in the contents of a new clause—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I had an excellent relationship in Committee—to which we shall be coming shortly. We shall not be able to accept the exact wording of that clause, but we are interested in its contents. We may be able to go further with it. I cannot, however, accept new clause 1. If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw it, I shall have to ask this packed Chamber to reject it.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister continues to move in our direction in accepting the nature of advice that should be given. Our concern is that that matter should be in the Bill. The issue will be pressed strongly, not just in this House but in another place. However, as the Minister has at least recognised the importance of the issues that we have raised, and that there should be such a system of independent advice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

  JURISDICTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  '.—(1) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters subject to investigation) the following subsection shall be added at the end—

  "(8) For the purposes of this section, administrative functions exercisable by—

  (a) any Scheme manager appointed by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995;

  1097

  (b) any person appointed by the Scheme Manager or the Secretary of State under section 3(4) of that Act; and

  (c) any person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(3)(c) of that Act,

  shall be taken to be administrative functions of the Home Office."

  (2) In Schedule 3 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6B—
  "6C Action taken by—

  (a) a Scheme manager appointed by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 or any person appointed under section 3(4) of that Act, so far as that action constitutes a decision taken in respect of a claim for compensation; and

  (b) action taken by any person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of that Act, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of an adjudicator appointed under section 5 of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  New clause 2 seeks to establish something extremely important—accountability and proper scrutiny for the administration of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Bill seems to be specifically designed to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, the actions of the administrative staff involved in running the scheme.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who first raised the issue in Committee and has brought to the attention of many of us who were concerned about accountability and transparency under the new scheme the importance of ensuring that the ombudsman's jurisdiction does run.
  In Committee, we debated the provision which states that those appointed for the purpose of administering the provisions of the scheme which relate to the appeal system should
  "not be regarded as having been appointed to exercise functions of"
  or on behalf of
  "the Secretary of State".
  The Opposition said that it seemed likely that that exclusion would be dangerous, and would go way beyond the Minister's intentions. The Minister said that his only intention in those words was to avoid interference by Ministers in the operation of the scheme with regard to individual cases.
  It is right that Ministers should not interfere in individual cases, and that an assessment of the circumstances of a case should be made by those dealing with it administratively and by adjudicators dealing with appeals without interference from the Minister. But, as we said in Committee, why was that form of words used? Why not use a form of words that has been tried and tested? The Minister was unable to give any justification, but he said that that was the limit of his intention.
  When the Bill is examined more closely, it is seen that the words have the effect, whether intended or otherwise, of excluding the administration of the scheme from the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. In Committee, the Minister gave no suggestion that that was his intention. I am sure that he would have explained to us any such intention. Therefore, I am not suggesting that he, individually and personally, intended the words to
  1098
  have the effect that I suggest they will have. But unless new clause 2 or something similar is included in the Bill, the operation of the scheme will be excluded from the ombudsman's scrutiny.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept the new clause. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East also wishes to refer to the important arguments in support of the new clause.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I support new clause 2, which extends the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to this area of government. As a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I am only too well aware of the extensive work done by the ombudsman and his team. I think that I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that we have a most outstanding ombudsman in Mr. William Reid, and we should recognise him as such.
  Last year, when the Select Committee investigated the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman, we said in our report that one of the indications of the success of that office was the fact that further ombudsmen have been established to bring the advantages of an independent and impartial investigator of complaints into other areas of public life. We went on to say that an added testimony to the office's achievements has been the gradual extension of the ombudsman's jurisdiction to more branches of the Executive.
  The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is a case in point—the administrative actions of court and tribunal staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor now come within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Only last year, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone), who is now the Minister for Health, successfully piloted, with all-party support, a private Member's Bill that extended the ombudsman's jurisdiction to other tribunals.
  4.15 pm
  It is important to state clearly what the ombudsman's role is. He investigates complaints from people who contend that they have prima facie evidence of maladministration leading to hardship or injustice. Our system still has what is called the MPs' filter; in other words, such complaints can be made only through Members of Parliament.
  Another of our recommendations was that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 should be amended to specify exclusions rather than inclusions to the commissioner's jurisdiction. In the Government's reply to our report, it is fair to say that they were not in principle opposed to that recommendation, but were concerned about whether primary legislation would be necessary to achieve it. Had that proposal been implemented, there would be no need for new clause 2.
  On that basis, I cannot understand how the Government could not support this change to the 1967 Act, so that the Government's essential support for the principle would be established while we awaited the appropriate primary legislation.
  I shall discuss the effects of the new clause on criminal injury compensation. The legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, has many flaws, but we should ensure that, when things go wrong and there is maladministration, there is a well-established system to deal with it.

  1099
  Let me give an example. If I had been injured and made a claim under the new scheme, the scheme manager might say that I had no claim. I may have been unco-operative with the police or sustained the injury in a way that was not a direct result of criminal activity. Once the scheme manager has made that assessment and denied me the claim, I have the right to appeal. That is fine. If the appeals board examines the claim carefully and decides that the scheme manager was correct in his or her assessment, so be it: I would have exhausted all proper means at my disposal and would have to accept that conclusion.
  However, what happens if the scheme manager loses the papers pertaining to my case or there are unreasonable delays in dealing with it, with the result that I subsequently lose financially? For example, newsagents who are attacked might have to employ someone to look after their businesses while they seek compensation. In such a case, the newsagent may well receive compensation eventually, but what redress does he have for the poor administration? Even if he were not to get compensation in the end, should he not have some recourse for the way in which the case was handled?
  Constituents do not take cases to the ombudsman because they think that they are going to become millionaires overnight; far from it. Very often, they simply want an apology for the way in which their cases were handled and an assurance that changes will be made so that other people do not have to suffer in a similar way.
  I began by commenting on the extension of the ombudsman's jurisdiction and the success of that office in seeking redress for injustice. I mentioned the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, on which new clause 2 is based. Our concern is that the Bill as it stands appears deliberately to take the staff who administer the scheme outside the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. That cannot be right, and it flies in the face of everything that the Government have said about open government. It seems to be contrary to the position they took when they supported the hon. Member for Winchester's Bill last year.
  If the Minister of State does not feel able to accept the new clause, he has to answer this question: to whom are the staff of the scheme answerable for any act of maladministration leading to injustice? I remind him, as I did in Committee, that the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill refers to these staff as civil servants, so they ought to be responsible to someone.
  We need to be clear that, in the interests of justice for the individual and good government for all, any maladministration will be investigated independently by the one person in whom Parliament has vested such responsibility—the ombudsman. For that reason, I commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Maclean: I can well understand the intention behind the new clause. It no doubt seeks to achieve high standards in the administration of the new scheme by making the administrative actions—actions other than the actual determination of awards, for which other provision will be made in the scheme—of those running it subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, more commonly known as the ombudsman.
  1100
  I make it quite clear that it is our firm intention that the new scheme should be run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and mechanisms will be built in to facilitate that. For example, the authority will be required to set standards of performance and targets, and will have to report on how it has measured up to them in its annual report. There will also be a fully developed and effective complaints procedure, enabling those who feel that their cases have not been well handled to make a formal complaint in the sure expectation that it will be speedily and properly considered, and that, where appropriate, redress will be made.
  I accept, however, that there may be an argument for saying that such provisions do not go far enough, and that applicants who believe that their case has been subject to maladministration should have some means of seeking external reassurance. That is, of course, the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in other contexts, and hon. Members have therefore, reasonably enough, looked to the ombudsman in this instance.
  The fact is, however, that the administration of the scheme does not currently fall within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. To give him such jurisdiction would therefore be a significant step, and one that should not be taken without prior discussion with him and other interested parties.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on the issue of discussions with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The commissioner raised the matter when he saw the Bill in draft form, because he was extremely concerned about the fact that he will not have jurisdiction in this sphere.
  Mr. Maclean: I am well aware of that. I was merely suggesting that, before we lobbed all sorts of things at the commissioner, we would need to have detailed discussions to work out the whys and wherefores and where the boundaries are. If the hon. Lady will permit me to continue, she may not be disappointed by what I have to say.
  We would also need to consider carefully with the commissioner the resource and other implications of such a change, and to think very carefully about what might be, and what might not be, within his remit. I am sure that we are all aware of constituents who complain persistently, and perhaps unreasonably, and who demand referral of their case to the ombudsman, no matter how carefully their complaint or grievance—whether real or imaginary—has previously been handled, and no matter how many other appeal tribunals they have been through.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that about one third of the 60,000 or 70,000 people who apply for compensation each year are, quite properly, turned down on grounds of eligibility, because they provoked the assault or for some other good reason. Inevitably, a number of those claimants will feel aggrieved, even after they have exhausted the scheme's extensive appeals process. If they then feel that they can try yet another tack—perhaps complaining to their Member of Parliament and, through their Member of Parliament, to the ombudsman that their case was rejected, not for perfectly proper reasons but because of some alleged maladministration—they may well do so. That could clog the system with bogus claims, which would create a substantial extra burden, first, for the ombudsman himself,

  1101
  and secondly, for the scheme's administrators, who would have to demonstrate that the real issue was one not of maladministration but of technical eligibility.
  Thus, while on the one hand, I can see a need for workable and transparent checks and balances, I can also see a potential danger that such mechanisms—unless they were carefully defined—could be open to abuse. That would create a lot of nugatory work for everyone. That is why I say that we must think carefully about it and consider all the implications.
  None the less, I can assure the House that, having listened to the arguments put forward and having heard other views, including those of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, we have decided that we must consider those views carefully and discuss them with him and others to see if that is a sensible route down which we should go.
  In the meantime, it may not surprise the Opposition when I say that I cannot accept the technical terms of the amendment, which is technically flawed. That is not an accusation aimed at the Opposition. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will rightly say that he does not have the resources and facilities that I have to ensure that amendments are legally and technically correct. I shall not go into the reasons why it is technically flawed, but I repeat my assurance to the House that we shall consider it carefully.
  There may be merit in considering the parts of the scheme that in other Departments would come within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to find out whether it would be possible to draw clear boundaries between matters that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State—the overall administration of the scheme, for example—and those that are not, and how one could clearly ring-fence other matters, such as decisions on individual claims, in which the Secretary of State would not be involved.
  I hope that, on the basis that we shall carefully consider the idea with a positive attitude, the hon. Members for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth will feel reassured and will not wish to press the new clause.
  Mr. Michael: Of course I am pleased that the Minister has accepted that what we seek to do in the new clause is right. I am pleased that he has promised to consider it. But that does not go far enough. He has not promised to accept the principle that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction over the criminal injuries compensation scheme, or the necessity of building it into the Bill.
  The Minister says that our new clause is flawed. That is curious, because we used the wording of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. If the new clause is deficient, there must be deficiencies in the Act that the Minister appears not to have identified.
  In any event, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that we do not have the expertise of Ministries and parliamentary draftsmen—but may I point out to him that after today's debate there will be a Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, and also opportunities in Committee in the House of Lords for two days in October? There will then be a Report stage in November. Moreover, amendments are still acceptable on Third Reading in the House of Lords, so there are plenty of opportunities for the Home Secretary or his representative in another place to fine-tune what we have
  1102
  proposed or to introduce changes, provided that that is accepted by those who will take part in the debates in another place.
  There is therefore no reason why the Minister should not accept our new clause today, put the principle into the Bill and deal with any adjustments needed at a later stage. We want the ombudsman to have jurisdiction over the criminal injuries compensation scheme. So do the public, and so does the ombudsman. The new clause should be added to the Bill now, and if the Minister does not accept that, we shall divide the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 248.

  Division No. 185]

  [4.27 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Foulkes, George

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ainger, Nick

  Gapes, Mike

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Garrett, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  George, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Austin-Walker, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Barnes, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gordon, Mildred

  Beggs, Roy

  Graham, Thomas

  Bell, Stuart

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Betts, Clive

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hain, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Church, Judith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobson, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dowd, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Terry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Etherington, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McFall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  1103

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooney, Terry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Simpson, Alan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford East)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mowlarn, Marjorie

  Spellar, John

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Jack

  Murphy, Paul

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Trimble, David

  Parry, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Pearson, Ian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pendry, Tom

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wise, Audrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ancram, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bates, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Booth, Hartley

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butterfill, John

  Evennett, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Faber, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fabricant, Michael

  1104

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Malone, Gerald

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  French, Douglas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gallie, Phil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorst, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hague, William

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepard, Richard (Aldridge-B'hills)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stem, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lightbown, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thumham, Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  1105

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

  PRINCIPLES
  'In framing the Scheme under the provisions of sections 1 to 5 above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the general principles set out in Schedule (Principles of Compensation, Etc.) to this Act.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, a new schedule—Principles of Compensation, Etc.—

  'Preliminary
  1. In framing a Scheme pursuant to this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the principles set out in this Schedule.
  General
  2. The Scheme ought to be so framed that the compensation paid is broadly the same as that available before the passing of this Act.

  Loss of earnings
  3. The Scheme ought to make adequate provision for loss of earnings from the date of the injury and should make provision for those who are not entitled to state benefit during the 28 weeks following the date of injury.
  4. The Scheme ought to make provision for urgent compensation in respect of loss of earnings, subject to later recovery of sums so paid out.

  Special expenses
  5. The Scheme ought to make provision for expenses incurred to enable the recipient to—

  (a) remain in full time employment; or

  (b) make use of the skills which he possesses; or

  (c) be able to undertake new types of employment or retraining, where the nature of the injuries sustained prevent his continuing in his current employment.

  6. The Scheme ought to make provision for amounts to be paid to offset the costs of alleviating the effects of disability.
  7. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable child care costs, where these are incurred as a result of the consequences of the injury.
  8. The Scheme ought to make provision for the reasonable costs of medical treatment or therapy where such treatment is not readily available from the National Health Service.
  9. The scheme ought to make provision for reasonable expenses incurred by a person taking responsibility for the care of the victim of the injury, including provision for consequential financial detriment and loss of earnings.

  Fatal injury
  10. The Scheme ought to make provision for compensation in respect of appropriate funeral expenses.
  11. The Scheme ought to make provision for amounts to be paid in respect of the impact of a bereavement on former dependants of the deceased person, in particular widows, widowers and children.

  12. The Scheme ought to make provision for the payment of interim awards in cases of urgent need.

  Reviews
  13. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable time limits on the determination of reviews.
  14. The Scheme ought to make provision for procedures for representation on behalf of those seeking a review of a decision.

  Appeals
  15. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable time limits on the determination of appeals.
  16. The Scheme ought to make provision for appellants against a decision to enjoy rights broadly similar to those available in legal hearings.

  Departure directions
  17. The Scheme ought to make provision for the Secretary of State to direct, in cases involving—

  (a) multiple injury;

  (b) sexual assault;

  (c) chronic psychiatric illness; or

  (d) injuries to children

  that the compensation should be calculated having regard to awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at Common Law.'.
  Mr. Michael: The purpose of the new clause and the schedule is to lay down some important principles under which the criminal injuries compensation scheme should operate. We have two main aims. First, the proposed changes will achieve the transparency that is so lamentably lacking in the Bill. We have said from the beginning that the Bill leaves far too much of the decision making in the hands of the Home Secretary and fails to include some details and principles. Time and again in Committee, we drew attention to the Government's failure to provide adequate details in the Bill.
  We accept that every detail cannot be contained in the legislation; that would of course make it cumbersome and difficult to amend minor details. That is the excuse that the Minister has given on a variety of occasions for not putting basic principles in the Bill. We accept that some details can be contained in statutory instruments. The trouble with the Bill is that too many key aspects of the scheme are to be buried in statutory instruments, and other important elements, for example, in relation to reviews, appeals and time limits do not have to come before Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is of particular importance because of the history of this set of proposals and the Home Secretary's attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny, even when he needed to observe it.
  Our difficulties in Committee were compounded by the fact that the Government are yet to publish the scheme, which is the subject of the Bill. Opposition amendments have prised more details out of the Minister. Indeed, on 13 June in Committee, in column 57 of the Official Report, he gave us what he called a "golden assurance" that, if provision were included in the 1990 common law scheme, the new tariff scheme would operate in the same way.

  1107
  Operating in the same way as the 1990 scheme is a clear principle, but it is also clear from the Minister's other answers that people will lose out. The cutting of finances by some £700 million demonstrates that there will be changes. That will be to the detriment of some of the people who seek support from the scheme.
  The failure to have the schedule in draft makes it much more difficult for the Committee, Members of Parliament and people outside the House who take an interest to be absolutely clear on what principles the Home Secretary is operating. That is not unusual. I recall the Immigration Act 1988—the first piece of legislation in which I was involved as a Whip. In meeting after meeting, we asked the Home Secretary to bring forward the immigration rules, without which that legislation meant virtually nothing. We have the same position with this legislation.
  The Minister went part way by at least offering a letter to members of the Committee, together with information on the 1990 scheme and on the interim scheme that was found to be illegal, and he sidelined both those documents in such a way as to show which elements he intended to incorporate eventually in his scheme. That was helpful and I commend him for at least going part way, but he said to us that it would not be long before the scheme was prepared.
  We know that the Bill will reach its Second Reading in the House of Lords in a couple of weeks. Will the Minister ensure that the scheme is published in full before Second Reading in another place? If those details are about to be prepared, presumably on the time scale in which the Minister expected to have the legislation through the House before the summer recess, will he give us a cast-iron guarantee that they will be published before the recess so that we can examine them?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: A golden assurance.
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give us a golden assurance, as my hon. Friend suggests, that the full draft will be available to us before the summer?
  This refers in a way to the previous debate, where the Minister cast aside the offer of advice from people involved in litigation by suggesting that his scheme would be available shortly and that they would be able to comment on it. There are plenty of reasons why the Minister should give us a golden promise to publish his scheme before the recess.
  Publication before the recess would have a second benefit: it would enable the people who will deal with the debates and the people who will advise them in another place fully to consider the matter and the Minister's intentions before the debates in October in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in another place. It would give an opportunity therefore for the Bill to proceed with some hope of its coming back to us, towards the end of this parliamentary Session, with reasonable amendments having been made in another place and with many of the difficulties that we have highlighted in Committee having been met by Ministers.
  I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance because there is no excuse not to do so. From his own words at the beginning of Committee proceedings, it was
  1108
  clear that the draft was at a complete stage in his in-tray. On the basis of his own assurances in Committee, it is clear that it would be bad faith for the Home Office not to publish the draft scheme, as well as its final draft of the tariff, before the summer and, certainly, before the debates in another place after the summer. There is no reason therefore for the Minister not to give a clear and unequivocal commitment on that aspect.
  Our new clause and schedule show how the basic principles of the scheme could have been set up in legislation in the first place so that people were aware of the key elements of the scheme. That is the right way to proceed. Our proposal is transparent, clear and fair. The Minister should therefore accept those improvements, as well as promise to give us in quick time the small and more detailed elements that will be in the schedule.
  Our second aim is to list some of those key principles which should be in the scheme. The first is that compensation paid under the scheme should be broadly the same as that available before the passing of the Act. From comments that have been made and quoted in the debate already, it seems that the Minister accepts that as a principle, but does he? It is crucial. In Committee, the Minister tried to tell us that victims would not lose out—which would mean accepting that principle—but the one thing that is transparent about the Bill is that the Government's key intention has been to cut the money available to innocent victims of crime.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill makes that crystal clear. The amount that the Government intend to save over the next five financial years is £700 million, in a drop of 40 per cent. on planned expenditure. It surely cannot be said that no one will lose out. Many victims will lose out as a result of the proposals. The victims of the most serious crimes of violence will lose out.
  We have highlighted how those savings will be made: by not paying loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks, by failing to upgrade the tariff between 1994 and 1999 and by capping maximum amounts. That cap will affect a small number of people, but, again, the victims of the most horrendous injuries will suffer. Savings should not be made at the expense of individual victims.
  Secondly, there must be adequate compensation for loss of earnings. A large part of the savings that the Government are generating results from the decision not to pay loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks after injury. The Minister suggested in our debate on 15 June that all the savings would be the result of that one measure alone. We do not believe that to be the case, but it is certainly a substantial element.
  The Government have justified their choice of 28 weeks by pointing to statutory sick pay. The inference is that victims will be adequately recompensed during that period. That is not the case. Statutory sick pay is £52.50 a week—hardly an adequate recompense for those unable to work because of a serious criminal injury. Many people are not entitled to SSP, including the self-employed, those on a low income and those on short-term contracts. Some may be entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is no more generous than SSP. Others will get income support, but that is even less than SSP.
  Some people have their SSP enhanced by occupational sick pay schemes, but there is considerable variation in entitlement from one scheme to another. It is common for five years' length of service to be a condition before a

  1109
  half-year's full sick pay is given. Taking all those factors together, it has been calculated that 12 million people—at least half those in employment—do not receive full pay during the first 28 weeks of sickness and will therefore be at risk under the Government's proposals. They will be worse off.
  The third principle that we want to enshrine in the Bill is proper provision for special expenses to allow the individual to remain in employment or to retrain, to provide the additional costs of alleviating the effects of disability, to make provision for reasonable child care costs and to pay for medical treatment where that is not readily available from the national health service.
  The scheme must make provision for relatives or others who give up their jobs to care for the victims of crime. Very often, Ministers and others pay lip service to the carers, who are often the silent sufferers after someone suffers an accident or is in ill health. Those silent sufferers should be provided for in the scheme and that should be made clear in the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister's golden assurance means that all those areas of special expenses will be covered to help those incapacitated for more than 28 weeks. I hope that, even at this late stage, he will rethink his proposals and allow expenses to be paid where appropriate when the individual is incapacitated for less than 28 weeks.
  The next point of principle is that provision should be made for the impact of a bereavement on the former dependants of the deceased. I do not think that this is a matter of contention between the Opposition and the Government. It was discussed in Committee and it would be helpful if the Minister would now make his commitment clear. In Committee, he responded positively when we referred to the impact of special requirements for funerals—for example, cultural and religious requirements may lead to additional costs for a family who are already in enormous pain and difficulty because of the death of a family member. That element should be allowed for in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will make as clear today as he did in Committee his agreement with us on that point.
  We believe that the ability to make interim arrangements should be clearly written into the Bill. In Committee on 20 June, the Minister admitted that the wording of the original discredited tariff scheme for interim payments was unsatisfactory. He said that it needed a tweak. It needs more than just a tweak; clear principles need to be set out in the Bill.
  The new schedule makes provision for reasonable time limits for the determination of reviews and appeals. It is important that victims receive prompt and efficient treatment. Many references to the tariff scheme have suggested that speeding up the system is one of the benefits. We want to ensure that the determination of reviews and appeals, as well as the original decision, happens quickly. Victims, especially those where there are special circumstances and therefore, in many cases, special stress, should not have to wait a long time for a determination of their cases simply because they have asked for a review or for an appeal against a decision. All those principles are important in ensuring that victims receive the prompt and efficient treatment that we believe they are entitled to expect.
  We have attempted to bring flexibility into the scheme. That, too, is an important principle. When we suggested improvements in Committee, the Minister said that we
  1110
  were trying to constrain the scheme. We made it absolutely clear that we wanted a scheme that would respond quickly to the needs of victims and that could be flexible where necessary. I do not mean unnecessarily flexible, which might result in a long-winded system to deal with the cases that come before the body and the appellate body; we want a reasonable flexibility so that fairness can be guaranteed.
  We propose that for multiple injury, sexual assault, chronic psychiatric illness and injuries to children there should be a mechanism to allow compensation to be calculated having regard to awards at common law. I think that the Minister will accept that those cases are difficult to value. That is especially true with children's cases, which do not readily fall within a tariff scheme. Complex injuries can have a traumatic effect on an individual. Those factors should be taken fully into account in decision making within the new system. We need some mechanism to ensure that awards in such cases are comparable with the awards available at common law.
  We believe that the new clause and new schedule lay down clear and fair principles to underpin a just criminal injuries compensation scheme. We believe that the speeding up of matters through a tariff system that deals with the simpler cases quickly and effectively will be enhanced by building in the principles set out in the new schedule.
  I commend both the new clause and the new schedule to the House.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I commend the diligent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). From the time of the original proposal by the Home Secretary to use the prerogative to destroy the 1964-based Act right through to this debate, my hon. Friend has harried the Government and made them amend many of their original proposals.
  I also commend the work done in the other place. For me, it would be a happier circumstance if I could commend a second Chamber whose Members had been elected and were therefore representative rather than hereditary. However, it shows that where honest men gather the Government are tripped up and sent packing.
  I declare an interest, as I am sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers. I do not represent that body with any lack of pride, although I do it with some sorrow because, on many occasions, it has been shown that the membership comprises people involved in a dangerous occupation. When, in parts of Northern Ireland, there was talk of the peace process, postal workers in Newry were being attacked and one was killed. Recently in Birmingham, while this Bill was being discussed, a postman emptying a post box was subjected to a fatal assault, just so that the attacker could rob the contents of the post box. I therefore commend the new schedule, which would provide for clearer details and more compensation for fatal injury cases.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Government's proposal for 28 weeks without compensation, other than whatever might come through a Government scheme. The Government are treating the matter like a workplace injury. Of course, such an injury should not necessarily be demeaned. It is ridiculous to treat an injury that is the result of a criminal act—in the case of a postal worker, it will probably be an attempt to seize money, postal orders or some other thing in the custody of the Post Office—in

  1111
  the same way as any trip-and-fall accident at work. Clearly, the Government have made no allowances for the difference. This is all about saving £700 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, regardless of the impact on the victim.
  5 pm
  Clearly, additional living costs and traumas come with a criminal injury that would not come with any other form of injury and such injuries should not be compensated by a tariff method. They should not be put into a banding. Although the tariff has been increased after a splendid campaign by the Trades Union Congress and other honourable people, it is not adequate and I think the Government realise that. Previous compensation schemes took into account the concept of trauma: one may get over a physical injury quickly and go back to work, but one will not necessarily get over the trauma of having been the victim of a criminal attack.
  I am pleased to see some consideration for carers in the scheme in the new schedule. Often, the burden of the traumas, deterioration in life style and inability to cope with life some years after a criminal attack fall on the family and the carers. The Government take no account of that and have, in fact, ignored it, pretending that it is not real. It is as if medical science is ignored by the Government if it cannot be afforded by the Government.
  I am unhappy about the fact that the Government have not considered tariff levels that would be adequate for cases of sexual criminal attacks. It is clear that they are turning away from something of which more and more people are becoming aware—that the traumas caused by a sexual attack will last for the rest of the victim's life.
  The maximum awards will be capped, which will adversely affect the small number of victims with the most catastrophic injuries. It is as if the Government are saying that previous compensation was too generous—they use that word pejoratively. How can compensation for a criminal attack be too generous? Presumably, the assessments are made on the basis that the trauma, the injury and its life-long effects are such that the money paid will never rub them out but will help to make life a little more bearable—that is all that the money ever does.
  The Government's proposal is not tough on crime and the consequences of crime but tough on the victims and the families of victims, especially as regards members of professions who handle money regularly and are likely to be attacked regularly. Statistics show that members of the Union of Communication Workers—formerly the postal workers—are attacked regularly. If the Government do not take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion and introduce a scheme based on the new schedule, they should be ashamed.
  Mr. Stevenson: When we attempted in Committee to convince the Minister of the merits of the issues in new clause 3 and amendment No. 4, it would be fair to say that his general view was that he did not want to burden the Bill with details and minutiae. We tried to convince him that the issues were not details or minutiae but important principles. Although we accepted his argument that we were clearly not arguing for every t to be crossed and every i dotted—clearly that would be irresponsible and unrealistic—by the same token, he appears to have
  1112
  gone to the opposite extreme: he views all the issues of principle that we try to incorporate in the Bill as minutiae that should be discounted.
  To be fair, the Minister told us that the details would be there for everyone to see when the scheme was made available. "Trust me" was the general tenor of his proposition. Fair enough, but if we are talking about principles, why on earth can they not at least be reflected in a schedule to the Bill? What does the Minister find so objectionable about the principles to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred?
  We are not talking about details and they will not burden civil servants in the Home Office, making them burn the midnight oil. They are important principles and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reflect on that fact and recognise it. It is important for those principles to be contained in the Bill, albeit in a schedule.
  In Committee, when the Minister described the Government's scheme, he repeatedly said that it is the best in the world.
  Mr. Maclean indicated assent.
  Mr. Stevenson: But if the scheme is so good, why is the Minister so secretive about it? What is wrong with spelling out in the Bill the principles on which this world-beating scheme is based?
  Mr. Maclean: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that, every time I said that our scheme is the best in the world, I was referring not merely to how it is administered but to the huge sums available. Financially, it is as big as the United States scheme and bigger than those of the rest of Europe put together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra money that we envisage making available during the next few years is spelt out in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill? That is not something that the Opposition have spelt out.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that important issue. I am prepared to recognise that the Government intend to cut the resources available to people injured by criminal activity by £700 million. That is part of the financial package to which he referred.
  I will not be deflected from my argument. If the scheme is so good, why are the Government so secretive? The Minister has yet to answer that question, but it is a fair one. Why not list in the schedule the principles on which this so-called world-beating scheme—although it will cut £700 million from the available resources—is based?
  Another significant matter that all hon. Members should consider is that the Bill is the result of Government mistakes during the past couple of years. The Government rushed through their first attempt to introduce a tariff scheme and did not consider the implications carefully enough. They had to backtrack on it because of the mistakes made, and here we are considering a revised tariff scheme. That is a direct result of the fact that the sort of principles that we want included in the Bill were not being fully considered in the first place.
  One can give example after example of Acts of Parliament that the Government have bulldozed through the House without thinking them through. Minister after Minister has had to come to the Dispatch Box and do U-turn after U-turn. If the Minister would agree with us

  1113
  about anything, I am sure that he would agree that the Government do not want to be in that position again; but unless those principles are contained in the Bill, we suspect that that is inevitable.
  I shall deal with just a couple of issues in the time available as I do not wish to repeat what my hon. Friends have said. The first issue worth underlining is the principle of uprating contained in amendment No. 4. The new tariff scheme will be based on 1994 tariffs, will not come into effect until 1 April 1996 and will not be reviewed for three years. That means that a five-year period will pass before those tariffs are reviewed. Is that not a matter of profound principle? Will not families and everyone who is tragically injured as a result of criminal activity be interested in that? Could not the Minister reasonably seek to deal with that? Is it right that people should be faced with a built-in devaluation of the tariff award? Five years of inflation will eat away at the value of the tariff award. That is an important principle, not detail or minutiae.
  The second point relates to the Government's insistence on the 28-week rule. Having listened to their arguments, I am convinced that they insist on it because it is administratively convenient—it happens to fit in with activities in other areas and it saves money. After a criminal injury, many people will have no income, other than £52 a week if they qualify for statutory sick pay, which many will not. The income of others will be dramatically reduced. Their lives will have been transformed through criminal injury and they will need support. I can think of no time when they will need that resource more than in the first 28 weeks; to deny them it during that period is the worst thing that the Government could do.
  For those and many other reasons, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will recognise the strength of the arguments in both the new clause and the amendment, and consider our points sympathetically.
  Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I might deal briefly with the last point the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made and the sheer illogicality of his suggestion. He said that people who receive lesser injuries and are off work for 28 weeks need support immediately after the injury or trauma. With the best will in the world, in those first, crucial, few weeks, there is no chance of anyone applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, completing the paperwork, being assessed and having an award made. Even the most efficient scheme in the world will take a few months to process the application, so the hon. Gentleman's argument that, by setting a 28-week threshold, we are disadvantaging people who would have had an instantaneous pay-out from the moment that they were injured does not hold water.
  5.15 pm
  New clause 3 and amendment No. 4 seek to prescribe on the face of the Bill some of the features of the new scheme which, although not mandatory—the Secretary of State would, in theory, have to have regard only to general principles that are cast in such terms as the scheme "ought" to make the provisions in question—would, in practice, clearly circumscribe the Secretary of State's actions. He would obviously be vulnerable to challenge if, without good reason, the scheme did not reflect each and every one of the principles.
  1114
  We have a much more fundamental objection, however. I am afraid that, while we have no difficulty with some of the principles set out in the new schedule, others are unacceptable, as Opposition Members will know from the lengthy and detailed debates that we have had on the Floor of the House and especially in Committee.
  I do not propose to discuss all the principles in great detail yet again. The arguments are clearly set out in the Official Report for all to see. I shall, however, mention just a few of the more unacceptable items. First is the requirement that compensation payable under the new scheme should be broadly the same as that available under the old one. We have made no secret of the fact that one of the main reasons for seeking to bring in a new scheme was to rein back the cost of the old scheme, which was rising at an unsustainable rate. It is inevitable, therefore, that we shall spend less under the new scheme than we would have under the old scheme if it had continued unchanged.
  It is also clear that we shall spend huge and increasing sums of money. I remind the House and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who kept talking about cuts, cuts, cuts, that, under the enhanced tariff scheme proposed in the Bill, we anticipate that the liability to compensation in 1996–97 will rise to £175 million. In 1997–98 it will rise to £190 million—some cut. The year after, it will rise to £205 million, and the following year we reckon that it will be up to £240 million.
  Under the scheme that I recommend to the House today, and which the Opposition keep saying is mean and will impose cuts, the annual liability will have risen to no less than £260 million by 2000, and the cumulative liability in the five years to then will be no less than £1.1 billion.
  Mr. Michael: Does the Minister agree that the words that he used were carefully chosen? He said that he anticipated an increase in liability. That is not the same as an increase in what is available to compensate individual victims of serious crime. Surely the Minister understands the difference.
  Mr. Maclean: I understand the difference, but the Opposition do not. That remark is typical of them. They call for more money for individuals, but everyone will get more money. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), says that, overall, the Labour party will not spend more. "We are going to be prudent. We shall be tighter than the Tories in global expenditure terms," says the Labour party, but in every debate in Committee, it sought through its amendments to spend more money, widen the banding, increase the awards by 20 per cent. and remove the 28-week threshold.
  Every argument advanced by Opposition Members in Committee and here today is to increase the amount of money available. I do not criticise that view if they want to give even more money than we are giving to victims of crime, but if that is their policy, they should have the decency to say so and spell it out clearly that, by 2000, the scheme will cost £700 million more than the £1,000 million that we estimate it will cost.
  It is no good the Opposition uttering weasel words and saying, "We won't change the scheme if you won't." The Bill shows that we are changing the scheme because the

  1115
  exponential growth in awards—they are rising higher and higher each year and way above inflation—is not sustainable.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: Once I have finished this point I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  With our new, enhanced tariff scheme, not only will liability increase each year, but we expect it to remain the most generous in the world.
  The starting point for what we are doing in the Bill is the fact that, in the United Kingdom, the money paid to innocent victims of crime is as much as the whole of the United States of America, with its huge economy and large number of victims of violent crime, can muster. Little old Great Britain is paying out in compensation to victims of crime more than every other country in Europe put together.
  We are usually criticised by the Opposition at every opportunity—whenever they perceive that countries in Europe are better than Britain. No one is better than the Opposition at criticising Britain for not being as good as other countries in Europe but, in Committee and on Report today, we have heard not a cheep from the Opposition about other countries in Europe. They cannot say anything, because they know that the figures I have given to the House are correct.
  Mr. Connarty: I did not know whether the Minister would ever be able to stem that flow, he was getting so carried away with his own words. It is a pity that no one else believes what he says these days.
  The proposed new schedule refers to fatal injury. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it unreasonable to operate a scheme that provides adequate compensation for "appropriate funeral expenses"? Does he not think it reasonable that the scheme should provide for the dependants of people such as the members of my trade union who were killed while on work duties? The cost to the state of such families falling into benefit and encountering other problems because of the loss of their main breadwinner and fathers would be offset by an adequate payment from a compensation scheme in the first place. Does not all the money come out of the same pocket at the end of the day? Compensation stops further deprivation, so does not that save the state money?
  Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read any of our debates in Committee, he would have known fine that those commitments were given. I assured hon. Members that those who were eligible in broad terms under the 1990 scheme would be covered by the new scheme, which we intend should mirror the 1990 one. I gave the assurances sought on benefits and fatal awards. I give a similar assurance now to the hon. Gentleman about the different expenses of multi-cultural funerals.
  I have no problem with some of the provisions suggested in the "principles" because I have already given the assurance that we intend to bring forward as soon as possible a scheme that mirrors the 1990 scheme in most respects. I have also said, however, that I cannot accept some of the other principles that the Opposition have proposed, which would mean spending more and more money without declaring when the bottom line would be reached.
  1116
  The "principles" also suggest that loss of earnings should be payable from the date of the injury. Our scheme will make provision for the loss of earnings, so that those most seriously affected by their injury receive generous compensation. There needs to be a trigger for that, however, so that the extra help is given to the more seriously injured, and so that the authority is not swamped with a large number of comparatively small claims for loss of earnings—which are very time consuming to process.
  It is not acceptable that loss of earnings should be payable from the date of the injury. That would, in effect, be a recipe for a return to the old scheme and all its attendant shortcomings. We must not forget that there is still an element for loss of earnings and the other heads of damage payable under the old scheme in every tariff award, since the tariff award was based on the median—the most typical—award for the injury concerned.
  We have made it clear that we are going to pay special expenses; we have also made it clear what is meant by that term. In broad terms, it means that if something qualified for expenses under the 1990 scheme, it will qualify for special expenses under the enhanced tariff scheme. If it did not qualify under the 1990 scheme, it will not qualify under our new enhanced tariff scheme. I do not think I can make things much plainer than that. I repeat the golden assurance that I gave in Committee.
  We will not extend the scope of special expenses to cover the completely new items mentioned in the schedule, which would cost a lot more money than the Opposition suggest.
  In fatal cases, in addition to the basic tariff award which all qualifying claimants will receive, we shall pay reasonable funeral expenses. I confirm to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that reasonable funeral expenses will be paid in all cases. That will reflect not only regional differences in costs, but differences in religious or cultural practices and expectations. We are, of course, well aware of the different funeral arrangements that are necessary in different circumstances and the different costs that can arise. The new authority, just like the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will, of course, consider all claims sympathetically and reimburse reasonable expenses.
  Where there was financial dependency on the victim, payment for that dependency will be payable as well as payment for loss of parental support. In that case, too, provision is generous and will be broadly in line with what is payable under the present scheme.
  The "principles" next mention interim awards. Here, too, we are one jump ahead. We have made it plain that interim awards will be paid whenever it is considered appropriate.
  The "principles" finally suggest that there should be a return to the common law method of assessment for cases involving multiple injury, sexual assault, chronic psychiatric injury or injuries to children. I have to say there can be no question of returning to the common law method of assessment for any class of injury.
  The tariff scheme was derived from 20,000 awards made by the board. That extensive exercise showed quite clearly that it was perfectly possible to group all injuries into bands of comparable severity and to assign a typical value—the median value—to each band. We believe that the enhanced tariff fairly reflects the relative seriousness

  1117
  of the injuries listed, and we see no justification for assessing the basic award other than on the basis of the enhanced tariff. If victims are more seriously affected by their injury, they will, as I have just explained, be eligible for loss of earnings and the costs of special care.
  I must tell the House about the inevitable consequence of allowing individual assessment in the case of multiple injury. Most claimants—or, more probably, their clever representatives—would claim that they had suffered multiple injury. They would therefore demand individual assessment. Even where the claim turned out to be manifestly bogus, it would still take time and resources to investigate it. Our formula for determining multiple awards—100 per cent. of the tariff award for the most serious injury, plus 10 per cent. of the award for the next injury and 5 per cent. for the third—broadly reflects what happens under the present scheme and in the civil courts. I believe that it is the right way to assess those cases quickly and fairly.
  In conclusion, I think our enhanced tariff scheme is already based on the right "principles". I can tell hon. Members that we hope to be able to make a draft of the new scheme available to the House shortly. It will set out more clearly and more fully just what the new scheme will cover and what it will not cover. The so-called "principles" set out in the amendment are overly prescriptive and, in many instances, unnecessary.
  Mr. Michael: Could the Minister offer us a definition of the word "shortly"? That word has been used on many occasions. We were told that the Committee stage would be completed "shortly". I asked for a specific commitment from the Minister that he would publish the details of the scheme before the recess, and preferably before Second Reading in the Lords. That would enable proper consideration to be given to the details prior to the debate in the House of Lords after the recess.
  Mr. Maclean: May I say to the hon. Gentleman in the nicest possible way that "shortly" means "not long"? It is my intention to publish those details as soon as possible. Perhaps I may be more unkind to the hon. Gentleman. It is a bit rich for him to ask me to define the word "shortly" and to be more specific about when I will be able to produce the details of the scheme when he has had ample time to add up the costs of his proposals.
  Time after time, I have said from the Dispatch Box that we have included costs in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about cuts, but I have pointed out today that we will increase the amount of money available year after year. We expect liability to increase year after year. By 2000, we expect to be paying out £260 million as opposed to £175 million next year. We have been able to spell all that out, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and other Labour Members, although calling for more money for victims here, there and everywhere, and promising that a Labour Government would be more generous, while saying that we are mean-spirited, have never once added up the figures.
  We do not know the bottom line on the hon. Gentleman's proposals, just as we do not know the bottom line on any of the Opposition's policies. That is why the Labour party has been instructed not to cost its policies—just in case some wicked Tory points out that all its promises will cost an awful lot. That is just not good enough. I call on the hon. Gentleman to state quite clearly how much his proposals would cost. We do not want to
  1118
  hear the weasel form of words that the Opposition have used in the past, to the effect, "If you don't change the scheme, we won't either." I am telling him: we are changing the scheme. There it is. We have produced the Bill and we know what it will cost. What is he going to do?
  Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister has finally come clean—he is no longer saying that the scheme will be more or less the same as the 1990 scheme. He has accepted that the compensation payable under the scheme will be cut dramatically. He is cutting the compensation available for victims of the most violent crimes. He has admitted that he is cutting criminal injury compensation by £700 million in the next five years.
  How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman have the cheek to ask for plain language from the Opposition when he talks about such cuts? How can he put such contradictions before the House? How can he say, "I am not cutting anything, but I am cutting £700 million"? He made that contradiction explicit this evening.
  Plain language—that will be the day, when we get plain language from Home Office Ministers. "Shortly"—when does "shortly" mean? "Shortly" might have a clear definition; it might have the definition "tomorrow". The Minister might say, "I shall publish the details of the scheme tomorrow." He might promise to publish them next week. He could have published them during the Committee stage, because we know that the document has been drafted. We know that it is there in his in-tray. We know that it is available. He has simply chosen to delay its presentation until after Committee and Report.
  The Minister cannot get away with continued prevarication. He needs to publish the details of the scheme before the summer recess. It was obviously his original intention to do so, because he believed that the Bill would have passed through the House by that time. There is no excuse for his not publishing the scheme and putting the details in the public domain before debates take place in another place. It could not be plainer than that.
  5.30 pm
  The weasel words of the Minister, who finds it so difficult to define the word "shortly", give no satisfaction to the House. He says that he accepts some of the principles that we propose in the new schedule. I welcome the fact that he dealt positively with the matter of funeral expenses. He also tried to say that things would be broadly the same as under the existing scheme but, effectively, everything that he says is an admission that he is cutting cash for victims, although he has continually tried to say that no one will lose out.
  Listen to the Minister's words during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He says that he anticipates that liability will increase in the next few years. We have always known that. An increase in liability has been predicted—although the figures are not totally dependable—by the Home Office and other organisations such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. What is being cut is the cash compensation available to individual victims of the most serious crime. Such people have been penalised by the Government.
  The Home Secretary and the Minister tried to tell us that there had been a drop in crime—that crime is 5 per cent. down. The Minister knows as well as I do that

  1119
  violent crime has increased by about 7 per cent., and that the criminal injuries compensation scheme deals only with the victims of violent crime—only with the victims of that increasing violence.
  The Minister pulls schemes out of the bag, as his colleague the Home Secretary does. Do you remember schemes for secure places, Mr. Deputy Speaker? They were promised four years ago. Not a place has been provided. Youngsters were going to be locked up. Where are the places? What is happening? No, we get only rhetoric and talk about being tough on crime from the Government, not the action or the resources necessary to tackle the problems.
  The Minister has no credibility when he tries to castigate us, when we have made it clear that we would maintain the level of compensation available for individual victims of violent crime. I said that clearly, in the words—to which I am glad that the Minister has listened, even if he has not understood—"If you do not cut the scheme, Mr. Minister, we will not cut the scheme." The Government are determined to make the victims of violent crime pay for the failings of the Conservative party in government. That is what it comes down to. That is what it is about.
  Our proposal for urgent compensation in respect of loss of earnings is not as generous as the Minister suggests. We need a trigger; the trigger is the loss of earnings. Pain and loss do not start after 28 weeks. Indeed, very often pain, suffering and the problems of the individual and the family are greater during the first 28 weeks than afterwards. They are immediate. What is proposed is a cut. If the Minister is one jump ahead of the principles, if the scheme is so good, if he has the details of it so well sorted out, as he suggested, why does not he publish it? Why has he kept it secret from us? Why has he not given us the details?
  Our suspicion is justified by what the Home Secretary tried to do, without being held accountable to the House—changing the scheme dramatically and downgrading all its aspects. His U-turn does not go far enough. That scheme remains in essence a serious cut in the compensation available for the people who are most injured and damaged by violent crime.
  That is why, in view of the unsatisfactory response of the Minister, we shall seek to place the new clause and the proposed schedule on the face of the Bill.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 257.

  5.33 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  Bell, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim

  1120

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Lewis, Terry

  Cann, Jamie

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Church, Judith

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clelland, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAllion, John

  Coffey, Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  McCartney, Robert (North Down)

  Connarty, Michael

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McFall, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Corston, Jean

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  MacShane, Denis

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Etherington, Bill

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Morley, Elliot

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mudie, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galloway, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Garrett, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  George, Bruce

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gerrard, Neil

  Olner, Bill

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  O'Neill, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gordon, Mildred

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  Pearson, Ian

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gunnell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hain, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Purchase, Ken

  Harvey, Nick

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Radice, Giles

  Henderson, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Heppell, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rendel, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hoey, Kate

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Home Robertson, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hutton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Short, Clare

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Simpson, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Soley, Clive

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Keen, Alan

  Spellar, John

  1121

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Straw, Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Ms Estelle Morris and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amess, David

  Dover, Den

  Ancram, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  1122

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thumham, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Merchant, Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Twinn Dr Ian

  Moate Sir Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilshire, David

  Pawsey, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Yeo, Tim

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

  APPEALS
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—
  '(b) for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a legally-qualified chairman of that body.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 22, at beginning insert
  `Subject to the agreement of the Lord Chancellor,'.
  No. 3, in page 4, line 28, at end insert—
  '(7A) For the purposes of subsection 3(b) above, a person is legally-qualified if he is a barrister, advocate or solicitor of ten years' standing.'.
  Mr. Michael: Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 seek to amend the Bill to ensure that appeals are dealt with properly. There has been considerable concern for a number of years that appeals should be dealt with in a proper and a transparent manner. The key sentence in the Franks report of 1957 states:
  "tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration".
  That is a particularly important principle, but it is not observed by the Bill or enshrined in it. We made progress in Committee with regard to adjudicators' responsibilities for giving advice, both as a body and individually on the basis of what occurs in particular appeals, and to perform by looking at the wider context of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the ways in which it must operate in order to deliver compensation to victims effectively.
  However, a system of transparency has not been established. The quotation from the Franks report makes it absolutely clear that the appeals mechanism should be a proper judicial or semi-judicial approach, rather than being simply another step in the administrative process. If that principle is to be observed, it is important to establish proper machinery for appeals and adjudication, which we believe should appear in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 1 states that the appointment of a legally qualified chairman of the body dealing with appeals shall be made by the Lord Chancellor. That is not a new principle and it has been established elsewhere, but it is right to adopt it in this case. The Council on Tribunals commented on the qualifications of tribunal chairmen in its model rules of procedure:
  "The constitution, general structure and composition of tribunals will, as a rule, be a matter for the enabling Act".
  The council's advice accepts that there are exceptions and sets them out, particularly in relation to the Finance Act. That general principle is right, but is not included in the Bill's phrasing. The council added:
  "The division between what appears in the Act and what should appear in the rules may well be the result of Parliamentary or professional interest in the subject matter or jurisdiction; equally it may be arbitrary."
  1124
  I believe that all hon. Members agree that it should not be arbitrary, but properly considered and decided by the House. The council continues:
  "It is usual where a presidential system is to be established for that to be done in the enabling Act, which will also prescribe the necessary qualifications for the President and his terms and conditions of service".
  It is difficult to understand why that should not be the case in the Bill. In Committee, the Minister said that there would be simple cases of an abuse of process or undue delay in which there was no merit, which a single adjudicator could examine and dismiss. Even so, in the general run of appeals where there is an issue to be decided, there should be a proper tribunal, properly chaired. Above all, the chairman of the appeals body should be legally qualified in the terms of amendment No. 3, to ensure that the system operates effectively.
  The Minister said that in appointing adjudicators, it was the Home Secretary's clear intention to select not just legally qualified individuals but persons experienced in employment, trade union work and medical matters. There should be that spread of experience, but it is important also that the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals should apply and that a legally qualified person should chair the appeals body to ensure that proper procedures are observed.
  The principle of a legally qualified chairman is enhanced by accepting the normal practice in relation to tribunal chairmen, whereby his removal or that of other individuals should be subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement. In Committee, the Minister said that he was keen that there should not be the remotest opportunity for interference by the Home Secretary in the body that will deal with criminal injuries compensation when the Bill is enacted and the scheme implemented. He wanted to ensure that there could not be interference by Ministers, using a form of words that—as I said earlier—was ill advised because it could bear other interpretations, such as excluding from the appeals body the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. The Minister at least paid lip service to the principle of non-interference that we seek to enshrine in the Bill.
  If it is ensured that persons appointed by the Home Secretary undertake their duties under the chairmanship of the overall body of a legally qualified individual appointed by the Lord Chancellor, there can be no doubt of the objectivity and transparency of the Bill's arrangements. If the removal of individuals is also subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement, as with other tribunals, that will provide the public with a measure of comfort and clarity, that the body will not be the creature of the Home Secretary. The amendments will be helpful to the Minister in enshrining the principle that he agreed should be the one governing appeals—objectivity and a lack of interference by Home Office Ministers. In other words, it would be a proper judicial or quasi-judicial body, whose fairness would be transparent, and the independence of the persons who made appeal decisions would be obvious. I hope that the Minister will accept these three minor but important amendments.
  Mr. Maclean: Clause 5(3)(b) enables the scheme to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman of the appeals panel from among the adjudicators who make up its membership. Amendment No. 1 would

  1125
  amend that power, so that any such provision of the scheme would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint the chairman. It would also require the chairman to be legally qualified, and amendment No. 3 defines "legally-qualified". Amendment No. 2 would require the Lord Chancellor's agreement before the Secretary of State could remove an adjudicator from office under the powers provided by clause 5(7).
  I listened carefully and respectfully, as usual, to the hon. Gentleman's opinions, but the amendments are not appropriate to the purpose of the Bill or the scheme. The most obvious objection is that the Lord Chancellor has no direct interest in the running of the scheme. It therefore makes no sense to involve him in responsibility for appointing the chairman of the appeals panel. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have overall responsibility for the running of the scheme, and in appointing a chairman of the appeals panel, they will have to consider wider questions about the requirements of the post in the context of the efficient running of the appeals panel and its advice-giving role to the Secretary of State.
  For the same reasons, it would not be appropriate to require the Lord Chancellor's agreement to the removal of an adjudicator from office. I have no doubt, however, that we would consult the Lord Chancellor in the unhappy and, I hope, remote event that we had to consider removing a legally qualified adjudicator from office. We would also consult as appropriate on the question of appointing a legally qualified chairman. Although this does not need to be stated in the Bill, of course we would consult the Lord Chancellor as appropriate on appointing a legally qualified chairman. Such matters are part of the Government's normal modus operandi.
  As to whether the chairman should be legally qualified, our responsibility is to see that the most suitable person is appointed as chairman. The needs of the scheme and the needs of victims are paramount. As the House knows, we intend to appoint adjudicators from a wide range of backgrounds. It is certainly our firm intention that the first chairman at least should be legally qualified, but it would be wrong to rule out absolutely any possibility that at some future date it might be appropriate to appoint a non-lawyer as chairman. Legal questions frequently arise in the running of the scheme, and if the chairman was not a lawyer but, for example, a doctor, we would expect him to consult the legally qualified adjudicators as necessary. But to insist on a legally qualified chairman is an unnecessary restriction.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's points, but if we accepted the amendments, they would place an unnecessary restriction on the scheme's operation and the modus operandi for appointing a legally qualified chairman and other adjudicators. I cannot accept the amendments.
  Mr. Michael: It is intriguing that something is a clear principle when it is wanted by a Minister, but is said to introduce unnecessary restriction when proposed by anyone else. The Government are always inconsistent in dealing with such matters, as we have seen today. It is sad that relations between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are so bad that a requirement to ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment and
  1126
  removal of adjudicators is viewed as introducing convoluted and bureaucratic delay. I dare say that matters will improve in the near future.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment.
  6 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it provides for a tariff of amounts of compensation in respect of criminal injuries without flexibility in special cases, gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State to frame a Scheme for criminal injuries compensation with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny, includes provision for the contracting-out of what should be a public service function, and includes provisions to exonerate the Secretary of State of responsibility for the conduct of the Scheme."
  The country knows that today the Conservative party is in a deep crisis. The people of Britain have so lost confidence in the governing party that the party has comprehensively lost confidence in itself, as well as in its Cabinet and its leader. At the heart of the crisis of confidence is the issue of trust. The Conservative party made promises during the general election campaign, which it swiftly and cynically broke. It has broken promises on
  tax—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is specific. The debate must be about the Bill and the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks are about the Bill and its contents. As I was about to say, the Bill writes into law a broken promise to the victims of violent crime. It was in the 1992 Conservative campaign guide that the Conservatives boasted of the generosity of the then common law scheme. They declared that, when a crime had taken place, the Government would give the utmost priority to supporting the victims. Nothing was said about any intention to cut or replace the scheme.
  The manifesto on which the Conservatives fought and won the general election campaign promised that special attention would be paid to the needs of the victims of crime. However, the Bill cuts almost in half the compensation that will be payable, and punishes the victims of violent crime for the Government's failure to control that crime.
  There are many major defects in the scheme that is before the House. There is no compensation for loss of earnings before 28 weeks, despite the fact, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has eloquently testified, that at least 12 million people do not receive statutory sick pay for the preceding 28 weeks. There is no payment for special expenses. Maximum awards will be capped, adversely affecting those with catastrophic injuries.
  In some instances the tariff is extremely low, especially for sexual offences. Tariff levels, which are basically the same as those in the discredited 1994 tariff, will not be reviewed until 1999. The tariff provides no flexibility in difficult cases.

  1127
  Published this morning were the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 3 May 1995. Senior officials in the Home Office gave evidence about the compensation scheme, among other matters. The permanent secretary, when talking about the old scheme, referred to 33 awards for punctured lung injuries in 1991–92. The awards ranged from £601 to £29,203. The permanent secretary said that he was struck by the "enormous range". So may we all be.
  The common law scheme, however, was designed to provide compensation directly related to the individual's circumstances and needs. Under the new scheme, the tariff for a punctured lung will be set at £3,000. Save for the most exceptional cases, no one will receive more than £3,000. Those who might have received £29,203 will receive over £26,000 less than that.
  At the heart of the justification for the Bill is the Government's desire to cut costs. They wish to cut the compensation that is available to victims, especially to those of the most serious crime.
  The estimates that are used to justify the cuts are scarcely worth the paper on which they are printed. The Conservative campaign guide stated, in an attempt to justify the changes, that costs would rise to £570 million by the year 2000. In the explanatory and financial memorandum, we are told that the costs will rise instead to £460 million.
  When I put this point to the Secretary of State on 23 May on Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "The latter is a more up-to-date estimate. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that inflation has gone down, which is one of the factors that has been taken into account."—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 748.]
  I have examined the estimates of inflation. I made it clear that I was speaking about the 1992 Conservative campaign guide, not the 1994 guide. The 1994 guide used the figure of £570 million. It was published after the November 1993 Budget, including the Red Book.
  If we compare the estimates of future inflation in the 1993 Red Book up to 1999 with the latest estimates until that year, we see that there is hardly any difference between them. The 1993 Red Book predicted that inflation would reach 2 per cent. by 1998–99, as does the 1994 Red Book. There is only a marginal difference between them. There is no difference that could conceivably explain why suddenly estimates would be reduced by £110 million or 20 per cent.
  In Committee, the Minister of State was repeatedly challenged to explain the estimated fall of £110 million. Where had the estimated £570 million come from? Where had £460 million come from? He failed repeatedly to offer any credible explanation. The estimates on which this discreditable Bill is based are entirely unreliable. It is unfortunate that the Government have offered no serious explanation of the discrepancy and of other changes in costs. That does them no credit.
  We know that the Secretary of State has wasted millions of pounds of the public's money by seeking to change the common law system of compensation without any statutory authority and in patent breach of the law of the land, as was found by a Committee of the other place earlier this year.
  1128
  As a result of impetuous and unlawful acts by the Secretary of State, he set up the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which has now had to be wound up. He first insisted that claims for the preceding year would be judged on the basis of the unlawful tariff scheme. He had to dismantle that scheme, but at the same time has had to ensure that those who would have been awarded more under the old scheme will receive more. Those who would have received less under the common law scheme will, at the same time, keep their higher tariff award.
  What is the cost of the Secretary of State's unlawful behaviour? There should be the fullest investigation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's profligacy by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
  Had a local council gone in for unlawful expenditure in the face of explicit legal advice and court judgments, and wasted millions of pounds, the Home Secretary would have been the first to demand that the Audit Commission should investigate, and that the councillors be surcharged.
  Throughout the Bill's passage, the Secretary of State has sought to evade responsibility for decisions to slash compensation, for which he is morally and politically responsible, by asking us whether we would restore the scheme in full in the event of a Labour Government. That evasion of responsibility will not wash. Labour would not have tricked the electorate as the Conservatives did at the last election.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said, Labour's position is clear. If Ministers do not cut the scheme now, we will not cut it either. If Ministers maintain the public expenditure survey allocation up to the election and beyond, as they have every right and, indeed, duty to do, we shall keep it there. But if funding for the common law scheme is removed, no guarantees can be given by any party which seeks responsibly to govern the country.
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State could not even say what would be in the Chancellor's Budget this autumn. He could not say what the availability of funding would be in the Chancellor's Budget. Today, the Home Secretary could not even say who the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, let alone what might be in the Budget.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer who presents the autumn Budget is, God forbid, the nominee of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who intends to give away £5 billion in tax cuts and pay for those tax cuts through wholly unidentifiable efficiency savings, the public finances that Labour will inherit when we form a Government will be in an extremely sorry state.
  I hope that, when the Secretary of State replies, he has the same full-hearted condemnation for the right hon. Member for Wokingham as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yesterday, when he accused the former Secretary of State for Wales of
  "plucking figures out of the air"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on the views of members of the Cabinet on Britain's financial situation. This is a specific debate on the Bill. I urge the hon. Gentleman to get back to it, and the Home Secretary to resist the temptation to make any comment as well.
  Mr. Straw: I was dealing merely with the further uncertainties that now afflict the Government and their

  1129
  public spending plans. But speaking of figures that are plucked out of the air, one might say the same for the figures of £570 million and £460 million which the House has variously been given for the possible cost of keeping the old scheme going right up until the year 2000.
  Just three months ago, the Leader of the House warned the Prime Minister that by these cuts in the criminal injuries compensation scheme the Government had placed themselves
  "on the wrong side of an argument about the victims of crime".
  He was, of course, right.
  The Government's shame on the issue has been graphically shown this afternoon. For much of the three hours of debate, not a single Conservative Back Bencher has been present in the Chamber. Still less has one spoken in support of the Bill. I might also add that the Liberal Democrat Benches have been vacant for almost the whole debate. There has been no contribution from any Liberal Democrat during the course of the debate. I am sure that the people of Littleborough and Saddleworth will be interested to know the Liberal Democrats' lack of support for improvements in the criminal injuries compensation scheme and for the Opposition's fight to maintain the old scheme.
  It is little wonder that so few Conservative Members have been present and that none has spoken, because the Government's record on crime has been one of the shames of this Administration. Crime has doubled, and the number of victims has doubled, while there has been an absolute reduction in the number of people convicted of or cautioned for crime.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham was right about one thing in the manifesto he issued yesterday. He said:
  "We catch far too few criminals—detection rates have to be raised."
  The Government have failed the victims of crime. Worse, they are now punishing the victims for that failure. That is why we believe that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading tonight.
  6.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I invite the House to reject the reasoned amendment which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to the detailed terms of which I shall come in a moment. However, I say at this early stage that the use of the word "reasoned" has rarely been less appropriate than in describing the amendment.
  The Bill paves the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme under which compensation will, for the first time, be paid to the blameless victims of crimes of violence on a statutory basis. Unlike the present, non-statutory arrangements, the new scheme will concentrate on a straightforward tariff approach for the majority of victims. But it will also ensure that the needs of those most seriously affected by their injuries are generously met. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of the taxpayer.
  Continuation of the old scheme, based on common law damages, was no longer a viable option. Costs were rising rapidly, and many victims were having to wait a long time for their money, despite the best efforts of my noble Friend Lord Carlisle and the Criminal Injuries
  1130
  Compensation Board—efforts for which we remain very grateful. In contrast, the new, enhanced tariff scheme should enable costs to be more readily predicted and controlled, and once the new scheme has settled down and the remaining old scheme cases have been cleared, victims should get their money more quickly and with less fuss.
  In devising the new scheme, we have of course listened to the criticisms of the earlier non-statutory tariff scheme which was withdrawn in April following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The new scheme incorporates many of the more helpful suggestions made in both Houses and elsewhere.
  All successful claimants will get a tariff award, but, in more serious cases, victims will also receive additional payment for loss of earnings and for special care. In fatal cases, payment will additionally be made for dependency and loss of support.
  We are doubling the upper limit for awards payable under the old tariff scheme from £250,000 to £500,000, and we are making provision for recipients of higher-value awards to opt for payment by structured settlements. Those can provide a stream of index-linked, tax-free payments for life, considerably increasing the net value of the award. In addition, the tariff of awards has been improved and refined, to reflect the experiences of operating the non-statutory tariff scheme in 1994–95.
  The Bill has already been discussed in detail in Committee. Among other things, it was agreed there that the benefits of structured settlements should be extended to claimants under the old scheme whose claims have still to be settled. We shall seek to give effect to that in another place. We also agreed to an express provision being made on the face of the Bill that the new independent appeals panel should be able to offer advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to the scheme.
  Perhaps I should also remind the House that, contrary to the completely erroneous impression given in the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment, the Bill provides that the more important features of the new scheme will be subject to parliamentary approval, both before the new scheme starts, and before any changes are made subsequently.
  The so-called reasoned amendment also claims that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to evade responsibility for the scheme. That simply beggars belief. The Bill does no such thing, as was explained at length to Opposition Members in Committee. What the Bill does is preserve the present position and make it clear that the Secretary of State is not responsible for the decisions in individual cases taken by claims officers or the scheme manager.
  Of course the Secretary of State has responsibility for the scheme and for the rules and procedures under which it operates. The Bill is quite clear on that, and for the Opposition to claim otherwise is characteristically absurd.
  Since I am dealing with uninformed comment, I repeat that the new scheme does not cut the amount of money which will be available to compensate victims—far from it. We are simply controlling the unsustainable rate of growth in such expenditure. Ours is by far the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and it will remain so once the changes envisaged in the Bill come into force.
  We pay out more compensation than the United States, and more than all the other countries in Europe put together. By the end of the decade, the liability to

  1131
  compensation will be in the order of £250 million a year. That is no mean achievement, and one in which we can all justifiably take pride.
  All that the hon. Member for Blackburn can do in the face of that is to nit-pick about some detailed estimates which have had to be revised in the light of more up-to-date information—a process so foreign to the hon. Gentleman that he does not appear to understand even that simple state of affairs.
  Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why the estimates over which he spent such an inordinate amount of time have been changed. The estimates are affected by several different factors. I have to spell them out for hon. Gentleman, although I think that most people will readily understand what they involve. They include the number of cases settled; the success rate; the percentage of claimants receiving an award; inflation; and increases in the average award. Those estimates have to be based on long-term, 10-year trends. Clearly, those change over a period as circumstances change and later data become available.
  The figure of £570 million over which the hon. Gentleman spent—indeed, wasted—so much time was derived before the outturn figures for 1993–94 were available. We now have the outturn figures for two subsequent years. Our information is more accurate and up to date. We prefer to make our estimates based on the most accurate and up-to-date information available—a process clearly completely alien to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.
  The Labour party has no constructive alternative to the scheme which the Government propose in the Bill. There is no clearer evidence of that than the complete about-face demonstrated in its so-called reasoned amendment. On Second Reading, the bon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends complained in their amendment about the inadequacy of provision for criminal injuries. When he was challenged to make a clear, specific commitment to increase resources, he refused to do so.
  We now have a totally different reasoned amendment. It clearly was not drafted by the hon. Gentleman. It was clearly drafted by someone who understood the impossibility of complaining about inadequate resources while refusing to make a commitment to increasing resources. It was drafted by someone who had some glimmering of understanding that government is about making decisions—often hard decisions.
  The gulf between the person who drafted the reasoned amendment and its contents, and the contents of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn could not have been wider—it was enormous. Indeed, it rather looked as though the hon. Member for Blackburn had not even taken the trouble to read the so-called reasoned amendment before he got up to make his speech. The Labour party is not prepared to face up to the need to make decisions. Until and unless it is, it should be treated with the derision it deserves.
  We have now come up with as good a scheme as it is possible to devise, given the constraints under which any responsible Government must operate. It is a generous, straightforward and transparent scheme, and one that serves the interests of victims and taxpayers alike. The Bill provides the framework of that scheme, and I invite the House to reject the reasoned amendment, endorse the scheme and give the Bill a Third Reading.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I explained on Second Reading the view that I and my hon. Friends took of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who served on the Committee, is not here today because he is on parliamentary duty in the United States. Neither his views nor mine have changed since then.
  The Bill amends the present system in ways that the Home Secretary was right to say start from a need to reappraise the ever-escalating cost. I concede that. The most interesting and important question is how much money will be in the kitty. I do not dissent from the view—indeed, it is unarguable—that we have the most generous system in the world. That is clear.
  It is also unarguable that the cost has grown over the years, and if the old system remained, it would go on growing. That is why, on Second Reading, I made it clear that I thought that all responsible politicians would be forced to accept a tariff-plus system. There is no other way, unless we accept uncontainable prospective costs.
  I made that clear before, and I hold to it. My views have not been altered by the debate in Committee. The questions that arose in Committee and on Report have not gone to the fundamentals of the Bill. Again, the Home Secretary is right to say that they went to the margins of the Bill, but that is because the Bill, in large measure, does not itself address the practicalities.
  The practicalities will be how much money is in the kitty; what will be the level of awards; who reviews that and how will it be upgraded; and the scheme under the delegated legislation that the Bill will bring into operation. That is why we have the same simple view that we had at the beginning.
  There were certain things wrong in the original tariff that needed to be corrected. We need to make sure that we do not reduce the amount of money and keep it pegged—not so that it escalates out of control, but at least so that it stays in line with inflation, so that people are compensated for the injuries they sustain at a real rather than an ever-reducing cost. The scheme must be flexible, so that it meets the variety of injuries and practical losses that people sustain through disability, on-going costs, loss of earnings and the rest.
  This is not a Bill that we would have introduced, or one that needed to be introduced in this way or form. It is important that we continue to put more money and interest into the cause of victims. That is why the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends have not received our support for their proposals, either at earlier stages of the Bill or tonight.
  I understand that there will be further challenges in another place. The legal and other interested professions, let alone the victim support groups and victims' representatives, are unhappy at the prospect of reduced funding. That is the greatest fear that people will have as a result of this debate. The scheme may have been the most generous in the world, but people will fear that, in future, it will be both less generous and less flexible, and that is a bad thing.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:? Ayes 202, Noes 260.

  Division No. 187]

  [6.27 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Graham, Thomas

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Allen, Graham

  Gunnell, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Hain, Peter

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Harvey, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Barnes, Harry

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Battle, John

  Heppell, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hodge, Margaret

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Hoey, Kate

  Benton, Joe

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Home Robertson, John

  Berry, Roger

  Hood, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hoyle, Doug

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Burden, Richard

  Hutton, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cam, Jamie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cariile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Church, Judith

  Keen, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Clelland, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kirkwcod, Archy

  Coffey, Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Comarty, Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Corbett, Robin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Corston, Jean

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cousins, Jim

  McCartney, Robert (North Down)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelll)

  McFall, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  McLeish, Henry

  Dobson, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dowd, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacShane, Denis

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McWilliam, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fatchett Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Galloway, George

  Moriey, Elliot

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Godsiff, Roger

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gordon, Mildred

  Olner, Bill

  1134

  O'Neill, Martin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Pearson, lan

  Snape, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Spellar, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stevenson, George

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Dr John

  Touhig, Don

  Rendel, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wallace, James

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright Dr Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. George Mudie and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ashby, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bates, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Booth, Hartley

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Elletson, Harold

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Field,, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butterfill, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Cash, William

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Churchill, Mr

  French, Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Gale, Roger

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gallie, Phil

  1135

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Lightbown, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Lord, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Madel, Sir David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Malone, Gerald

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Harris, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Merchant, Piers

  Heald, Oliver

  Mills, Iain

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hendry, Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Horam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Winal W)

  Norris, Steve

  Hunter, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Page, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Pawsey, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knapman, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Porter, Barry (Winal S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Legg, Barry

  Riddick, Graham

  Leigh, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  1136

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Spring, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stephen, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Stern, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Surnberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sykes, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Thomason, Roy

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

Film Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
6.40 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of Elstree studios—a matter of deep interest to my constituents, who take a great pride in our cinematic tradition. No doubt, the House will be aware that Elstree is a proud name in the history of the British cinema. Such great British movies of the past as "The Dambusters" and "Moby Dick" were made there, and my constituents are used to seeing the great faces of British cinema in their streets. Throughout Elstree and Borehamwood, there is a rich heritage of cinematic tradition, and much film-making skill. More recently, Elstree has played host to some major Hollywood productions, including the "Star Wars" films and the Indiana Jones trilogy, with which hon. Members are no doubt familiar.
However, a great change took place in the fortunes of Elstree studios when they were acquired by Brent Walker in 1988. Brent Walker acquired the site on the strict understanding with the local authority, Hertsmere borough council, that planning consent would be given for the development of about half the site for retail purposes while the remainder was to be developed for use in the film industry. That was built into the planning agreement between Brent Walker and the council.
Since 1988, something of a saga has developed over Brent Walker's ownership of Elstree. I draw two material points to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. First—this is most important to my constituents—Brent Walker has not carried out its undertaking to develop the remaining part of the studios for the purposes of film making. Sadly, the studios in which such proud British films were made remain dark and unused. Secondly, notwithstanding Brent Walker's assertions to the contrary, there has been much real and substantial interest among other film makers in continuing film production at Elstree. There is clear evidence of that, and Hertsmere council knows of it.
I am fortified in that assertion by the conclusion of the Select Committee on National Heritage, whose members came to Elstree late last year. The residents of Elstree and the council were grateful to the Committee for the interest that it took, and it was firm in its conclusions that there was interest in, and a continuing future for, the studios.
Having investigated the situation carefully, the Committee's conclusion was:
"The Committee applauds the efforts of Hertsmere Borough Council to enable film production to be resumed at the historic Elstree studios, welcomes Twentieth Century-Fox's indication of interest, and deplores the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Brent Walker. It hopes that the situation will be speedily resolved and that Elstree Studios will once again be listed among the UK's functioning film studios."
My constituents would say amen to that.
"Dog-in-the-manger" is a good phrase to describe Brent Walker's behaviour throughout the saga, and many of my constituents would welcome a change in the ownership of the studios so that films could be made there again. That is why they fully support the efforts of Hertsmere borough council to bring that about.
1138
After the long saga caused by Brent Walker's dog-in-the-manger attitude, the council finally brought matters to a head. Earlier this month, it gave Brent Walker 14 days to agree purchase by negotiation before compulsory purchase proceedings would be initiated. That deadline expired on 16 June, and Hertsmere is now pressing ahead with its stated intention.
I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to place on record my support for the council's course of action—a course supported by all the parties on the council. There is also great support in Borehamwood. I also agree with the Select Committee's conclusions about the future of Elstree studios. Obviously, their immediate future is in the hands of the council, but their long-term future is linked to the overall health of the British film industry, and that is the subject that I shall talk about next.
Incidentally, Elstree studios are not the only film-making interest for my constituents. Not far away are the Third Millennium studios, which are using Leavesden aerodrome as the studios for the new James Bond movie "Goldeneye". That is of great interest to many of my constituents. No doubt, their film-making skills are being put to good use there. I am sure that they are glad to see that James Bond has followed such other important figures as Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones and Inspector Morse in beating a path to Hertfordshire. With all those people coming to Hertfordshire, it is not surprising that our crime rate is falling.
Those are the ambitious plans for film making close to my constituency. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who takes a great interest in such matters and has spoken of turning Watford into the Hollywood of western Europe. No doubt, that is on the cards if we can bring major film productions such as "Goldeneye" to Hertfordshire.
I urge the Minister to give his full support to film making in Hertfordshire and to the British film industry as a whole. Earlier this month, the Government gave their response to the Select Committee report, and that response has been widely welcomed in the industry. It represented some good positive steps forward, based on the recommendations of the Select Committee and introducing measures for which the film industry has been asking for a long time, including the long-awaited London Film Commission to assist film making in London. That, too, will be warmly welcomed.
Measures have also been put in place to assist entry to this country for those with skills in film making, stars and so on, through changes in the work permit arrangements. The money to come from the national lottery should not be overlooked either. That will be an important source of funds for film making—a fact that has been widely welcomed, not least in my constituency, where I understand that £85,000 of lottery money has been allocated to investigate the feasibility of a permanent display at Elstree studios.
One of the major proposals for reviving our film industry involves fiscal incentives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that idea in his statement to the House on 6 June. Rightly and understandably, he said that considering the merits of fiscal incentives was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when planning his Budget.

1139
What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said was welcomed by the film industry. In his statement, he went as far as to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
"carefully consider the Committee's recommendations together with the logic that underpins them."—[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 20.]
That has been interpreted, I hope rightly, in the film industry as a sign that the Government are listening to its concerns and proposals. The industry hopes that the proposals will be given the careful consideration that they undoubtedly merit. If there is an open door there, I shall, perhaps, push it a little further open this evening by urging my hon. Friend the Minister to do what the Chancellor said, and to consider carefully the long-standing and well-considered case that has been put forward by the film industry.
I press on my hon. Friend one particular measure—accelerated tax write-offs for film production. The industry is asking for such write-offs to take place in the first year of production rather than over three years, as at present. That is one of the points that the industry has made firmly and on which there is said to be consensus in the film industry. Certainly, it was one of the proposals made by the Producers Alliance. I understand that it also had the support of the British Film Commission. The Select Committee on National Heritage treated the proposal with great seriousness and put it forward as one of its recommendations. There is a consensus view that, of all the fiscal measures, that one especially commends attention. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the case put by the film industry. It says that, in the particular circumstances of film making in this country, with the independent productions that we tend to have, this measure would assist film making and encourage investment in film making. The industry believes that it could be just the measure needed to tip the balance in favour of film making, to give it the boost that would turn this country into a major source of film production and to improve our already very good standing.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the proposal and the merits that underpin it. He must look carefully at the great potential for film making. We have great natural advantages—the skills of our technicians and film makers, and the excellence of our artists, actors, producers and directors. We also have the great advantage of the English language, which gives us a flying start over so many of our competitors. Everybody who has looked at our film industry believes that the potential is there.
Certainly, we have done well in recent years and there have been clear signs of revival in the film industry, which are very welcome. The measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced earlier this month will undoubtedly help the industry. However, the help could go a lot further than that. We have seen tremendous films of great excellence made in this country in the past couple of years. I am thinking not just of the obvious choice that everyone mentions—"Four Weddings and a Funeral"—but of other good films such as "Shadowlands", "Remains of the Day", "The Madness of King George" and "Tom and Viv". Recently, we had the major American production "Rob Roy". All those films, especially the first four, are
1140
major examples of the excellence of our indigenous film industry and of the great natural assets that we have. Major productions such as "Rob Roy", besides bringing employment to the country and giving a boost to our economy, are a great showcase for the country. Films such as "Rob Roy" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral" have brought the British countryside, the beauty of Scotland and our English way of life to the attention of people all over the world. They have been a showcase as well as providing welcome jobs.
That is the great advantage of the film industry. There is no doubt that it will be one of the growth industries, in which this country could be a major player. As I have said, the right steps have been taken. If the right fiscal incentives were given as well, the industry's potential would be increased. There is, clearly, an enormous advantage for this country to gain. I commend all my arguments to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that the film industry has been putting those arguments carefully to him. I urge him to listen carefully to what the industry proposes.
It is the earnest hope of my constituents that Elstree and Borehamwood can, once again, play a proud part in film making, as they did in the past. I hope that the cameras can start rolling, that the studios can be lit, that, once again, the big stars will come through Borehamwood and that the big productions, which give employment to so many of my constituents and cause so much pride, will come to the area. I hope that once again, Elstree will be synonymous with excellence in film making and that we can light up not just this country, but the whole world with the excellence of our British films.
6.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate at a time when the National Heritage Select Committee's report and the Government's recent response have focused attention on the film industry.
My hon. Friend has referred to the impressive record the studios at Elstree have held in the history of the film industry. No one could deny the enormous contribution that Elstree has made to film making in this country, but the future of the studios is, subject to any necessary planning consents, a matter for the owners to decide. It is not for the Government to determine a matter that should be for the commercial judgment of private companies.
I shall put Elstree in the context of the current position of the film industry and the excellent opportunities which lie before it. Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in the number of British-produced films made, from 32 films in 1992 to 49 last year. There has been an equivalent rise in the amount of investment by overseas production companies in the UK, up from less than £70 million in 1992 to more than £176 million in 1994. In all, 89 films were made with significant British involvement in 1994, with total budgets amounting to more than £450 million. This, coupled with a fast-growing audience for film and the development of new technologies in the audiovisual industry, presents us with a time of great opportunity for the film industry.
In his recent statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage referred to the two strands in which these opportunities

1141
lie: first, the opportunity to attract film makers from overseas to the UK and, secondly, the opportunity for British film makers to take advantage of the acknowledged strength of their industry.
To help the industry respond to the opportunities offered by overseas production, the Government agreed last year to continue support for the excellent work of the British Film Commission in attracting foreign film makers to the UK. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have recently announced that we shall also provide pump-priming support for the establishment of a film commission in London. The lack of a commission in London, where most of the UK's technicians and film and television facilities are based, has proved to be a notable gap in the network of film commissions throughout the UK and a material weakness when marketing the UK as a place to film.
In the production of British films, British Screen Finance has been extremely successful in encouraging investment in feature film production and it has an impressive record in recouping loans to reinvest in new productions, without compromising its remit of encouraging new talent. To date, it has invested in more than 100 feature films, including "Land and Freedom", which won an award at Cannes this year, and "Jack and Sarah", which was released this month. In recognition of its achievements, we intend to continue funding British Screen Finance beyond the present financial year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed, in his statement recently, a new source of funding for film production—the national lottery, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. The Arts Council of England has said that, depending on the quality of applications it receives, it could invest more than £70 million by the year 2000 in the production of British films, in partnership with others such as Channel 4 and the BBC.
We are also considering the ways in which the industry might be developed into a stronger and more established sector. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that we intend to set up an advisory committee comprising representatives of financial institutions and production companies to examine the issues involved.
My hon. Friend called for 100 per cent. first-year tax write-offs for expenditure on film production. This is not a new suggestion; indeed, it was one of the recommendations put forward by the National Heritage Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his statement that the Government would bear in mind the Committee's tax recommendations in the run-up to the next Budget, but there is nothing that I can usefully add to that on this occasion because tax policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Government support international co-production through membership of Eurimages, enabling 49 British productions to go ahead since the United Kingdom joined the scheme in 1993. Most of the Eurimages-funded films are low budget, but the UK has been particularly successful in gaining support for higher-budget films. The Government-funded European Co-production Fund, administered by British Screen Finance, has supported co-productions with 14 other countries, enabling film makers to access state support in each of the co-producer's countries.
1142
Since the inception of the European Co-production Fund in 1991, the number of UK co-productions has increased from 12 in 1992 to 32 in 1994. There is, however, little point in encouraging production if the films made are not also shown widely to British audiences. Many British films do not achieve wide distribution because of inadequate marketing and because too few prints are available for circulation. The Arts Council has agreed that, provided it receives sound applications, it could make more than £14 million available over the next five years for distribution and cinema improvements.
As a well-planned London launch is important if a film is to generate effective media attention, the Government are also providing funding for a study to examine the feasibility of a west end showcase to provide a venue for premieres of smaller-scale British films. This would be intended to generate the publicity necessary for a successful UK-wide cinema release. We plan to involve other organisations in the study, and the BBC has already said that it would like to be involved. Should the feasibility study show that the scheme would be viable, others would need to take it forward.
In this year of the cinema centenary, we have a unique opportunity to promote cinema-going to the British public. Plans have been drawn up by an industry organisation, Cinema 100, to celebrate the centenary and the Government have agreed to provide £180,000 this year towards the cost of its initiatives. I have mentioned a number of new initiatives, but the Government's interest in film is long term, as support for existing measures demonstrates.
The National Film and Television School, which recently announced that it plans to move to new premises at Ealing studios, is supported annually by a Government contribution of £1.85 million. The school prepares graduate students for careers in film and television, and graduates enjoy a 100 per cent. success rate in finding employment. Since 1973, students have won more than 250 awards for films at international festivals and industry ceremonies.
Film is a cultural as well as an economic activity, and in recognition of this, the Government provide substantial support for the British Film Institute. The institute's primary role is to encourage the understanding and development of moving image culture in all its forms. The BFI operates a world-class library, the Museum of the Moving Image, the national film and television archive and, through the national film theatre and grants to the regional film theatres, enables the public to see and appreciate a wide range of world cinema.
The Government also provided support for the original five-year MEDIA programme, which is now coming to an end. It was designed to enhance the strength of member states' national audiovisual industries by encouraging greater collaboration and wider distribution of their products. The UK has pushed for its successor, MEDIA II, to focus on three areas: training, project development and distribution. The UK has played an active part in negotiations on MEDIA II, ensuring where possible that the views of the UK industry are taken into account in shaping the programme. Ministers have now reached a common position in the European Council on the decisions for implementing MEDIA II. The Government

1143
believe that MEDIA II will help to consolidate the achievements of the current programme while maintaining its momentum.
During its presidency, the UK was a major driving force in refocusing Audiovisual Eureka, the pan-European initiative, designed to strengthen the audiovisual industry. The Government provide support in the form of a contribution towards the maintenance and work of the Brussels-based Eureka permanent secretariat.
1144
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that all the measures that I have mentioned add up to considerable evidence that the Government wish to encourage the future development of an exciting and vital industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, at this time, actively taking steps to move forward the initiatives announced in his recent statement, which I am glad my hon. Friend so warmly welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Seven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts Charter
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish the new courts charter. [31322]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 29 June 1995:
  Costs of the New Courts Charter
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about when the new Courts Charter is expected to be published.
  The new Charter, called the Charter for Court Users, will be published on 25 July 1995.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost of compiling and publishing the new courts charters including consultancy fees. [31323]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 29 June 1995:
  Cost of the New Courts Charter
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of compiling and publishing the new Courts Charter, including consultation fees.
  The total cost for designing, printing, packaging and distributing the new Charter, called the Charter for Court Users, will be approximately £162,000 (exc. VAT). This sum includes £500 for artwork consultancy fees. Approximately £17,000 of the cost relates to the Welsh, Braille and audio versions of the Charter.

  Civil Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of the organisation and management of civil enforcement agents. [32086]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has considered carefully the responses to his public consultation paper on this subject and is now considering how the regulation, licensing and control of those who enforce judgments of the courts in England and Wales might best be effected so as to ensure that both debtors and creditors receive a proper, efficient and professional service. He is anxious that those parts of the established system which work well should be preserved, and will 742
  now undertake detailed consultation with the under sheriffs' and sheriffs' officers' associations and other relevant bodies in order to determine how best this might be achieved within a new statutory framework. He will announce the outcome of these deliberations by the end of the year.

  Defamation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend the law on defamation. [30597]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have announced a number of reforms to defamation law and procedure. On 16 December 1992, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government would introduce a package of mainly procedural reforms, following recommendations made by a working party under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill. On 28 November 1994, he announced that there would be a new summary procedure to provide an inexpensive fast track for the disposal of straightforward claims, and on 14 May 1991 he announced that the defence of innocent dissemination would be extended to printers and others. The reforms will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend the small claims courts' powers to cover consumers whose health has been prejudiced by food retailers. [30542]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Claims made by consumers who believe that their health has been prejudiced by food can already be dealt with in the small claims court, if the damages claimed do not exceed £1,000. No change in this limit is recommended by Lord Woolf.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy following Lord Woolf's recommendation that the small claims limit should be increased to £3,000, on whether a full consultation should take place before a final decision on a new limit is made; and if he will make a statement. [30699]

  Mr. Taylor
  Lord Woolf consulted widely in the preparation of his interim report. In view of this, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation on the question whether he should implement Lord Woolf s recommendation that the limit for small claims, other than those for personal injury, should be raised to £3,000. The power to make the necessary amendments rests with the County Court Rule Committee which, as part of its consideration of the matter, consults interested parties.

  Shared Residency Orders
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many shared residency orders under the Children Act 1989 have been granted to fathers when the order has been contested, for each year since 1989. [30514]
  743
  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 form M. D. Huebner to Mr. Peter Luff dated 29 June 1995:
  RESIDENCE ORDERS UNDER THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of shared residence orders granted under the Children Act 1989 where the father has contested the application.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Contact Orders (Breaches)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many mothers have received custodial sentences for breaches of court contact orders in each year since 1989. [30513]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 29 June 1995:
  BREACH OF CONTRACT ORDERS
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of mothers who have received a custodial sentence for breach of a contact order.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  State Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the definition of a state paper includes the manuscript notes by a Prime Minister of a speech delivered in the House of Commons. [30607]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 11 May 1995,Official Report, column 566, state papers are those which are created or acquired by Ministers, officials or other Crown servants by virtue of the office they hold under, or their service to, the Crown. Whether notes such as those referred to by the hon. Member fall into this category would depend on the circumstances in which they were made.

  Actuarial Evidence
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend the Civil Evidence Bill to give effect to the Law Commission's recommendation on the admissibility of actuarial evidence, following the Lord Chancellor's announcement on 22 March. [30452]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A new clause giving effect to the Law Commission's recommendation on the admissibility of actuarial evidence was added to the Civil Evidence Bill at Committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 June.

  Judicial Pension Arrangements
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what comparisons he has made between the pension arrangements for full-time immigration adjudicators and judicial office holders of a similar status; and what plans he has to amend these arrangements. [30463]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, which came into force on 31 March 1995, established uniform pension arrangements for all full-time judicial office holders, including immigration adjudicators, appointed on or after that date. Immigration adjudicators in office before that date continue to be pensionable under their previous terms, which differ in some respects from those of most other judicial office holders, subject to an option to elect to join the new pension scheme. The accrual rate for pension benefits for immigration adjudicators who exercise their option to join the new scheme is twice that of their previous arrangements and therefore this option constitutes a significant potential enhancement to the pension terms they accepted on appointment. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to amend further the pension arrangements for immigration adjudicators.

TRANSPORT

  Road Rage
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 474, what recent representations he has received on the subject of road rage; and if he will make a statement. [31522]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 23 June,Official Report, column 442.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects to introduce the proposed 20 per cent. efficiency saving into the Marine Safety Agency. [31096]

  Mr. Norris
  As the Marine Safety Agency's published 1995–96 business plan makes clear, the agency is already contributing towards the Department's efficiency gains target.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the transport supplementary grant settlement for(a) south Yorkshire, (b) Humberside, (c) north Yorkshire and (d) west Yorkshire in each of the last 10 years. [31097]

  Mr. Norris
  Details of the total capital provision allocated to local authorities in these areas for roads and public transport in each of the last 10 years are given in the table.
  745

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  South Yorkshire

  13.909

  20.015

  16.070

  17.885

  31.829

  50.648

  82.862

  100.095

  98.184

  88.235

  Humberside

  7.480

  7.360

  12.479

  11.920

  12.989

  13.896

  17.427

  21.069

  17.385

  11.798

  North Yorkshire

  9.050

  8.870

  6.440

  7.330

  18.353

  15.478

  16.441

  23.240

  15.614

  13.215

  West Yorkshire

  22.874

  33.462

  22.420

  20.748

  24.015

  24.731

  37.732

  73.328

  56.568

  64.773

  Concrete Motorway Barriers
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the safety of the proposed concrete motorway barriers on collision of cars and heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [30641]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Iain Mills, dated 29 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 about the adequacy of the safety of concrete safety motorway barriers on collision of cars and heavy goods vehicles.
  All safety barriers, including concrete safety barriers, that are deployed on our network fully meet the performance requirements for vehicle restraints that are set down in the Manual for Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW).
  With the help of the Transport Research Laboratory, the Highways Agency has carried out an extensive programme of research into the performance of vehicle restraints systems. In all tests carried out on Vertical Concrete Barriers the test vehicles have been safely contained and redirected along the line of the barrier.
  The performance requirements set out in the MCHW have been shown to be reasonable in service but the Highways Agency has a continuing commitment to keep the overall performance of all vehicles restraint systems under review and will amend its requirements in the light of operational experience.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the most recent estimate of the number of small businesses in the United Kingdom. [32192]

  Mr. Page
  In order more clearly to evaluate the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, detailed research has been undertaken fully to understand the number and size of businesses in the UK. The research was the first to draw on the new official business register, the interdepartmental business register, as well as on estimates of self-employment.

  Figures released today show that there were 3.6 million businesses in the UK in 1993–800,000 more than estimated by previous research. The vast majority of them are small—99 per cent. have under 100 employees. The new figures confirm the huge increase in the number of small businesses—an extra 1.2 million—since 1979.

  Television Transmission Standards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action was taken or requested at the Council of Telecommunication Ministers meeting in the week beginning 12 June to adopt a declaration limiting the application of the directive on standards of television transmission. [30242]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No action was taken at the Telecommunications Council on 13 June in respect of a declaration on the draft directive on television standards.

  In the course of that meeting of the Telecommunications Council, Commissioner Bangemann made a brief oral presentation on a number of amendments to the draft directive adopted only that day by the European Parliament. Following a brief discussion in which a number of concerns were voiced by the United Kingdom and Germany, the question of the Council's response to the Parliament's amendments was deferred for further consideration in the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

  In the course of a subsequent preliminary meeting at official level, the presidency raised the question of whether UK and German concerns might, separately, be met by way of declaration by the Council, to which the Commission might be associated. These proposals are now being considered by member states, and by the Council legal service.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expected capital spending figure for his Department for 1994–95; and what is the latest budget figure. [30874]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The estimated outturn for 1994–95 for trade and industry public sector capital expenditure is £1,297 million. This includes central Government's own capital expenditure, and the capital expenditure of local authorities and public corporations. As explained in paragraph 1.9 of Cm 2821, no departmental breakdown of capital spending by local authorities is available for 1995–96. Excluding local authority spending, planned public sector capital expenditure for 1995–96 is £1,120 million. These figures are consistent with those shown in table 1.7 of Cm 2821.

  Pseudo Oil-based Drill Muds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what steps he has taken to assess the environmental effects of the use of pseudo oil-based drill muds by oil companies. [29935]

  Mr. Eggar
  Before any pseudo oil-based drill mud can be used it must be tested for its environmental effects in line with agreed Paris Commission protocols. On
  747
  satisfactory completion of these laboratory tests, the POBM will be given provisional approval for use offshore. Samples will be requested from cuttings piles and the area around the piles to assess the POBM' s actual behaviour in the sea. If performance in these offshore tests is not acceptable, the provisional approval may be withdrawn.

  Dounreay Explosion
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report of the internal investigation carried out at Dounreay into the causes and effects of the explosion on 10 May 1977; and if he will publish the conclusion of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority study into a final solution for the disposal of the intermediate-level waste disposal shaft. [29795]

  Mr. Page
  Details of the internal investigation carried out at Dounreay into the explosion in the intermediate-level waste disposal shaft in 1977 have been supplied to the relevant regulatory and advisory bodies. These include Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. UKAEA is required by HMIPI and the NII to investigate the options for the future management of the shaft and its contents, and the time scales for their implementation. The results of this investigation, together with details relating to the 1977 incident, will be presented to COMARE and RWMAC and information will be made public.

  Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies since(a) 1979 and (b) 1988 on the import share of the United Kingdom market for manufactures. [29439]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has made no assessment of the specific factors listed.

  The import share of UK manufactures was increased from 27 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1988 and to around 40 per cent. in 1993; although it should be noted that the definition of manufacturing is not consistent between 1993 and earlier years. The rising share of imports in the UK market for manufactures reflect a number of influences, including the increasing specialisation of world production.

  The 1979, 1988 and 1993 figures are not directly comparable because of changes in the definition of manufacturing.

  The figure for 1993 excludes division 23—coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel. These industries are included in the SIC(92) definition of manufacturing but are excluded from the SIC(80) definition and so have been excluded from these tables to improve comparability.

  The extraction and preparation of metalliferous ores were included in the SIC(80) definition of manufacturing, but excluded from the SIC(92) definition. Import penetration for the extraction and preparation of metalliferous ores fell sharply between 1979 and 1985—
  748
  the latest year for which figures agree available. This means that the 1979 figure for manufactures is possibly overstated when compared to the 1988 and 1993 figures.

  The extraction of minerals was also included in the SIC(80) definition of manufacturing, but excluded from the SIC92) definition. Import penetration figures fell slightly between 1979 and 1988.

  Source:
  Annual Abstract of Statistics: Table 12.2. Monthly Digest of Statistics: Table 15.10.

  Exports
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of United Kingdom exports for each quarter of each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [31146]

  Mr. Needham
  Detailed information is regularly published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House. The value of United Kingdom exports in the first quarter of 1995 was 42 per cent. higher than three years earlier, and 17 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1994.

  Exports and Imports (European Community)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the United Kingdom's total(a) exports and (b) imports was conducted with other member states of the European Community in the period 1990 to 1993; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the other 11 members of the European Community during the 1990 to 1993 period. [31115]

  Mr. Needham
  The data requested are in the table.

  Percentage of EU members visible trade with other EU members 1990–1993

  Imports per cent.

  Exports per cent.

  UK

  50

  55

  France

  65

  62

  Belgian-Luxembourg

  71

  75

  Netherlands

  58

  75

  Germany

  54

  53

  Italy

  58

  57

  Ireland

  69

  73

  Denmark

  54

  53

  Greece

  62

  62

  Portugal

  72

  75

  Spain

  60

  65

  Source:

  Eurostat Comext.

  Offshore Installations (Disposal)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he made of the number of jobs which could be created by the disposal of North sea oil platforms and rigs(a) in the Atlantic ocean and (b) on dry land, when deciding to give permission to Shell UK to dispose of the Brent Spar. [30720]

  Mr. Page
  The proposal to dispose of the Brent Spar in deep water is the best practicable environmental option.
  749
  In weighing their decision, Ministers considered a whole range of factors and concluded that none of these additional consideration outweighed the advantages of the best practicable environmental option.

DEFENCE

  Third Country Trading Relations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information his Department holds on the trading relationship in M739 Al and M131 fuses by Licentec AG of Zug, Switzerland and Iran since 1987; [30605]

  (2) what information his Department holds on the trading relationship in military goods with Iran since 1984 of the companies Forex, Expal and Maarsu. [30537]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not for my Department to comment on overseas companies' trading relations with third countries.

  Brize Norton Flights (Costs)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the cost of each flight to the United States by the RAF from Brize Norton; and how many of these flights, on average, take place each year. [30629]

  Mr. Soames
  There are on average 102 return VC10 trooping flights to the United States from Brize Norton each year. The estimated average cost of each flight is £30,600 each way.

  In addition, there are in excess of 150 exercise flights to various parts of the United States which are undertaken by both VC10 and Tristar aircraft. Figures for the average cost of these flights are not available.

  Devonport Nuclear Refit Yard
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimate of the timetable for the proposed construction programme at the Devonport nuclear refit yard; and if he will make a statement. [30627]

  Mr. Freeman
  The future nuclear refitting facilities at Devonport are planned to be ready in time for the Trident refit programme around the turn of the century.

  Laser Weapon Programmes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of laser weapon programs in(a) China, (b) France, (c) Russia, (d) Israel and (e) Germany. [31203]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the countries concerned.

  Royal Naval Surplus Equipment Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the revenue received from the selling of Royal Navy surplus equipment in each of the last three years. [31371]
  750
  Mr. Freeman
  The revenue received from the sale of Royal Navy surplus equipment in each of the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  24.6

  1993–94

  33.4

  1994–95

  36.2

  Nuclear Warheads (Transport)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning the transportation of nuclear warheads through the Irish sea. [29940]

  Mr. Soames
  Nuclear weapons can be transported by sea, but as a matter of long-standing policy we do not comment on the routes used.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with representatives of local authorities along the Welsh coast concerning the use of the Irish sea for the transportation of nuclear warheads. [29938]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans exist for dealing with an accident involving nuclear warheads transported through the Irish sea. [29939]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence has contingency plans to deal with a wide range of possible accidents involving the transportation of nuclear warheads, including an accident at sea.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident nuclear warheads were transported by sea from Portsmouth to Coulport between 4 and 7 June. [31108]

  Mr. Soames
  As a matter of long-standing policy, we do not comment on the presence of nuclear warheads at any particular place or time.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy for the transportation of Trident nuclear warheads carried by sea from Portsmouth to Coulport; and if he will make a statement. [31109]

  Mr. Soames
  Nuclear weapons can be transported by sea, but as a matter of long-standing policy we do not comment on the routes used.

  Royal Naval Air Station, Portland
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Royal Naval air station, Portland. [31111]

  Mr. Soames
  A consultative document on the proposal to close the Royal Naval air station, Portland, was issued on 17 October 1994 and the consultation period ended on 16 December 1994. A number of representations were received during this period, and these are being carefully evaluated before we reach any final decision. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Gallantry Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which Royal Navy gallantry awards Merchant Navy personnel are eligible. [31535]

  Mr. Soames
  Merchant Navy personnel are eligible for the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross and mentions in dispatches.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Merchant Navy personnel were eligible for Royal Navy gallantry awards other than the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal and the Distinguished Service Order before the practices of awarding the CGM and DSO for gallantry were abandoned. [31537]

  Mr. Soames
  Merchant Navy personnel were eligible for the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal and mentions in dispatches before the new regulations governing operational gallantry awards came into force.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Merchant Navy personnel are eligible for the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. [31534]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the practices of awarding the Distinguished Service Medal, the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal and the Distinguished Service Order for gallantry were abandoned; and who was consulted during the development of these changes. [31536]

  Mr. Soames
  A joint service review of operational gallantry awards was undertaken during 1993.

  A number of people were consulted during the course of this review including the Tri-Service Review Body, consisting of a number of senior service personnel of general rank and equivalent and a civilian, the principal personnel officers and the chiefs of staff and the Secretary of State for Defence.

  The recommendations were then seen and approved by the Prime Minister before being passed to the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals, who, in turn, submitted the recommendations to the Queen for her approval.

  The Queen's formal approval was obtained on 6 September 1993 and the new regulations came into force from that date.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has anything to add to his answer of 19 January 1994,Official Report, column 627, in regard to departmental knowledge of the trading relationship between Royal Ordnance and Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd. of Singapore. [30519]

  Mr. Freeman
  DTI computerised records from 1992 do not show any export licences for which Royal Ordnance was the consignor and Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd. the consignee but, in the course of recent researches, it has come to light that Singapore 752
  Technologies—the parent company of Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd.—was, on occasion, a consignee of exports from Royal Ordnance.

  I would also take the opportunity to refer to a written answer given on the same day, Official Report, 19 January 1994, column 626, in relation to Allivane International Ltd. In the course of recent researches, it has come to light that Chartered Industries of Singapore—which belongs to the same group of companies as Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd.—was, on occasion, a consignee of exports from Allivane.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas-free Travel Arrangements
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visa-free travel arrangements which exist between the United Kingdom and other nations; and which of these arrangements are being repealed. [31531]

  Mr. Baldry
  I will arrange for my hon. Friend to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa department as soon as possible.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the provisions in the 1978 treaty between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates which provide for movement without visa between the two nations is being annulled; and when the change will come into effect. [31529]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1978 understanding between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates facilitating travel between the respective countries is not being annulled.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the decision on the abolition of visa-free travel between the United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates was taken; and what consultations have taken place with the British business group of Dubai and the northern emirates. [31622]

  Mr. Baldry
  No decision has been taken to abolish visa-free travel between the UK and the United Arab Emirates.

  The British business group of Dubai and the northern emirates has not been consulted about the existing mutual waiver of the visa requirement.

  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth if he will make it his policy to support the continued existence of UNCTAD. [31084]

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK has consistently supported and will continue to support those of UNCTAD's activities which make a positive contribution to trade and development. But the world, and its international institutions, has changed since UNCTAD was established in 1964 and UNCTAD must change too. This has been recognised by its members who, at the last Trade and Development Board, agreed

  753
  that the ninth conference, which is scheduled to be held in 1996, will consider the future role of UNCTAD. At its recent meeting in Halifax, the countries of the G7 also reaffirmed their commitment to change. The UK welcomes this opportunity for constructive reform and looks forward to achieving a satisfactory outcome.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Kent. [29838]

  The Prime Minister
  I will be making a visit to Kent shortly.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister how much time was spent discussing the ecological sustainability of the world economy at the Group of Seven summit in the current year. [29934]

  The Prime Minister
  Sustainable development and safeguarding the environment formed an important part of our discussions at the Halifax summit. I refer the hon. Gentleman in particular to paragraphs 25, 26 and 31–33 of the G7 communiqué, which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current limit on the maximum amount of members of the Government, including whips and members of the House of Lords, who are entitled to ministerial salaries; what plans he has to change this; and if he will make a statement. [31391]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the number of salaries that may be paid to Government office holders to 110. I have no plans to change this.

  Former Prime Ministers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances visits overseas by former Prime Ministers are paid for from the public purse; if he will publish a table showing such visits since 1970; and if he will make a statement. [31392]

  The Prime Minister
  As for anyone else, visits overseas by former Prime Minister are paid for from public funds only when it is in the public interest to do so.

  Information about any such visits is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Knighthoods
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979; and if he will list their names; and what are the criteria for the political services on which such awards are based. [31519]
  754
  The Prime Minister
  Some 122 Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979. The names of the recipients have been published in the London Gazette. It is not the practice to reveal details of the criteria on which such awards are based.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [30057]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Technology Foresight Initiative
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the research councils will be responding to the recommendations from the technology foresight initiative; and if he will make a statement. [31495]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The research councils have been working very hard to develop a response to the technology foresight recommendations and I have today placed copies of their response in the Libraries of both Houses. This is an excellent document which shows how well the councils are getting on with implementing foresight already. I recommend that others should follow their good example.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil to teacher ratio in January for each local education authority and for England as a whole in(a) the primary sector, (b) the secondary sector and (c) overall. [31426]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisional pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January 1995 were 22.9 and 16.5 respectively. The provisional overall pupil-teacher ratio was 18.3. Information at local education authority level will be available in the autumn.

EMPLOYMENT

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the expected capital spending figure for his Department for 1994–95; and what is the latest budget figure. [30884]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The Employment Department group capital expenditure figure for 1994–95 which is consistent with the published Statistical Supplements, Cm 2821, is £84 million. The final outturn figure to be published in the group's appropriation accounts is likely to total around £109 million. The budget figure for 1995–96 is £117 million.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pests
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what complaints he has received about(a) the Security Offices Mess Room, Norman Shaw Building and (b) the Palm Court Mess concerning rats, mice, cockroaches and general conditions of the rooms. [31267]

  Mr. Beith
  There has been no recent complaints to the authorities of the Houses about pests in either the Norman Shaw buildings or the Palm Court mess area. A specialist pest control firm is under contract to make regular inspections in these areas and to deal with any vermin. I have asked the Director of Works to write to the hon. Member with more detailed information.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Condoms
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which countries condoms have been sent as part of the aid programme since 1990. [31006]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom aid programme has provided condoms to the following countries since 1990: Angola, the Gambia, India, Kenya, Namibia, Pakistan, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addition, our contributions to the United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation support the provision of condoms within the country programmes of these organisations.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make arrangements for the United Kingdom representatives on the council of the Global Environment Facility to publish an annual report setting out(a) the main activities and plans of the GEF each year, (b) the users to which United Kingdom Government money has been put by the GEF and (c) the voting record of the United Kingdom in decision making about GEF plans. [29933]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Global Environment Facility is required to produce an annual report, which the GEF council has to approve. We expect such reports to include information on GEF activities, including the use of financial resources and the results of any votes. However, we expect votes to be rare as the GEF aims to take decisions by consensus. Copies of the reports will be placed in both Libraries of the House. The first annual report is expected to be available towards the end of 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  Non-domestic Rating Appeals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many appeals have been lodged by 756
  businesses in the north-west region in the last 12 months; how long it has taken to resolve each appeal; and what estimate he has made as to whether appeals will be resolved more quickly in future; [30509]

  (2) how many appeals are currently lodged with the district valuers office in Rochdale; and what is the waiting time for appeals to that office to be heard. [30508]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Some 42,838 proposals to alter the non-domestic rating lists have been received in the last 12 months in the north-west region of the Valuation Office agency. As at 31 May 1995, a total of 35,263 non-domestic rating appeals, including some made more than 12 months ago, were outstanding in the north-west region, and 2,277 at the Rochdale office.

  We expect that the vast majority of proposals received by the end of March this year will have been cleared by the end of 1995–96. Later appeals against the 1990 list will be settled as soon as possible thereafter. It is still too early to tell how many appeals against the 1995 list are likely to be received, and at what rate; and therefore, how quickly they are likely to be resolved.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tax appeals lodged(a) before and (b) since 30 November 1993 have still to be determined by Aylesbury valuation office; and what target he has set for determinations to be completed. [30799]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As at the end of May, 423 of the appeals lodged before 30 November 1993 at the Valuation Office agency at Aylesbury, and 1,838 of those lodged after that date remain to be determined. All but a handful of the first category are expected to be settled by the summer. As regards the second, the VOA would expect appeals made prior to 1 April 1995 to be resolved no later than 31 March 1996. Its target is to clear subsequent appeals, in co-operation with the valuation tribunals, within 12 months of receipt. Priority will be given to clearing cases in order of receipt.

  Standing Spending Assessment, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters his Department has received on the subject of the standard spending assessment for Northumberland as it affects education funding; and how many replies have been sent. [31198]

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has received and replied to over 3,500 letters in the past year on this issue.

  Councillors' Expenses, Kent
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he will take to cap councillors' expenses in excess of inflation in the county of Kent. [31206]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We no longer specify financial limits on the overall amounts that local authorities can spend on councillors' remuneration allowances. We continue to specify ceilings on councillors' travel and subsistence allowances, and where any payments exceed those ceilings that is a matter for the district auditor.

  Detergents
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to require manufacturers to supply the public with more information about the ingredients of detergents. [29930]

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed eco-labelling scheme for detergents will amplify and reinforce the information provided on labels on detergent packaging. As the Government's response to the 16th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution made clear, the Government will keep under review the need for any further guidance. My Department is encouraging consumer groups to discuss with the Soap and Detergent Industry Association their concerns about labelling.

  Compulsory Competitive Spending
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what plans he has to amend the rules for treatment of direct service organisation redundancy costs for tender evaluation and accounting purposes under compulsory competitive tendering of local authority services. [31863]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In August 1994, my Department issued a consultation paper inviting comments on possible changes to the way in which DSO redundancy costs should be handled for evaluation and accounting purposes under compulsory competitive tendering.

  The consultation paper proposed a number of ground rules: first, that the redundancy costs of any proposed reduction in DSO staff should be chargeable to the DSO revenue account—the date and point for this would be the time of notification to contractors of those eligible for transfer in the event of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applying to the contract; secondly, that any further DSO redundancies made in the course of carrying out the work would be treated in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy code of practice for compulsory competition; and, thirdly, the consultation paper also proposed that where there was no revenue account in existence—which is currently the case, for example, with the white collar CCT—all prospective redundancy costs should be added to the DSO tender price for evaluation purposes.

  A number of responses were received. Broadly speaking, private contractors supported the proposed rules, while local authorities supported the rules to an extent but resisted the proposal that redundancy costs incurred in advance of the establishment of a revenue account should invariably be added to the DSO bid. The Audit Commission supported the local authority view.

  I have today written to the trade and local authority associations informing them of my conclusions. I have decided, first, that all costs relating to DSO redundancies should appear on the face of DSO accounts with an accompanying explanation, in accordance with current accounting practice. Redundancies during the course of the agreement between an authority and a DSO should be charged to the DSO revenue account, irrespective of whether those redundancies are triggered by the client side or the DSO management.
  758
  Secondly, redundancy costs incurred prior to an invitation to tender should be recorded in the appropriate local authority accounts but should not feature in the DSO bid. This is because these costs would need to be met whether or not the DSO was awarded the work; in addition, to charge these costs to the DSO would be a disincentive to local authorities to take action to restructure in advance of competition, since authorities would not only pick up the costs of redundancy when they were incurred but have these costs counted against the DSO bid.

  Where there is no existing DSO revenue account as with the first tenders for white collar CCT, redundancy costs incurred prior to the invitation to tender should be recorded in the local authority account to which the pay of the redundant staff has been traditionally charged but should not feature in the DSO bid.

  Thirdly, where a DSO submits a bid based on fewer staff than notified to external contractors for the purpose of TUPE, the cost of any consequential redundancies, which will fall after the date for the commencement of the work, should fall on the new trading account and the DSO should therefore have made adequate provision for these costs in its bid. The submission by a DSO of a bid based on fewer staff than notified to external contractors may call into the question the validity of the work force information provided by the authority. It may be appropriate to arrange the execution of redundancies for the costs to fall on the new account.

  Fourthly, although it was not an issue raised in consultation, I have also considered how far the Secretary of State should take action against DSOs subsequently failing to meet the financial objective solely because of redundancy costs. Historically, Ministers have been sympathetic to DSOs in these circumstances and statutory action has been initiated. However, where financial failure is incurred as a result of redundancy costs instigated by the DSO to enable it to live within its bid price, then there is no case for treating these costs as unusual in any way, and for withholding statutory action. However, if redundancies are, in effect, imposed on the DSO by client changes to the volume and specification for the work, then providing that these are allowable under the contract conditions, they should not be held against the DSO in assessing the case for statutory action. In future, therefore, the Secretary of State may take action in appropriate cases in which financial failure is attributable to redundancy costs.

  The Welsh Office conducted a parallel consultation exercise on these proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with my conclusions and his Department will write to local authority associations in Wales in the near future.

  Planning Regulations
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider new planning regulation guidelines to assist existing shopping centres to compete with new supermarket developments. [31329]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will be issuing a draft revised version of planning policy guidance note 6 "Town Centres and Retail Developments" for consultation before the summer recess.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the selection of a chief executive for the proposed Environment Agency. [32195]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Environment Agency advisory committee, chaired by Lord De Ramsey, has chosen Mr. Ed Gallagher, currently chief executive of the National Rivers Authority, to be the Environment Agency's first chief executive. Mr. Gallagher was selected following an open competition. Subject to enactment of the Environment Bill, he is expected to be appointed chief executive by the agency when it is established later this year.

  House Renovation Grants
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by local authorities in England and Wales on renovation grants; and what percentage was spent by each authority on providing facilities for people with disabilities in privately owned houses, for the last five years for which figures are available. [29904]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Information about house renovation grants for England and for Wales is shown in the quarterly publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for the last five years appear in table 2.17 of the issues listed in the table. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Year

  Issue

  1990–1991

  December 1993, Part 2

  1991–19941

  December 1994, Part 2

  1 Data for the third and fourth quarters of 1994 are provisional.

  A table has been placed in the Library giving figures of the percentage of grant spent on providing facilities for people with disabilities in privately owned houses, for each local authority area in England for the last five years.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will direct the Local Government Commission for England to carry out its new district reviews. [32275]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today directed the Local Government Commission to carry out reviews of the 21 districts which I listed in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 22 June 1995,Official Report, column 353. I have also directed the commission to have regard to revised policy and procedure guidance. I am placing copies of the guidance in the Library.

WALES

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by how much Government spending has changed in 1994–95 as a result of the private finance initiative; what is the 760
  estimated effect in 1995–96; how many jobs are to be created by schemes approved to date under the initiative and how many have been lost as a consequence in the public sector; and what is the forecast of transfer of employment from public to private sector over the last five years because of the initiative. [30827]

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The Department's spending was not changed in 1994–95 as a result of approvals of private finance initiative—PHI—schemes costing over £1 million. Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected centrally. For 1995–96, spending on the PFI is expected to be £250,000. Information on the number of public and private sector jobs affected by the PFI is not available.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schemes and to what value have been approved in 1994–95 under the private finance initiative; what are the estimates for the current financial year; how many schemes are currently being considered and at what value; for how long have they been considered and how many have been in the assessment process for over(a) six months and (b) 12 months; and what was the average length of time taken to assess schemes so far approved. [30826]

  Mr. Hunt
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: No schemes costing over £1 million were approved in 1994–95. Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected. Under the latest plans in 1995–96, up to five schemes with a total capital cost of around £80 million are likely to be approved. Twenty-six potential schemes with a total capital cost of more than £700 million are being considered. Of these, nine have been in the assessment process for more than six months and 17 have been in the assessment process for more than 12 months.

  Legislative Powers and Duties
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Acts with reference to the pertinent clauses, which grant him responsibilities, powers of duties in relation to(a) local government, (b) industrial development, (c) employment and training, (d) Welsh language, arts and recreation, (e) transport, (f) environmental services, (g) relations with the EU, (h) agriculture and (i) health and personal social services. [29941]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office was established in 1964. Since that date, the main Acts under which the Secretary of State has been granted responsibilities, powers or duties and for which in Wales the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible in relation to(a) local government, (b) industrial development, (c) employment and training, (d) Welsh language, arts and recreation, (e) transport, (f) environmental services, (g) relations with Europe, (h) agriculture and (i) health and personal social services are given in the following list.

  With regard to the pertinent clauses, this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local government

  Local Government Act 1966

  Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969

  Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

  Local Government Act 1972

  761

  Local Government Act 1974

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Local Government Finance Act 1982

  Local Government Act 1985

  Local Government Act 1987

  Local Government Act 1988

  Local Government Finance Act 1988

  Local Government Act 1988

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991

  Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991

  Local Government Act 1992

  Local Government Finance Act 1992

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994

  Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

  Industrial development

  Industry Act 1975

  Welsh Development Agency Act 1975

  Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

  Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978

  Inner Urban Areas Act 1978

  Industry Act 1980

  Industrial Development Act 1982

  Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1983

  Industrial Development Act 1984

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1990

  Welsh Development Agency Act 1991

  Employment and training

  Trade Act 1967

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

  Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Employment and Training Act 1981

  Industrial Training Acts 1982–1986

  Education Reform Act 1988

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  Further and Higher Education Act 1992

  Sunday Trading Act 1994

  Welsh language, arts and recreation

  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953

  Caravan Sites Act 1968

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  European Communities Act 1972

  Local Government Act 1972

  Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979

  Education Acts 1980–1993

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  Local Government Act 1988

  Football Spectators Act 1989

  Further and Higher Education Act 1992

  Welsh Language Act 1993

  Transport

  Transport Act 1968

  Highways Act 1980

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

  762

  Highways Act 1991

  Radioactive Substances Act 1993

  Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

  Environmental services

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  European Communities Act 1972

  Control of Pollution Act 1974

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Foot and Environment Protection Act 1985

  Agriculture Act 1986

  Local Government Act 1988

  Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989

  Water Act 1989

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  Water Resources Act 1991

  Water Industry Act 1991

  Relations with the European Union

  European Communities Act 1972

  Agriculture

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964

  Cereals Marketing Act 1965

  Agriculture Act 1967

  Health Act 1967

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1968

  Agriculture Act 1970

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972

  European Communities Act 1972

  Horticulture (Special Payments) Act 1974

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

  Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976

  Agriculture Statistics Act 1979

  Agriculture Training Board Act 1982

  Agriculture Marketing Act 1983

  Agriculture (Amendment) Act 1984

  Agriculture Training Board Act 1985

  Food and Environment Protection Act 1985

  Agriculture Act 1986

  Agriculture Holdings Act 1986

  Horticultural Produce Act 1986

  Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988

  Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Act 1989

  Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Act 1991

  Agriculture Act 1993

  Health and Personal Services

  Clean Air Act 1968

  Water Act 1973

  Control of Pollution Act 1974

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

  Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

  Health and Social Security and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983

  Building Act 1984

  Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

  Food and Environment Protection Act 1985

  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Clean Air Act 1993

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Theatres Act 1968 (Amendment)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider extending the Theatres Act 1968 so that minors could be prevented from witnessing material considered to be of an adult nature; and if he will make a statement. [30859]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We do not believe it would be appropriate to amend the Theatres Act 1968 in the way described.

  Age classifications awarded to films and videos remain appropriate for each subsequent showing because of the unchanging recorded image. Each theatre performance is, however, unique because it is "live". As a result, different productions and performances of the same play may vary according to artistic interpretation, making a classification system unworkable.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to follow up allegations made in January in relation to the illegal and unauthorised production, export and arrangement of sale of electro-shock weapons and equipment; what legal action has been and is being undertaken in consequence of such investigations; and if he will make a statement. [31030]

  Mr. Maclean
  Electric shock weapons are covered by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, which prohibits the unauthorised possession, manufacture, purchase, acquisition, transfer and sale of any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

  Following the allegations made in January, my Department has reviewed the terms of all authorities which are currently on issue to companies in England and Wales under section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act. There is no company which has authority to possess electric shock weapons.

  Police investigations and the prosecution of alleged offences are matters for chief officers of police and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The control of exports is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are currently imprisoned as a result of conviction for (i) murder and (ii) manslaughter; and how many of these offences in each case related to the killing of a partner of the opposite sex. [31270]

  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.
  764
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Short, dated 29 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 (a) women and (b) men are currently imprisoned as a result of conviction for (1) murder and (2) manslaughter; and how many of these offences in each case related to the killing of a partner of the opposite sex.
  The available information is given in the attached tables.

  Population under sentence for murder or manslaughter1. Prison Service establishments England and Wales, 31 December 1994.

  Male

  Female

  Murder

  2,515

  95

  Manslaughter

  495

  40

  1 Excludes any prisoners for whom offence is not centrally recorded.

  Information about the relationship between the victim and perpetrator is available for those convicted of homicide from 1982. The table below shows the numbers held in Prison Service establishments on 31 December 1994 who had been sentenced since 1 January 1982 and, of those, the numbers where the victim was a spouse, lover or cohabitant of the opposite sex.

  Population sentenced since 1 January 1982 for murder or manslaughter1. Prison Service establishments England and Wales, 31 December 1994.

  Male

  Female

  Murder

  2,021

  90

  Manslaughter

  447

  40

  Of which, victim was partner of opposite sex.2

  Male

  Female

  Murder

  292

  31

  Manslaughter

  57

  9

  1 Excludes any prisoners for whom offence is not centrally recorded.

  2 Spouse, lover or cohabitant. The figures are approximate and may include cases where the victim was a relative or acquaintance of the partner.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the length of custodial sentences imposed on(a) men and (b) women currently in prison who were convicted for manslaughter of a partner of the opposite sex. [31272]

  Mr. 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. Pearson to Ms Clare Short, dated 29 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 if he will publish a breakdown of the length of custodial sentences imposed on (a) men and (b) women currently in prison who were convicted for manslaughter of a partner of the opposite sex.
  Information about the relationship between the victim and perpetrator of manslaughter is not available for those convicted before 1982. The available information since then is given in the attached table.
  765

  Population sentenced since 1 January 1982 for manslaughter1 of partner2 of opposite sex. Prison Service establishments England and Wales, 31 December 1994

  Males

  Females

  Sentence length

  Under 1 year

  —

  —

  1 year under 4 years

  1

  2

  4 years under 7 years

  31

  7

  7 years less than life

  12

  —

  Life

  13

  —

  Total

  57

  9

  1 Excludes any prisoners for whom offences is not centrally recorded.

  2 Spouse, lover or cohabitant. The figures are approximate and may include cases where the victim was a relative or acquaintance of the partner.

  Mrs. Quereshi Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 488, when the report arising from the interview on 5 February with the sponsor of Mrs. Quereshi Bibi—Ref. BV 100/25109—was sent to his office; when it was sent to the post in Islamabad; what recommendation was made; when a decision is to be made on Mrs. Quereshi Bibi's application; and if he will make a statement. [31608]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Papers were sent from the immigration office at Leeds-Bradford airport to the entry clearance officer in Islamabad on 23 February and 7 April No recommendation was made. The decision on the application is a matter for the entry clearance officer.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter dated 6 April from the hon. member for Worsley regarding his constituent Mrs. Ava Fielden. [30617]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: I replied to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, columns 92–94, if he will give a regional breakdown of the numbers of prisoners transferred to hospitals under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last 10 years. [31217]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: 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. Paul Flynn, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a regional breakdown of the numbers of prisoners transferred to hospitals under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last 10 years.
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only by disproportionate cost.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, columns 369–70, (1) what confirmatory evidence was sought by the Charity Commissioner's investigators that documents relative to their inquiry into whether the Foundation for Business Responsibilities had been used as a vehicle for political donations were stolen during burglaries at the offices of the foundation; [30952]

  (2) what were the addresses and dates of the series of thefts which limited the Charity Commissioner's ability to determine conclusively whether the Foundation for Business Responsibilities was used as a vehicle for political donations; [30951]

  (3) what confirmatory evidence was sought by the Charity Commissioner's investigators that thefts from the offices of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities had (a) occurred and (b) been reported to the police. [30953]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Charity Commission investigators sought and received confirmation from the police that a break-in at 40 Doughty street, London WC1, which resulted in the theft of records belonging to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities, was reported to them as having taken place between 29 and 30 April 1993. The Charity Commission did not seek other evidence to confirm that the break-in had occurred.

  There was no means of obtaining independent confirmation as to the actual records taken.

  CERN Project Employees
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions exist for British citizens employed on the CERN project and whose children were born in Switzerland between 1 January 1983 and 20 December 1994 to ensure that their grandchildren acquire British nationality if they too are born abroad; how many children were born with a reduced right of United Kingdom citizenship for their children; how many families have children with differing citizenship as a result of the exemption given to CERN under the 1984 designation order; what consideration was given to allowing all children born to British employees of CERN the opportunity of claiming full United Kingdom citizenship rights; and if he will make a statement. [30798]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No special provision applies to employees of CERN unless they are on secondment from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC, formerly the Science and Engineering Research Council, SERC. Service under SERC was designated under section 2(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 on 21 December 1984. The effect of this designation is that any children born abroad after that date to British employees of SERC or PPARC become British citizens "otherwise than by descent" and may transmit their British citizenship to a second generation born abroad. The Home Office does not keep records of the numbers of children born in Switzerland who are affected by this designation since the transmission of citizenship to and from them is a matter of law requiring no official intervention. There is no provision in the 1981 Act for designations to have retrospective effect, nor is there any
  767
  discretionary power in the Act to vary a person's status from "by descent" to "otherwise than by descent".

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are made, and by whom, on the condition and status of overseas domestic workers while they are in the United Kingdom. [31102]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Detailed checks that the conditions of the overseas domestic worker scheme are met are carried out by the entry clearance officer before arrival. On arrival, the immigration officer must be satisfied that the domestic worker intends to leave the United Kingdom within the period of leave granted. Where the employer is here on a longer-term basis and the domestic worker applies for an extension of stay, the Department needs to be satisfied that the conditions of the scheme, including adequate maintenance and accommodation, continue to be met.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had in the last year to improve the status and rights of overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom. [31104]

  Mr. Baker
  A review of the arrangements for overseas domestic workers was undertaken last year, resulting in the changes announced on 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 379–80. Officials also recently met two organisations who speak on behalf of overseas domestic workers.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) visas and (b) work permits have been granted to overseas domestic workers for entry and work in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [31103]

  Mr. Baker
  Comprehensive figures for the number of overseas domestic workers granted entry clearance visas are not kept centrally. However, arrangements are being made to obtain some figures for the period 1 January to 30 June 1995 which I will let the hon. Member have when they become available. Work permits are not issued to overseas domestic workers.

  Pools (Deregulation)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow all retail outlets to pay out small winnings to pools customers and give promoters the opportunity to establish a pool based on sporting events on any day of the week. [30533]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am currently reviewing the scope for further deregulation of the pools as part of the deregulation initiative. My officials are consulting with the Pools Promoters Association and have just received a further letter from it elaborating its proposals, including the proposals referred to by the hon. Member.

  Government Escort Service (Cellular Vehicles)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many new cellular vehicles are required for the court escort contracts still to be let; and at what cost to the Prison Service; [29962]
  768
  (2) how many and on what dates new vehicles are still to be delivered to Group 4 and Securicor for the court escort service; [29961]

  (3) how was the cost of providing new cellular vehicles taken into account when calculating and publishing the Prison Service's savings through contracting out the court escort service; [29963]

  (4) what was the value of each of the unsuccessful bids to provide new cellular vehicles for the court escort service; [29982]

  (5) on what date the decision was taken to provide new cellular vehicles for the court escort services; which companies tendered for the supply of cellular vehicles; and which companies won contracts to supply cellular vehicles; [29959]

  (6) what is the cost to the Prison Service of the successful bid to provide new cellular vehicles for the court escort service. [29960]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about cellular vehicles used by court escort contractors.
  The vehicles used by private contractors for transporting prisoners to and from court are built to a specification required by the Prison Service. The procurement of the vehicles, whether purchased or leased, is undertaken by the court escort contractor.
  For those contracts still to be let, the tenderers' proposals will identify how many vehicles will be required and the type/size of vehicle best suited to the expected volume of prisoner movements, the geography of the contract area, the locations to be served and the detailed operational specification. These proposals will be compared and evaluated as part of the process leading up to contract award.
  Once the court escort service contract has been awarded, it is the responsibility of the contractor to acquire the vehicles required and have them ready for use by the required date. Although we check that the vehicle programme is proceeding to plan we do not monitor the detail of delivery schedules and consequently we do not hold information on the precise numbers and dates regarding new vehicles still to be delivered.
  The cost of vehicles, which the contractor may purchase or lease, forms part of the overall contract price. Information about the cost of the vehicles, or about any other individual element within the total contract price, is a matter for the contractor. This applies to successful and unsuccessful tenders alike.
  To calculate the savings from contracting out court escort services, the contract price for the first year of full operation was compared with the estimated cost in the same year of continuing the previous arrangements. In estimating the latter, account was taken of vehicle costs, inclusive of depreciation.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what system the Prison Service has in place to monitor the standards of maintenance and general safety of the cellular vehicles used by Group 4 and Securicor; [29964]

  (2) what is the annual cost to the Prison Service of monitoring the standards of maintenance and general safety of the cellular vehicles used by Group 4 and Securicor; [29966]
  769
  (3) on whom will fall the cost of new safety measures for existing cellular vehicles; [29968]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the cost of providing safety measures, other than seat belts, for staff and prisoners in all existing cellular vehicles; [29981]

  (5) on what date and on what basis the decision was taken not to fit seat belts for staff and prisoners in new cellular vehicles in court escort; [29965]

  (6) what is the estimated cost of fitting seat belts to all existing cellular vehicles in the court escort service. [29967]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about safety in cellular vehicles used in court escort contracts.
  Contractors may only use cellular vehicles if they comply with the demanding vehicle performance specification set out both in the invitation to tender for court escort and custody services and in the contract. The specification is the same as the one used by the Prison Service for its own new cellular vehicles and takes account of all the relevant legislation, including that on safety.
  Once a contract has been awarded, it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the vehicles are always properly maintained and roadworthy. The contractor's responsibilities are the same as any other operator of a passenger carrying, or public services vehicle. This means that the vehicles must be awarded a certificate of initial fitness under the Public Service Vehicle (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981 and they must be inspected annually by the Department of Transport Vehicle Inspectorate Agency. In addition, the contractor's operational procedures, which have to be agreed with the Prison Service before operation, require vehicle crews to undertake daily checks before the vehicles can be used.
  The contractor's vehicles must comply with the performance specification laid down. The cost of those vehicles and their maintenance forms part of the overall cost of the contract to the Authority. Modifications are occasionally made to the specification, for example to take account of any new relevant legislation or in the light of developments in vehicle design. However, it would be unusual to apply such modifications retrospectively to existing vehicles. The cost of any modification to an existing vehicle would fall to the Authority if it represented a new requirement but to the contractor if the change was covered by the existing performance specification.
  Existing safety measures form part of the overall cost of a vehicle and the cost of providing any additional measures would depend upon their nature.
  Seat belts for passengers are not required by law to be fitted in cellular vehicles. Their installation has been considered but the view has been taken, since the first specification was drawn up in 1989, that seat belts might be used by prisoners to attempt suicide or inflict self harm or as a weapon.
  The cost of providing seat belts would depend on the type of belt used, the number of mounting points required and the type of construction employed on the vehicle. It is estimated that the cost could be between £75 and £300 per seat.

  Suicides (Prison)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans will be put into operation during the next business year to reduce suicides in prisons in England and Wales. [29953]

  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. George Howarth, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what plans will be put into operation during the next business year to reduce suicides in prisons in England and Wales.
  The Prison Service regards every self-inflicted death in custody as a tragedy. A new strategy, Caring for the Suicidal in Custody, was introduced throughout the Prison Service in April 1994, based on research commissioned by the Prison Service and carried out by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology.
  We will be maintaining this strategy and continuing with a major programme of staff training and the expansion of Listener Schemes, as well as working with the Samaritans and other groups and disseminating good practice.
  The new strategy is currently being evaluated. When this is completed, we will introduce any improvements that are indicated by the evaluation.

  Category C Prisons (Razor Wire)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the cost of providing additional razor wire security to the perimeters of category C prisons. [29954]

  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. George Howarth, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of providing additional razor wire security to the perimeters of Category C prisons.
  The Prison Service is looking at a number of new measures designed to improve physical security. One possible development involves the use of razor wire coils as a barrier to make it extremely difficult for a prisoner even to reach the perimeter fence.
  The use of razor wire on a significant scale would depend upon the results of current trials and further assessment in a pilot prison setting. The cost-effectiveness of alternative measures would also need to be assessed before any final decision was made.
  Although some preliminary work has been done on the cost of additional razor wire, specific estimates cannot be prepared until completion of the trials and our own evaluation of the precise needs of each individual establishment.

  Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in London which hold foreign nationals on(a) drugs offences and (b) immigration offences. [29544]

  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. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 29 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 for a list of the prisons in London which hold foreign nationals on (a) drugs offences and (b) immigration offences.
  Prison Service establishments in London currently holding foreign nationals for drug offences are: Belmarsh, Brixton, Wandsworth, Pentonville, Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs. The only London establishment which now holds newly detained foreign nationals as immigration detainees is Holloway prison.
  However, Belmarsh, Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs as well as Holloway have some foreign nationals in their custody who have recently completed prison sentences and are now held awaiting deportation or the results of appeals against deportation.

  Prison Farms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prison farms in England and Wales. [59540]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prison farms in England and Wales.
  There are 38 Prison Service establishments with major agricultural and horticultural enterprises. A further 24 establishments have smaller scale horticultural production units. All establishments have a ground maintenance enterprise.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prisons must purchase food and produce from prison farms from within their prison food budget expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [29559]

  Mr. 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. Tom Cox, dated 29 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison farms.
  Prisons are required to spend 26 per cent of their daily food allowance on items supplied by prison farms.

TREASURY

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his department or its agencies are presently working on matters related to the Scott 772
  inquiry; if dedicated units have been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry. [30293]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave him on 18 May 1994, Official Report, columns 481–82. Costs incurred by the Treasury since then have been very small.

  There are presently six staff of HM Customs and Excise dedicated to working on matters related to the Scott inquiry. The total staffing cost of the Department's Scott liaison unit is now estimated to be around £612,000 to date. This figure does not include the personal costs of current and former Customs and Excise officials who have been asked to give written and/or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 108, if he will list those occasions since the start of the current parliamentary year when (a) he and (b) the Chief Secretary did not give prior warning to hon. Members of visits to their constituencies. [30751]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I are not aware of any occasions during the current Session when we have visited hon. Members' constituencies on departmental business without giving them prior warning.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [30935]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Luxembourg on 19 June.

  The Council agreed to a draft recommendation on the broad guidelines for the conduct of economic policy in the Community and in the member states; to the broad thrust of a report on member states' progress with employment policies by the Economic Policy Committee; to conclusions on trans-European networks; and discussed a draft presidency report on preparations for the third stage of economic and monetary union. These were submitted to the Cannes European Council.

  The Council reached political agreement on a draft regulation on the protection of the Community's financial interests. The Council also adopted substantive conclusions on the Commission's annual report on fraud for 1994 and work programme on fraud for 1995–96, and procedural conclusions on member states' reports on national measures to combat fraud, waste and mismanagement of Community funds.

  The Council agreed that all three new member states have an excessive deficit and that Germany's existing excessive deficit decisions should be abrogated. There was also broad agreement on a proposed regulation concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices across the Community.
  773
  The Council adopted conclusions emphasising the need to respect financial perspective ceilings and calling for regular Commission updates on the situation.

  The Council discussed Commission proposals for a reduced VAT rate on cut flowers and for mandatory tax relief for biofuels. There was little consensus on the latter proposal and I questioned the utility of further work on the issue.

  No formal votes were taken.

  EU Statistics
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each European Union member state the title and source of each state's equivalent documents to the United Kingdom(a) Budget Red Book, (b) public expenditure statistical supplement, (c) departmental expenditure reports and (d) documents showing the composition of the public sector borrowing requirement and national debt figures. [30954]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the proposed changes to the housing benefit regulations; and if he will make a statement. [31822]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 are today being laid before the House. The changes will come into force on 2 January 1996, allowing local authorities time to make the necessary arrangements for implementation.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee report on his proposals for income support mortgage interest; and if he will make a statement. [31750]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am today laying regulations before the House which set out the new rules relating to the payment of income support mortgage interest and other related housing costs from 2 October 1995. I have also responded to the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am grateful to the committee for its report.

  Although I have not been able to accept all the committee's recommendations, I have carefully considered its comments and those of the lending and insurance industries and others. I believe the package of measures I have presented today will ensure that private insurance and income support mesh together to provide more comprehensive cover for borrowers who lose their income. High-quality comprehensive insurance available to all borrowers will provide better protection than the current limited income support scheme, which stands to help only 30 per cent. of home owners who may find themselves out of work.
  774
  These measures will stimulate insurers and lenders to continue to develop and improve on the mortgage protection cover they offer, while ensuring that benefit provision is retained for those borrowers and circumstances which the insurance industry cannot realistically cover, at this time.

  We have already seen some in the lending industry responding positively to these measures. Now the final details have been settled, I look forward to seeing more lenders take similar steps. Indeed, it is their own interest as well as that of their borrowers to do so.

  Frozen Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the cost in 1996–97 of granting Britain's expatriate pensioners whose pensions are frozen(a) the same increment as they would receive were they to be resident in Great Britain and (b) of closing the gap between the frozen pension and the full amount to which they would be entitled were they to be resident in Great Britain by 20 per cent. [31538]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost of paying a single year's uprating is about £16 million, based on 1994 rates.

  The estimated cost of paying 20 per cent. of the difference between the amount currently payable and the amount which would be payable were the pensioners resident in Great Britain is £47 million in the first year.

  Motability
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct independent accountants to advise him as to whether the current level of contingency reserves for car leasing held by Motability Finance Ltd. are set at too high a level; and if he will make a statement. [31488]

  Mr. Hague
  The level of contingency reserves held by Motability Finance Ltd. are a matter of discussion between MFL and Motability. The level required is reviewed annually by Motability and MFL. The Secretary of State has asked them to report to him when they are next reviewed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund loan applications were refused on the grounds that claimants were unable to repay(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of applications in each year since 1990–91 by (i) district and (ii) area directorate. [29330]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 28 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Social Fund (SF) loan applications, for each year since 1990–91, which were refused on the grounds that customers were unable to repay.
  With the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, offices were grouped into Districts. I have, therefore, provided at Annex A the information requested for the year 1990/91 by former Local

  775
  Office and Region. Annexes B and C provide the information by BA District and Area Directorate for the years 1991/92 and 1992/93 respectively.
  The new Social Fund Computer System (SFCS) introduced from February 1993 and during the course of 1993/94, collects statistics in a different way to the old system. The information provided for 1993/94 at Annex D is a combination of the old system's data, which provided the main reason for refusal against each application, and the new system which provides a reason for refusal against each individual item refused. A customer's application will usually include a number of individual items. The figures collected for 1994/95, and provided at Annex E, are for items only and it is therefore not possible for me to provide the percentage of applications refused on the grounds of a person's inability to repay. Copies of the tables have been placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Church Repairs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to discuss with Church authorities the need for repair grants arising from damage caused by atmospheric polluters; and if he will make a statement. [31105]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not discussed with Church authorities the specific need for repair grants arising from damage caused by atmospheric pollution. However, the position with regard to historic churches is that, provided other eligibility criteria are fulfilled, grant aid may be available from English Heritage towards repairs necessitated by atmospheric pollution.

  Amsterdam Wreck
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action his Department is taking to preserve the wreck of the East Indiaman Amsterdam buried in shingle off Hastings sea front; and if he will make a statement. [31499]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Amsterdam is afforded statutory protection from unauthorised interference as a designated wreck under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. I am aware of a report indicating that the timbers which are sometimes exposed are deteriorating through natural processes, but I have been advised that the wreck is under no immediate threat. My officials are currently in touch with the Dutch Government, who are the owners, about the future of the Amsterdam.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) on what occasions his views were sought by the national heritage memorial fund on the valuation of the Churchill papers provided by Bernard Quaritch; [30599]

  (2) when he was first consulted by the national heritage memorial fund about the decision to acquire the Churchill papers. [30598]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national heritage memorial fund, like all distributors of lottery funding, reaches its decisions independently of Government, as is provided for in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

  Heritage Green Paper
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) whether the heritage Green Paper will include proposals to reform the membership of, and guidance given by the Government to, the Millennium Commission; [29931]

  (2) whether the heritage Green Paper will include proposals to reform the national lottery. [29932]

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Arts Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current level of expenditure per capita on the arts. [30980]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: Figures for total per capita spending on the arts are not currently available; my Department is supporting a research programme designed to produce an accurate overall measure of the level of creative artistic activity.

  My Department's tax-funded budget for the performing and contemporary visual arts in 1995–96 is £200.6 million. With only small exceptions, this money is spent within England, giving a per capita expenditure in the current year from central Government of £4.13. My Department is also responsible for the national lottery, which expects to make available up to £200 million to the arts in England in the current year. If the Department's expenditure on museums and galleries is also included, the per capita figure is £12.75.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Violent Crime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what change has taken place in the number and type of violent crimes committed in Northern Ireland since August 1994. [29811]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Statistics indicate that there has been an overall decrease of more than 16 per cent. in violent crime for the period September 1994 to May 1995 when compared to the previous nine months, with all types of crime showing a decrease to some extent.

  Arms Decommissioning
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made regarding decommissioning of weapons. [29814]

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning terrorist arms and explosives. [29829]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).

  Political Settlement
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland. [29815]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Our aim remains the achievement of a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement. Democratically mandated parties committed to peaceful methods will be its principal architects. Therefore, the Government continue to encourage in the first instance, bilateral meetings between such parties and themselves.

  Education
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the integration of schools in Northern Ireland. [29817]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) earlier today.

  Educational Exchanges
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote educational visits and exchanges with schools and colleges in the rest of the United Kingdom. [29818]

  Mr. Ancram
  School and colleges are responsible for organising their own educational visits and exchanges within the United Kingdom. The introduction of local management of schools and colleges allows for greater freedom to develop links appropriate to their needs.

  Union
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to further the union with Northern Ireland. [29819]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Northern Ireland is, in fact and in law, already a fully integral part of the Union. The Government gladly uphold this constitutional position, and have no intention of changing it while it continues to accord with the democratic wish of most of the people who live there.

  Framework Document
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the framework document. [29820]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  "Frameworks for the Future" were published on 22 February. The Government believe that the two framework documents cover the issues which need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive political settlement. They are not intended as a blueprint, and both Governments have made it clear that they are happy to listen to other ideas.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to restructure the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [29821]
  778
  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 May,Official Report, column 749. We intend to publish more detailed proposals on the reform of the tripartite structure of policing later this year.

  Blue Circle Dump
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many objections were received by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) regarding the proposal from Blue Circle for a super-dump in the limestone-based quarry at Magheramorne, County Antrim. [29822]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department has received approximately 1,500 letters making representations about the planning application for a landfill site and associated works at the former Magheramorne quarry.

  Political Talks
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in the political talks concerning the future of Northern Ireland. [29823]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) earlier today.

  Drug Abuse
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to combat drug abuse in Northern Ireland. [29824]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A wide range of activities to combat drug misuse in Northern Ireland is carried out by a variety of agencies, including those working in areas of health education, treatment and law enforcement.

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Committee on Drug Misuse, which advises the Department of Health and Social Services on issues relating to drug and solvent misuse, is current preparing a draft policy statement on drug misuse in Northern Ireland.

  The draft statement includes five main priority areas for action—education and prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, law enforcement, information and research and monitoring and evaluation—and has been the subject of a widespread consultation exercise, the responses to which are currently being evaluated. At the end of this process, the committee intends to submit a final draft to the Government for consideration as the basis of a policy framework for tackling drug misuse in Northern Ireland.

  This will be addressed by a new top-level committee which I have established and which I will chair to ensure that individual Government Departments contribute fully towards a properly co-ordinated approach to tackling the drugs problem.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [29825]
  779
  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is the single regional housing authority in Northern Ireland and is responsible for the assessment of housing need and the development of programmes to meet that need.

  The Department of the Environment is currently undertaking a review of housing policy in Northern Ireland and will shortly publish a consultative paper. The review is of policies and programmes and is predicated on the continued existence of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive together with an expanding voluntary sector and a growing private sector.

  Water and Sewerage Privatisation
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of his proposals to privatise the water and sewerage industry in Northern Ireland. [29826]

  Mr. Moss
  As announced in the House on 29 June 1994,Official Report, columns 546–47, the Department of Environment's Water Executive will be established as a next steps agency by April 1996 as an interim stage to eventual privatisation. While the Government remain committed to the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland at the earliest practicable date, it is recognised that, for a number of technical reasons, this will not be possible in the lifetime of the present Parliament.

  Sewage Treatment Plants
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sewage treatment plants in the Antrim, South constituency have not yet been upgraded under the Department's five-year programme. [29827]

  Mr. Moss
  Work still to be undertaken in the Department's programme of sewage treatment plants in the Antrim, South constituency consists of the diversion of sewage from existing works at Killead, Crumlin and Ballyduggenan Villas to neighbouring larger works.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment to the Province. [29828]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1994–95, 10 new inward investment projects offering almost 2,000 jobs were negotiated by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland and a target of 20 projects offering 4,500 jobs has been set for 1995–96.

  The peace process and growing business confidence are providing new opportunities to reposition Northern Ireland as a prime investment location. The new and more positive image of Northern Ireland is enhancing the credibility of the IDB in discussions with potential investors. Resources are being increased to capitalise upon this new business opportunity, particularly in the United States.

  Education Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss education policy in the United Kingdom. [29830]
  780
  Mr. Ancram
  There is regular contact at ministerial level on education policy as part of the normal processes of government.

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the 20th report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and if he will make a statement. [32244]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The report for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 has been published today and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  The Commission has considered a range of important matters during the period under review. These include questions relating to the changing political circumstances following the ceasefire, notably the future of policing and possible changes in emergency legislation. The Commission also commented on the application of international standards for the protection of human rights.

  I would also like to thank the commission for its extensive report on disability in Northern Ireland, which was brought to the attention of Parliament in the form of Command Paper 2740 in December 1994.

  Copies of the commission's 20th report have been placed in the Library. Copies of my response to the report will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Licensed Firearms Dealers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on licensed firearms dealers in Northern Ireland. [31286]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The registration and control of firearms dealers is governed by articles 34 to 41 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. There are presently 154 registered firearms dealers in Northern Ireland.

  The 1981 order requires the Chief Constable to maintain a register of firearms dealers, and only those persons granted a certificate of registration by the Chief Constable are permitted to trade as firearms dealers. Before issuing such a certificate, the Chief Constable must be satisfied that the person is not already prohibited from trading by order of a court in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, following the person's conviction on firearms offences or for an offence relating to the import and export of firearms or ammunition; that the person can safely trade in firearms without endangering the public or the peace; that the proposed place of business is suitable; and that there is a need at that place for such a business. The order empowers the Chief Constable to impose conditions on the certificate of registration. Failure to comply with those conditions may lead to the certificate being revoked. The Secretary of State can give directions to the Chief Constable as to the conditions to be imposed. The Chief Constable may also revoke the certificate of registration if he is satisfied that the person has ceased to trade as a firearms dealer; or has ceased to have a place of business in Northern Ireland; or cannot be permitted to continue trading as a firearms dealer without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Any firearms dealer or prospective firearms dealer aggrieved by the Chief

  781
  Constable's decision in such matters, may appeal to the Secretary of State under article 55 of the order.

  The Secretary of State is satisfied that the law governing the firearms trade is sufficient and is rigorously enforced by the Chief Constable in the interests of public safety.

  Sunday Observance
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if articles I, II, and III, of the Act for the Better Observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695, are currently in force. [31285]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Articles I, II, and III of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 are still in force as set out in the latest version of the "Statutes Revised, Northern Ireland", Vol. A, pages 47 and 48.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many convictions there have been under the Act for the Better Observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695, for the use or exercise on the Lord's day of(a) hurling, (b) commoning, (c) football playing, (d) cudgels, (e) wrestling and (f) any other games, pastimes or sports in each of the past 15 years; [31289]

  (2) how many individuals have been (a) prosecuted, (b) convicted, (c) fined, (d) subjected to the confiscation of goods or property or (e) set publicly in the stocks under any of the provisions of the Act for the Better Observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695, in each of the past 15 years. [31287]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As far as the police are concerned, there have been no criminal prosecutions recorded in the past 15 years for offences under the Act for the Better Observation of the Lord's Day. There may have been private prosecutions, but no central records of these are available.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets and been set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency during 1995–96. [32245]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1995–96 the following performance targets have been set:

  Performance targets

  Vehicle test appointments

  28 days average waiting time

  Driving test appointments

  56 days average waiting time

  Productivity (vehicle testing)

  16.35 units per man per day

  Productivity (driver testing)

  7.8 units per man per day

  Error Rate

  Faulty inspections not to exceed 0.25 per cent. of tests conducted

  Level of complaints about booking arrangements

  Less than 1 per cent. of applications received

  Level of complaints about conduct of tests

  Less than 1 per cent. of applications received

  782

  Performance targets

  Level of customer satisfaction with booking arrangements

  At least 85 per cent. plus or minus 2 per cent. within the range of sampling error

  Level of customer satisfaction with test procedures

  At least 90 per cent. plus or minus 2 per cent. within the range of sampling error

  Number of compensation payments for cancelled tests

  Less than 0.5 per cent. of applications received

  Composite unit cost of testing operations

  £16.95

  Educational Administration
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the paper "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for change". [29812]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have received some 1,300 written representations and have met a number of deputations. I will consider all these responses carefully before reaching any final decisions.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will respond to representations from the constituency of Strangford to the consultative document "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for Change"; and if he will make a statement. [29813]

  Mr. Ancram
  Representations for the constituencies of Strangford are among many received by my Department. I will consider them all carefully before reaching and announcing any final decisions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lord Farnham
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General how many hours of(a) his time and (b) his staff's time was involved in dealing with the application of Lord Farnham to be allowed to sit in the House of Lords; what was the total cost of the case to his Department; and what proportion of those costs was subsequently met by the applicant. [31112]

  The Attorney-General
  Officials in the Treasury Solicitor's Department have spent 156.3 hours to date dealing with Lord Farnham's petition for a writ of summons to the House of Lords. The cost to the Department of such time is £13,757.40, in addition to which the Department has disbursed £18,000.32 by way of expenses attributable to the case. The petitioner has met his own costs and has paid an agreed contribution of £2,643.75 in respect of the costs of a private hearing before me. My officials and I worked on the case as part of normal duties and the time is not recorded.

  Thurrock Borough Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what action has been taken in respect of the video sent to him by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) relating to Thurrock council; and if he will make a statement. [30472]
  783
  The Attorney-General
  I have written to the solicitors acting on behalf of the hon. Member for Billericay and to the chief executive of Thurrock borough council.

  Treasury Counsel Fees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many barristers on the panel of Treasury counsel received more than £200,000 in fees from public funds for the latest year for which information is available; [25055]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 May, Official Report, column 451, how much each Treasury counsel retained for civil work received in fees from public funds in 199495; of the Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court, how many received between (i) £250,000 to £300,000, (ii) £300,000 to £350,000, (iii) £350,000 to £400,000, (iv) £400,000 to £500,000, (v) in excess of £500,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service for financial year 1994–95. [29928]

  The Attorney-General
  Pursuant to my answer of 22 May 1995,Official Report, column 451, and to my answer of 21 June 1995, Official Report, column 260, and further to my answer pursuant to that given on 21 June, the information given for fees paid to Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court requires correction. During the financial year 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, the number of counsel in respect of whom payments were issued by the Crown Prosecution Service are set out in the table by reference to the bands referred to in the hon. Member's question:

  Column 1 (inc. vat)

  Column 2 (ex. vat)

  (I) £250,000 to £300,000

  3

  0

  (ii) £300,000 to £350,000

  0

  3

  (iii) £350,000 to £400,000

  3

  0

  (iv) £400,000 to £500,000

  0

  0

  (v) in excess of £500,000

  0

  0

  The figures given are shown in two columns. Column 1 relates to payments including value added tax. Column 2 shows the fees paid to counsel excluding value added tax.

  On the basis of the information now available to me, the number of Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court in respect of whom payments in excess of £200,000, inclusive of value added tax, were issued by the Crown Prosecution Service over the same financial year is 10. The number in respect of whom payments in excess of £200,000, exclusive of value added tax, were issued by the Crown Prosecution Service over the same period is six.

  The figures given, provided by the Crown Prosecution Service and taken from its computerised database, are calculated strictly by the date on which a particular payment is issued by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the date on which the payment was received or processed by the individual counsel concerned.

HEALTH

  Management Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led her to discontinue the management cost control strategy and the publishing of management cost accounts in the annual accounts. [28269]

  Mr. Malone
  Targets on management costs related to costs in regional health authorities, district health authorities and family practitioner committees. Introduction of the national health service reforms with increasing devolution of responsibilities to local level rendered those targets inappropriate.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service trusts or authorities currently operate within the 1987–88 Trent management cost of 4.9 per cent. of turnover. [28252]

  Mr. Malone
  The measures used by Trent regional health authority in 1987–88 preceded the creation of national health service trusts through the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. On 7 June my right hon. Friend announced that she was asking all trusts to publish in their annual reports information about their management costs based on definitions used by the Audit Commission. Information will be published centrally and the first set of information will be available in September 1995. As a result of the devolution of functions through our reforms of the NHS, we are now able to simplify and streamline the headquarters organisations. Savings are expected to approach £200 million by 1997–98 including some £150 million from reducing and slimming down health authorities and some £50 million in the running costs of the Department of Health. These savings will be ploughed back into patient care.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of blood products is now tested for hepatitis C; and what type of products are not. [30418]

  Mr. Sackville
  All blood collected from United Kingdom donors is tested for antibodies to hepatitis C virus on each individual donation.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of senior management are currently employed by NHS trusts. [30433]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 17 February,Official Report, columns 838–40, for the latest available information.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 480, how many times an ambulance has not arrived within the national charter standard time in total and by ambulance service in 1994–95 or part year thereof. [30432]
  785
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not yet available. Information on ambulance service performance will be published shortly as part of the national health service performance tables.

  Tenovus
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the contribution of the Tenovus charity to cancer research; and if she will make a statement. [31073]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government welcome the valuable contribution made by medical research charities such as Tenovus. We work closely with cancer charities to identify gaps in funding and opportunities for collaborating in funding cancer research. The Government are committed to ensuring the best use of resources for health and medical research and seek, in collaboration with the cancer charities, to avoid unnecessary duplication in this field.

  No specific assessment of this charity's contribution to cancer research has been made.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has made to ensure that cancer research which would have been funded by the Tenovus charity will receive funding from alternative sources. [31075]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The Government place a high priority on health and medical research and will spend about £385 million in 1994–95 on research and research-related expenditure. The Government also support biomedical and clinical research through the Medical Research Council, which receives its funding from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Charities provide an independent source of research funding.

  The Department of Health has established a national forum to advise Government and the NHS on research issues. The forum brings together the major funders of health and medical research, including the Association of Medical Research Charities, and provides an important means of establishing closer working links between research interests in the NHS and elsewhere. Within this framework, the Department is working with the Association of Medical Research Charities—of which Tenovus is a member—to promote better understanding of the charities' respective strategies and priorities.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for National Heritage regarding the impact of the national lottery on the Tenovus charity. [31076]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring she has carried out of the income of medical research charities following the introduction of the national lottery, with particular reference to the Tenovus cancer research charity; and what has been the result to date. [31074]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is too early to assess the effect of the lottery in a number of areas, including charitable income. The Government are, however, committed to monitoring any changes in this respect. A programme of research is being
  786
  drawn up which will include surveys of individual charitable giving and analysis of the income of charities covering the periods before, during and after the introduction of the national lottery.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of finished consultant episodes for neurosurgery by region and district health authority for each of the last five years. [30815]

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

  Press Releases
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases have been issued and in which Minister's name in each of the last two years. [30784]

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 609 press releases issued in 1994. At 22 June 1995, 329 had been issued. These can be broken down as follows:

  Press releases

  1994

  Secretary of State

  134

  Minister for Health

  111

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—hon. Tom

  Sackville

  76

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—John Bowis

  OBE

  104

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—Baroness

  Cumberlege CBE

  51

  Miscellaneous

  133

  1995 (to 22 June)

  Secretary of State

  69

  Minister for Health

  86

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—hon. Tom

  Sackville

  29

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—John Bowis

  OBE

  55

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—Baroness

  Cumberlege CBE

  31

  Miscellaneous

  59

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding European directives or regulations affecting provisions under United Kingdom common and statute law concerning complementary medicine. [30797]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is United Kingdom Government policy to implement all European directives and regulations in accordance with our treaty obligations. Any proposals for European legislation on complementary medicine will be examined as and when they emerge.

  Chemotherapy Treatment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 308, (1) when she was first written to by hon. Members regarding local charges for chemotherapy treatment; what action she took; and for what reasons the inappropriate application of guidelines continued; [30801]
  787
  (2) what assessment she has made of the reasons for the failure of Wigan hospital to implement properly guidelines on charging patients for chemotherapy treatment. [30800]

  Mr. Sackville
  The oversight within an individual trust was addressed by the trust itself, and refunds made. We have no record of correspondence from hon. Members on this issue.

  Springfield Clinic, Blakelaw
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS executive was first notified of an appeal about the general practice vacancy in Springfield clinic, Blakelaw, formerly run by Dr. Ahmed; when a decision is expected; and who is providing general practitioner services in the interim. [30810]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive was first notified of an appeal against the decision of Newcastle family health services authority concerning the former practice of Dr. Ahmed by letter dated 10 February 1995. It is not possible to provide an expected date of decision and, in the meantime, it is a matter for the family health services authority to make temporary arrangements for the provision of general medical services to the patients of the practice.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was her Department's publicity budget in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion has been spent on specific health promotion campaigns. [30814]

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on publicity in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  4.513

  1986–87

  12.627

  1987–88

  12.381

  1988–89

  10.799

  1989–90

  17.248

  1990–91

  21.008

  1991–92

  24.471

  1992–93

  20.710

  1993–94

  19.147

  11994–95

  18.177

  1 Estimated.

  Estimated expenditure in 1994–95 included major campaigns on drug and solvent misuse, £4.4 million; organ donation, £1.6 million; blood donor recruitment, £1.1 million; AIDS helpline, £2 million; and "The Health of the Nation", £1.7 million.

  Specific information on the proportion spent on health promotion campaigns could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pulmonary Embolisms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings her Department carried out into pulmonary embolism prevention; and if she will make a statement. [31209]
  788
  Mr. Sackville
  We supported a major conference on the management of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism at the Royal College of Surgeons in June 1994. Following that conference, a joint working group of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was set up to produce guidelines for the profession. The working party is commissioning further analyses of existing data in order to produce evidence-based guidelines and to identify gaps in research.

  Steroids
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings her Department has carried out into a double-blind, randomised comparison of(a) high dose inhaled steroids, (b) low dose inhaled steroids and low dose theophylline and (c) low dose inhaled steroids alone as treatment regimes for asthma; and if she will make a statement. [31208]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings her Department carried out into a randomised placebo-controlled trial of the effects of low dose aspirin on mortality and major morbidity in patients with hip fracture; and if she will make a statement. [31210]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the clinical trial service unit at the Radcliffe infirmary, Oxford is organising the pulmonary embolism prevention trial, funded by the British Heart Foundation. The PEP trial aims to determine whether any beneficial effects of aspirin given to patients with hip fracture outweigh any risks. The trial is still in progress and the findings have not yet been published.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the conclusions and recommendations of the working party of the Specialist Accreditation Committee of the Royal College of Surgeons considering supra-regional funding for paediatric cardiac surgery. [31523]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has received no such report.

  Health Survey for England
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out into a health survey for England; what were the findings of that research; and if she will make a statement. [31501]

  Mr. Sackville
  The health survey for England has been carried out since 1991. The findings of the 1991 to 1993 health surveys are contained in annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library. The 1994 report will he published in early 1996.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the right of patients to challenge the reasons for which their names have been removed from a general practitioner's list. [31374]

  Mr. Malone
  No. Under their terms of service, general practitioners are not required to give reasons when removing a patient from their list. Equally, patients are not required to give reasons when they wish to change doctors.

  St. Charles Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of the St. Charles youth treatment centre; and if she will make a statement. [32196]

  Mr. Bowis
  The St. Charles youth treatment centre at Brentwood, Essex has made an important and valued contribution to the treatment and care of some of the most disturbed and difficult young people with which the child care system has had to deal and has been influential in the lives of many young people.

  I am, however, no longer satisfied that the centre can continue in the future to provide properly for the best interests of the young people accommodated there or for those of the staff or for the security of the local community. The centre was designed and built in the 1960s and the buildings no longer meet accepted standards. There have also been problems of management and control which have proved difficult to resolve. In consequence, the centre has been operating far below its nominal capacity and currently accommodates only six young people. I therefore intend to close the centre, subject to consultation with the staff and their representatives on the implications of the closure for them. No decision has yet been taken on the future use of the site.

  When the centre was set up in 1971, there were no similar facilities to deal with the most difficult and disturbed young people. Since then, however, local authorities have developed their own secure accommodation and have become skilled and experienced in dealing with many young people needing secure care. The Department of Health already has in place a major building and refurbishment programme to strengthen still further the range and geographical spread of local authority secure accommodation. Working with local authorities, the Department of Health is funding a strategy in excess of £40 million to put in place high-quality facilities which are safe for the young people and for the public.

  The other youth treatment centre at Glenthorne in Birmingham will continue. It is being expanded to an overall capacity of 40 secure places within its present building stock and planning permissions.

  National Blood Service
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Plymouth blood transfusion centre will retain blood processing activities after the reorganisation of the national blood service. [30502]
  790
  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the National Blood Authority which will announce its revised proposals in due course.

  Art Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce a strategy to co-ordinate work on art therapy and similar activities involving arts and health in primary care; and if she will make a statement. [31488]

  Mr. Malone
  I have no plans to introduce such a strategy.

  GPs Deprivation Payments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those areas in which general practitioner's practices have qualified for additional payments for deprivation as defined under the Jarman index in each of the last five years and the current year. [28085]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: General practitioners' deprivation payments were introduced in April 1990 based on 1981 census data. A list will be placed in the Library of electoral wards where general practitioners became eligible for these payments in respect of patients living in those electoral wards.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times since its inception the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage has addressed(a) conservation bodies, (b) farmers, (c) landowners, other than farmers, (d) countryside sports bodies and (e) any other bodies. [30701]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is set out in the table. In addition, he has also delivered six addresses to joint landowners and countryside sports gatherings and one address when all five groups—a to e below—were represented.

  Type of body

  Number of addresses

  (a) Conservation bodies

  46

  (b) Farmers (including foresters)

  11

  (c) Landowners, other than farmers

  2

  (d) Countryside sports bodies

  1

  (e) Any other bodies

  48

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to increase the number of IVF treatments in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [31079]

  (2) how many people in each health board area have received IVF treatment from (a) their own health board area and (b) other health board areas in each of the last

  791
  five years; and what has been the cost to each health board. [31081]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for individual health boards to decide on the level of infertility service to purchase. Information on the number of patients who have received infertility treatment and its cost to health boards is not available centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much Government spending has changed in 1994–95 as a result of the private finance initiative; what is the estimated effect in 1995–96; how many jobs are to be created by schemes approved to date under the initiative and how many have been lost as a consequence in the public sector; and what is the forecast of transfer of employment from public to private sector over the last five years because of the initiative. [30831]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: It is not possible for 1994–95 or 1995–96 to attribute to the private finance initiative changes in either actual or planned Government spending. Progress in using the PFI is only one of many factors to be taken into account in assessing the level of public sector capital spending in Scotland. Also, it is not possible on the information currently available to forecast the effect on employment of the PFI. There is, however, no evidence that any public sector jobs have been lost to date through the PFI. Many of the jobs involved in capital projects funded by the public sector at present are, of course, in the private sector. Where, however, the PFI funds projects which would not go ahead otherwise, additional jobs will be created.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes and to what value have been approved in 1994–95 under the private finance initiative; what are the estimates for the current financial year; how many schemes are currently being considered and at what value; for how long have they been considered and how many have been in the assessment process for over(a) six months and (b) 12 months; and what was the average length of time taken to assess schemes so far approved. [30830]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: Schemes to the value of £37.9 million were approved in 1994–95. Precise details for the current financial year are not yet available, but estimates suggest that projects with a value of more than £60 million will be approved. The Scottish Office document "Private Finance Partnership in Scotland" published in March 1995 identified potential projects with a total value of £2.68 billion. The Scottish Office does not have available centrally information on the length of the assessment process for individual projects which are the responsibility of a range of different public authorities.

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that a golden share to protect the identity of Scottish Nuclear is included in the articles of association of the United Kingdom nuclear holding company; and if he will make a statement. [31254]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his
  792
  statement of 9 May, Official Report, columns 563–78, made it clear that Scottish Nuclear's continued existence will be protected by special shares in the holding company and in Scottish Nuclear itself.

  Nuclear Holding Company
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the chief executive of the United Kingdom nuclear holding company will be based in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [31255]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 9 May that the nuclear holding company would be registered, and its headquarters would be located, in Scotland. I would expect the chief executive of the company to be based at its headquarters.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much expenditure was granted in fee remission and incidental expenses on the assisted places scheme to pupils whose families had a residual income greater than £17,000 per annum in each of the past five years. [29794]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which schools accepted pupils under the assisted places scheme from families with a residual income of over £17,000. [29800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Schools with assisted place pupils in school session 1994–95 where the residual family income was greater than £17,000 are given.

  Aberlour School

  Albyn School

  Beaconhurst School

  Belmont House School

  Butterstone School

  Cargilfield School

  Craigclowan School

  Craigholme School

  Crawfordton House School

  Dollar Academy

  Drumley House School

  Edinburgh Academy

  Fernhill School

  Fettes College

  George Heriot's School

  George Watson's College

  Glasgow Academy

  Glenalmond College

  Gordonstoun School

  Hamilton College

  High School of Dundee

  High School of Glasgow

  Hutchesons' Grammar School

  Keil School

  Kelvinside Academy

  Kilgraston School

  793

  Laurel Bank School

  Lomond School

  Loretto School

  Merchiston Castle School

  Morrison's Academy

  The Park School

  Rannoch School

  Robert Gordon's College

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  St. Aloysius College

  St. Columba's School

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  St. George's School

  St. Leonard's School

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  St. Mary's School

  Stewart's Melville College and The Mary Erkskine School

  Strathallan School

  Wellington College.

  Schools (Placing Requests)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance exists for local authorities on the acceptable reasons for refusing placing requests for schools. [29797]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 28A(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, where the parent of a child makes a placing request it is the duty of an education authority to place the child in the school specified in the request, being a school under its management. The only exceptions are as set out in section 28A(3). Guidance on section 28A was included in circular number 1074, issued by the Scottish Education Department in November 1981.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list cases of which he is aware where the history of placing requests for a school formerly accommodated within the one regional council will now involve cross-boundary placement from one unitary authority to another. [29798]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Schools (Catchment Areas)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the catchment areas for schools. [29799]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As with other aspects of the education service, representations are received from time to time on issues in relation to school catchment—or delineated—areas. However, while in certain cases the approval of the Secretary of State is required before a catchment area may be changed, catchment areas are primarily a matter for education authorities.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the purpose of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's request to higher education institutions 794
  that their strategic overview should include contingency plans, approved by governing bodies, for action in the event of unforeseen and highly adverse financial circumstances. [30709]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 28 June 1995,Official Report, column 732.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of funding for higher education in 1992–93; and what is the intended amount for 1997–98. [30710]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on expenditure for the years in question is given in the departmental report of March 1995 "Serving Scotland's Needs", Cm 2814, and is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93 Outturn

  Recurrent and capital funding for the Centrally Funded

  Colleges

  140

  Student Allowance Scheme (tuition fees and maintenance grants)

  306

  Student loans

  22

  1997–98 Plans

  Recurrent and capital grants to SHEFC

  546

  Student Allowance Scheme (tuition fees and maintenance grants)

  285

  Student loans

  136

  The figures for 1997–98 are provisional and subject to review in the annual public expenditure surveys.

  Figures for 1992–93 and later years are not directly comparable because funding for teaching and research at the eight universities in Scotland previously funded by the Universities Funding Council was the responsibility until 31 March 1993 of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and because of changes in the balance between fees and grants for tuition.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time equivalent teachers/lectures were employed in further education colleges, universities, primary and secondary schools, in permanent posts, in each year since 1990. [30711]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of teachers/lecturers (FTE) in Education Authority primary and secondary schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions

  Session

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Further education colleges

  Higher education institutions

  1990–91

  21,650

  23,226

  6,986

  10,231

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  6,744

  10,583

  1992–93

  21,752

  23,139

  6,890

  10,813

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  6,818

  11,045

  1994–95

  121,686

  23,6791

  6,920

  n/a

  1 Provisional.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what training is provided for members of school boards in interviewing of candidates for senior teaching posts. [30712]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for each education authority to determine what training should be provided for members of school boards in its area to assist them in carrying out their functions, including their duties in relation to interviewing candidates for senior teaching posts.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the results of his consultation paper on school boards circulated in April. [30713]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consultation paper put forward changes which the Government would be disposed to make to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 should a suitable legislative opportunity arise. Accordingly, if such an opportunity arises, the outcome of the consultation exercise will be reflected in the Bill presented to Parliament.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is given to school boards on the publishing of brochures aimed at attracting parents. [30714]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. There is no requirement on school boards to publish brochures although the legislation does require a school board to make a report to parents of pupils in attendance at the school at least once in every year in order to inform parents of the board's activities. More generally, education authorities are required to produce a school handbook for each school under their management. School handbooks must contain information about the school as set out in regulations and may contain additional information at local discretion.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school boards have asked for wider powers. [30715]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 15 of and schedule 3 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, a school board may request the delegation to it of its education authority's functions in relation to a school, except those functions listed in section 15(2) of the Act. However, such requests are made to the education authority and information on the number of schools which have requested wider powers in this way is not held centrally.

  The Scottish Office Education Department recently consulted school boards and others on possible changes to the school boards legislation. The closing date for comments was 19 June. Over 350 responses were received, and are currently being analysed. A number of boards have made suggestions on wider powers.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what advice is given to schools boards on promoting academic freedom. [30753]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to change the name of chairman of a school board to convener. [30754]
  796
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. While the legislation requires every school board formally to appoint a chairman and vice-chairman, a number of boards already informally adopt different terminology, as they see fit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of school boards in 1994 were returned in uncontested elections; and how many schools which formerly had a board no longer have one. [30755]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the 1993–94 biennial school board elections 3,291 parent members of school boards were returned in uncontested elections. Some 310 school boards in existence at the start of school session 1993–94 were disestablished as a result of insufficient parents coming forward for election. Of these, 21 had been re-established by 31 May 1994 as a result of parental request.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of conducting school board elections in 1994. [30756]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure on conducting school board elections is a matter for the education authorities. Under the legislation, the last biennial round of elections was held in school session 1993–94. Information on the expenditure incurred by authorities in that round of elections or in subsequent by-elections is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the composition of school boards. [30757]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Many of the 350 or so responses received on the recent consultation paper on school boards commented on composition.

  Offshore Installations (Disposal)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what sanctions are at his disposal to ensure compliance with environmental directives by any company wishing to decommission North sea oil platforms and rigs; [30716]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the environmental audit that was conducted concerning the disposal of the Brent Spar installation and other redundant North sea oil platforms and rigs in the Atlantic ocean. [30717]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Abandonment of offshore installations from the United Kingdom continental shelf is regulated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987. Each case requires a best practicable environmental option assessment to be drawn up, and the approved abandonment plan includes appropriate conditions to ensure that the impact on the environment is minimised.

  The Brent Spar is the only installation to date for which disposal at sea has been authorised. This required the Scottish Office to issue a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and an authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. These were granted only after I was satisfied that disposal in this way would not present a hazard to fisheries, the marine environment or health.
  797
  My right hon. Friend is arranging for a copy of the BPEO and the impact hypothesis, which form part of the approved abandonment plan for the Brent Spar, to be placed in the Library within the next week.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the unemployment rate for the travel-to-work areas for each area in Scotland that is capable of providing a facility for the decommissioning of North sea oil platforms and rigs. [30718]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Proposals to decommission North Sea oil platforms and rigs offshore would raise a number of environmental issues. Subject to resolution of these, such decommissioning would, inter alia, require access to deep water, flat land and an opportunity to dispose of various kinds of material. Scotland is likely to have a number of such sites, which might include existing fabrication yards, Unemployment rates in travel-to-work areas covering the main fabrication yards in Scotland range from 7 per cent. to approximately 11 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to cap any Scottish local authorities this year. [32276]

  Mr. Lang
  No. All Scottish local authorities, with the exception of Strathclyde regional council, have set budgets for 1995–96 at or below the expenditure limits implied by the provisional capping principles which I announced on 29 November 1994,Official Report, columns 687–88.

  In the case of Strathclyde, I have considered the representations which the regional council has made to me and also the strategy the council adopted in budgeting and setting its council tax for 1995–96. I have noted, in particular, that the council has taken action to reduce capital funded from current revenue expenditure in both 1994–95 and 1995–96 which has had a direct impact on the level of its 1995–96 council tax. Having considered very carefully all the circumstances, I have decided not to cap the council.

  Overall, this is a very satisfactory outcome and again confirms the effectiveness of my capping powers in protecting local taxpayers from excessive spending by their councils.

  Later this year, I shall be laying before the House a report in terms of section 24 of the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 specifying the amount for each of the new local authorities which will be used as the baseline for considering capping action in 1996–97. These amounts, which will effectively be notional 1995–96 budgets for the new councils, will be prepared in full consultation with COSLA and will reflect the actual level of planned expenditure by the existing local authorities in 1995–96.

  It is also my intention to announce in the autumn provisional capping principles for 1996–97.

  Work Experience Schemes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring is undertaken of schoolchildren involved in work experience schemes at workplaces; and how the benefit or otherwise of each scheme is evaluated. [30719]
  798
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Preparation takes place before a placement so that pupils know what issues to explore and record. Guidance is available from the Scottish Office Education Department for employers, parents and pupils. During placements, school staff pay visits to help ensure that maximum benefit is derived. Placements are also monitored for health and safety and there must be suitable insurance cover.

  Pupils are monitored during the placement to provide a record of what they have done. After each placement, there is full debriefing with teachers. Most placements, including the preparation and debriefing, satisfy the criteria for a pupil to gain the Scottish Vocational Education Council work experience module which provides a measure of the usefulness of the placement.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pseud Oil-based Drill Muds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gave to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the use of pseudo oil-based drill muds by oil companies. [29937]

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has advised the Department of Trade and Industry that the use of drilling muds of all sorts can be permitted only if the hazards and risks to the marine environment have been properly assessed on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the studies into the environmental effects of the use of pseudo oil-based drill muds which(a) have been carried out by his Department and (b) his Department has evaluated. [29936]

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has a continuing programme of laboratory tests and field surveys into the environmental effects of pseudo oil-based muds—POBMs—for use by the offshore industries. MAFF also evaluates laboratory test data on toxicity to marine life, potential for biodegradation and potential of bioaccumulation of POBM systems as part of the approval process for POBMs developed by the Paris Commission and operated on a non-statutory basis by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by each objective and by each other Community initiative, including Rechar and Interreg, the value of assistance received under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance both nationally and for each standard region of the United Kingdom for each year since 1989. [31358]

  Mr. Jack
  EC regulation No. 3699/93, which sets out the detailed rules for assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—FIFG—came into effect on 1 January 1994. No payments could therefore be made under FIFG before that date. Assistance granted under FIFG since then is as follows:
  799

  FIFO assistance by region1

  Objective 1

  Non-objective 1

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  1,375,955.00

  0.00

  1,375,955.00

  Scotland2

  444,308.00

  1,361,247.00

  1,805,555.00

  England

  0.00

  2,216,324.00

  2,216,324.00

  Wales

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Total UK

  1,820,263.00

  3,577,571.00

  5,397,834.00

  Note:

  1 Expenditure relates to 1993 decommissioning scheme.

  2 Excludes provisional awards for other FIFG grants.

  No FIFG payments have been made in the UK to date under EC Community initiatives.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the main events he is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [29882]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: My Department seeks to meet charter objectives throughout the year in a range of ways. In July, as part of Charter Week, staff from regional service centres will attend a number of county shows across England. The Department's helpline, which has already handled well over 50,000 telephone inquiries from the general public, recently celebrated its second anniversary. MAFF staff will also participate in "Have Your Say Day" sessions, which aim to give our customers and the general public an opportunity to hear and talk about the services we provide. Senior managers will be available to discuss any issues of concern that may be raised.

  No additional costs or staff resources will be required.
  800
  I also hope to announce shortly details of the regional service centres' performance against the targets set out in the customer service standard "Commitment to Service".

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures were adopted by the Agriculture Council at its meeting on 19 to 22 June and what was the pattern of voting. [32193]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Council adopted the following measures:

  1. Protection of farm animals during transport.

  2. Support prices for agricultural products for 1995–96 and related measures.

  3. Changes to the agri-monetary system.

  4. Adjustment to set-aside arrangements so as to allow arable land taken out of production under forestry or environmental measures to count against the set-aside obligation of the farmer concerned.

  5. Changes to the support for cotton.

  6. Definitive allocation to Italy and Greece of the increases in milk quotas previously allocated on a temporary basis.

  7. Rules for the operation of the knacker industry.

  8. Approval of a national aid to French wine producers.

  The legal basis of items 1 to 7 was article 43 of the treaty, which provides for adoption by qualified majority vote. Item 8 required unanimity under article 93.2 of the Treaty.

  The member states voting against the various measures were:

  1. Italy, Austria and Denmark.

  3. The United Kingdom.

  6. Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg.

  Sweden subsequently registered a vote against the package covering items 1 to 7.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

St. Pancras Chambers: Future
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the requirements of the law upon owners of historic buildings to keep their buildings in an adequate state of repair are promptly observed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, where an owner fails to maintain a listed building in an adequate state of repair, local planning authorities have powers under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require repairs to be carried out. We are satisfied that those arrangements work.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on being satisfied. I am sure that she will not be surprised to know that I refer to St. Pancras. Is she aware that, if the building had been in private hands, the Secretary of State, with his reserve powers, would have been down on the owners like a ton of bricks long before now? Further, do the Government understand that to allow the building to go to a bidder for a railway franchise is a pipedream behind which the Department of Transport currently shelters its nakedness? Does my noble friend not agree that it should be put up for sale to a more general market? The Government never know what they might get for it. Incidentally, I should like to know what value they put on it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the supplementary question from my noble friend reminds me of the boy who wrote home to his mother with these words, "Dear Mum, no mun, your son". Unfortunately, his father intercepted the letter and replied: "Too bad, how sad, your Dad".
The St. Pancras Chambers will form part of the package of assets passed to the private sector promoter of the CTRL as part of the Government's contribution towards the cost of building the rail link. By developing St. Pancras station as the CTRL terminus, it is considered likely that a private sector interest in funding an acceptable new use for the Chambers will be found.
To return to the money side, since 1990 £10 million has already been spent on St. Pancras. English Heritage has spent £200,000, and it has just gained two prestigious awards. English Heritage is satisfied that the building is safe.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the general matter raised by the Question, is it not a fact that the Government make the task of those responsible for maintaining the buildings much more difficult by imposing a charge of VAT on every penny spent on bricks?
Baroness Trumpington: That is as may be, my Lords.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, given the amount of money already spent on the building, is it not sad that it can no longer be said of it, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la gare"?
Baroness Trumpington: Mais, mon cher, c'est the gateway to Europe in the future.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Forth rail bridge is one of the most magnificent national structures in our country. She will also be aware that there is considerable public disquiet that it is not being adequately maintained and repaired. Will she take steps to ensure that the local authority responsible for chasing up the owners of the Forth rail bridge uses its powers in the matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's remarks. However, the powers of local planning authorities plus English Heritage in London and the Secretary of State in respect of urgent works, repairs and compulsory purchase of listed buildings apply to all buildings, irrespective of grade.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, returning to the original Question, with the imminent arrival of the Green Paper on listed buildings, will the Government take account of it and give favourable treatment to private owners? Will they ensure that the owners are not treated like fly-by-night developers? Can the Minister assure us that such people, who have a long history of dedicated commitment to their historic houses, are given the consideration that they truly deserve?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that we all agree with my noble friend. Government funding for historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage. In 1994–95 English Heritage paid out £33 million in historic building repair grants. That is expected to rise to £35.7 million in 1995–96. I do not believe that that looks like "fly-by-night".
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the whole area of north central London—St. Pancras, the New British Library and King's Cross and its hinterland—offers enormous potential for coherent cultural and environmental development? No other major city in Europe would allow development to proceed in the present piecemeal and ad hoc fashion. Is it not yet another example of the need for a single strategic authority to govern London?
Baroness Trumpington: Most certainly not, my Lords. I return to what I said; it is a matter for the local planning authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of that district of London. I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to his attention.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the added historical significance of the St. Pancras site? It was part of the Sandhills Estate owned by Sir Andrew Judd, who was one of the worthies of England, founder of the free grammar school at Tonbridge, Lord Mayor of London and the last Mayor of the Staple of

863
Calais in 1587 when—surprise, surprise—the French moved back in again. The property was sold by the school governors, the Skinners Company, to the Midland Railway Company in 1871. Does not Sir Andrew's uncanny foresight in earmarking while at Calais the site for the Channel Tunnel London terminal add to the importance of the building which should be fully preserved now?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all I can say is that St. Pancras has a much better pedigree than I have!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: A yw'r Gweinidog yn sylweddoli fod pobl Cymru yn gwerthfawrogi eu hadeiladau hanesyddol? Will the Minister tell the Prime Minister that we shall not be satisfied until we get a Secretary of State who understands that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I once tried to say Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year in Welsh to your Lordships. Nobody understood a word that I said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I ask my noble friend not to be too bemused by the pipedream of the Department of Transport. Of the current four bidders for franchises, I understand that two very wisely said that they would not touch the chambers. Will my noble friend at least approach her colleagues about the possibility of putting the building up for sale to a wider market and of perhaps finding a bidder who would fulfil the necessary conditions and keep it as it ought to be kept?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my department believes that there is a commercial future for the building, particularly in view of the fact that, as I said, it is at the gateway to Europe. I cannot comment on the present bidders; that is commercially confidential information. However, as there are bidders, there must be interest.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not permit London Underground to desecrate Sir Marc Brunel's Thames tunnel between Wapping and Rotherhithe, as it seems determined to do, without a public inquiry? Any reply will do!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am unaware of that particular problem. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Domestic Workers from Overseas
3.11 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the additional measures announced in December 1994 to ensure that employers of domestic workers accompanying them on visits to the United Kingdom are fully aware of their obligations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, yes. We believe that these are useful measures to help to remind the employers of domestic workers from overseas of their obligations.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since the avowed purpose of the measures is to ensure that the parties are aware of their obligations, will the noble Baroness reflect on the thesis of St. Paul that knowing what is right and doing what is right do not always coincide? Since the victims are left to pursue whatever legal remedies they may have on whatever advice is available to them, and since they are not allowed to take employment with anyone other than the employer against whom they are complaining, are the Government still not abdicating responsibility for the situation that they have allowed to arise?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, the Government are not abdicating their responsibility. First, it is very important to understand the reasons why these people enter the country in the first place. They enter as specific workers of somebody making a specific visit to this country. Approval for entry is given on the basis that they come as employees of that employer. When they are here, they have full protection under the criminal law, and absolute protection under employment rights law. In addition, we have improved and tightened up the entry requirements. We make absolutely certain that the employee coming in is given, in his or her own language, access to help, information and advice, and contact points in this country. We make sure that they are given as much information about their rights as employees as it is possible for the Government to give. I believe that the Government have honoured their obligations to these young people.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does that also apply to all the ladies of the harem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the ladies of the harem are bona fide domestic workers of the visitor, if they have gone through the entry clearance requirements and conform to all the criteria, then yes, it would apply.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her reply the Minister referred to these people as having protection under British employment laws. The Minister must be aware that there have been reports of extremely low rates of pay, and of these people being outrageously exploited. Will the Government look into this matter and see if there is any way to prevent it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. The Government's responsibility is to make sure, by questioning and getting written assurances from the employer, how he will pay and whether he will look after the needs of the employees while they are here—in other words, providing them with proper accommodation and ensuring that they are fed. We do not, nor should we, enter into the contract between the employee and the employer. However, in interviewing the employee quite separately from the employer, which is part of the process, we try to ensure so far as is possible that the employee is freely entering into the contract with the employer. Therefore, once the contract is established, it must be a matter between the employee and the employer.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister ask her right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider why imported domestic workers sometimes kill their

865
employers, even in London? Is it because they are driven to desperation by abuse and exploitation? Will the Home Secretary make it possible for such domestic workers to change their employer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, abuse is abuse, and the criminal law is there to protect people. We are doing what we can to make sure that the employees understand all the help, advice and information contact points to which they can go if they believe they are being abused. The prerequisite is to let them know at the point of entry what their rights will be when they arrive here, and when they arrive to avail them of all the protection that any citizen of this land should have. The Government are honouring their obligations. We cannot allow entry as a domestic employee of a specific employer to be a mechanism for coming into this country and taking jobs that are otherwise for the resident labour force.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has not the Minister given the game away by saying that these rights are explained to the domestic worker at the point of entry? Do not the problems arise after the undertakings have been given by the employer, as she has described, and when nobody is there to check what is happening within the domestic environment? In any other form of employment, would not the employer be subject to periodic visits from inspectors to make sure that the undertakings had been honoured? Why do not the Government try to do the same in relation to domestic workers, so that months afterwards, when employees are having to endure a form of domestic slavery, they can at least talk to somebody outside the household in their own language?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I explained, the Government have gone a very long way to make sure that young people who enter the country as domestic workers for a specific employer know their rights. They are given leaflets to help them. Other than that, they have the full protection of the criminal law and the full protection of employees' rights. The employers, too, have obligations. But it would create a bureaucracy that was disproportionately costly to have a policing system for every domestic servant in the land.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister gave a number of answers about the nature of the additional measures announced in December 1994. That is now more than six months ago. Will she tell the House whether there has been any decrease in the number of cases of abuse and mistreatment coming before the courts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds me that it is very early days—only six months. I cannot give specific statistics, but if information is available I will certainly write to the noble Lord. The fact that we hear about such cases proves that the criminal law applies.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that we cannot have people coming in from outside taking jobs that local people want. Does the noble Baroness have any evidence that there are queues of people wanting domestic work in this country?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, that was not the context of the question. They seek entry into the country as employees of a specific employer who is coming for a temporary stay. That is the reason that they are allowed to enter this country. We simply cannot have people who have entered changing their employer, and thus changing the terms upon which they entered. It would turn into a mechanism for entering the country and then becoming a general employee and taking work that properly belongs to the labour force here.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the pamphlet to which she referred that is handed to these poor girls on arrival is printed in their own language, and not in English?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I can give that guarantee. More than that, it is explained to them and they are talked through it in their own language.

"Bull Bars"
3.18 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
How soon they will introduce a ban on "bull bars" on cars.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we are currently carrying out a study of pedestrian accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars to assemble evidence on the injuries caused to pedestrians or other road users. That analysis, which should be complete later this year, is needed as a basis for deciding how to take matters forward.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that bull bars originated in Australia to fend off kangaroos; and, despite the fact that not too many were found on the M.25, the consequence was that they were copied in the late 1980s as an ornamental design? Does he agree that they have proved to be a dangerous, serious menace to pedestrians in particular and especially to children? Is my noble friend further aware that the Government's own research laboratory in 1992 highlighted the dangers; police figures in 1994 disclosed disturbing evidence of serious injuries; the RAC and the AA have been campaigning for over two years to ban bull bars; and even a European transport commissioner not unknown to Members opposite is sympathetic? What further evidence is required before this menace is removed from our roads?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we take very seriously indeed the issue of bull bars—"roo" bars, as my noble friend called them, or cow catchers, however one wants to describe them. That is why we commissioned that additional research. The work that my noble friend described in his supplementary question was not based on examination of actual incidents but on predictions developed from testing. I feel that we must have the proper information in front of us before we can make an informed decision on how to act, if at all.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether we would be able to ban the use of these bars, irrespective of what happens in the rest of Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed we could ban bull bars in this country under the Construction and Use Regulations; but we should have to allow bars that complied with the European Type Approval Directive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government originally asserted that they were constrained from taking prompt action by reason of European legislation, when the commissioner concerned, Commissioner Kinnock, has made it abundantly plain that the Government are free to act when the personal safety of people is involved? Why must we have all this study taking place at the present time, when it is plain that such appendages to vehicles constitute a grave danger to people and to other vehicles? Will he accept that prompt action is required, not all the study that the Government envisage?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am sorry hear that the noble Lord is against informed research to determine whether a problem exists, exactly what it is and how many incidents and accidents can be attributable not just to vehicles fitted with bull bars but to the bull bars themselves making the accident worse. The noble Lord is right. There are options available, both European and domestic. We should like to see action from the Commission on the draft Pedestrian Safety Directive, which would make the fronts of all cars softer and more "pedestrian friendly"—if that is the right expression. This is a better solution which encompasses all the problems facing pedestrians from vehicles with hard edges.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that bars fitted after the purchase of a car can interfere with the operation of the car's airbag in that sensors will not detect the crash at the proper time?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. There is also concern that some bull bars have very hard and sharp edges. They could cut people and injure pedestrians, possibly children, more than vehicles not fitted with them. However, there is a great deal of speculation about the matter. Only when we have the results of the proper research will we know the extent of the problem and what action is appropriate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that some police authorities have given the department abundant evidence of the dangers that already exist, of accidents that have occurred, of injuries and even some deaths? If the Government want to carry out the research quickly, why does not the Minister ensure that the 21 police authorities which have failed to assist the department are required to do it with some promptitude? This is a matter of great urgency. It is not a question of having detailed research into a problem that already clearly exists and represents a major hazard.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord contends that bull bars represent a major hazard. The simple fact is that the research is not yet there to support
868
his contention. That is why we commissioned the research. When we have the results, we shall decide on the action to take.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of London delivery vans which are wholly urban, two-wheel drive vehicles, are now being fitted with bull bars for no valid reason? Incidentally, it has the effect of making their drivers drive even more recklessly than hitherto. Is it not time that we followed the example of the Royal Parks, which in the past few days most commendably have banned vehicles fitted with bull bars?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand that a number of delivery vehicles are fitted as the noble Lord said. I do not believe that that fact on its own is enough to ban those bars or to bring about a decision on what action to take. I believe that I have already fully rehearsed the Government's position. We want to take a fully informed decision.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would make a lot more sense if the Government were to ban the bars first while the research is being carried out and then allow them if the research shows that they are safe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not sure that that is always the best way to go about business, particularly perhaps in view of comments that are sometimes made about legislation which has not been thought out as fully as it might have been. Those are the accusations. We need to have the full facts and figures in front of us before we decide what to do.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, can my noble friend estimate how long the research will take?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, we expect it to be complete before the year's end.

Private Members' Bills: Parliamentary Time
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide parliamentary time to allow a Private Member's Bill to amend the Interpretation Act to proceed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, time for consideration of Private Members' Bills in another place is allocated under the relevant standing order and sessional order. In your Lordships' House, Private Members' Bills are timetabled in the same way as other business.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place is designed to bring into operation the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe that all member states should review the terminology of their public documents, and in particular their laws and Acts of Parliament, to remove sexist terminology from them? Is it also a fact that that recommendation, which

869
was presumably supported by the British Government representative in the Committee of Ministers, maintains that, as part of the work for human rights and sex equality, it is vital that the need for non-sexist terminology in all public documents and procedures should be pursued; and rejects the claim, often made in this House, that the masculine gender is a generic term which embraces women as well as men?
Can we begin a long overdue reform by this Government, which themselves ought to have introduced such a Bill, at least making time for that brave effort by the Member for Bristol East to reach the statute book?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am all in favour of the use of non-sexist language. However, when it comes to legislation, I am primarily interested in Bills being drafted in ordinary language, as simply as their subject matter permits. Most important of all, there should be clarity of language, so that there is certainty of how the law will be applied. In this country the interpretation of statutes is left to the Interpretation Act 1978. That is quite clear in its explanation, under Section 6, that words importing the masculine gender include the feminine, words importing the feminine gender include the masculine, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular. What could be clearer than that?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to deal specifically with the Question on the Order Paper, will the noble Lord be kind enough to confirm that so far as concerns this House any Member of this Chamber who complies with the necessary procedure in standing orders can introduce a Bill into this House, including the Bill of which my noble friend has given some particulars? Will he confirm that? Otherwise, I might have to give him advance notice that I intend to introduce a Bill at a later stage to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in his customary way the noble Lord has been extremely helpful. He is absolutely right. It is the right of any Member of this House to bring forward a Private Member's Bill and it is up to the usual channels to decide on the allocation of time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has never been the slightest problem in finding sufficient parliamentary time for any of the Private Members' Bills over the past 12 years?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that is a judgment on the way the usual channels have operated over the course of the past 12 years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a number of years ago I tabled amendments to government Bills to refer to the Secretary of State as "it", as has been done in a number of states in America, including Oregon? Those amendments were accepted by the Public Bill Office and debated on the Floor of the House. Unfortunately they were not accepted on Divisions, but would that not be a good example to set for the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, I am interested in legislation being clear and understandable. I am not sure that calling Secretaries of State "it" is helpful in that respect.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not "it" a neuter word? If the Secretary of State is referred to in that way, would it not be a breach of human rights to neuter him?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as is usual in these debates, my noble and learned friend has been extremely helpful.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Can the Minister explain whether, in his reply, he is rejecting the 1990 recommendation of the Ministers of the Council of Europe, who are advocating the very changes to which I referred and which he has just been disparaging? Can he tell us whether or not the Government are in favour of that resolution?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is nothing under the law of this country that stops non-sexist language being used. Therefore we already fully comply with any requirements because it is not illegal to use such language.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am pleased that he confirmed that this House has the right to introduce Private Members' Bills? Does he recall that this House passed, without any opposition, my National Health Patients Accommodation Bill? It is designed to outlaw mixed sex wards in National Health Service hospitals. The Bill went to the other place. Can the Minister say why the Government are blocking that Bill in the House of Commons?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope the House agrees that the question the noble Lord puts is slightly wide of the one on the Order Paper. However much we wish our will to encourage another place, on Private Members' Bills it is up to another place to decide how best to use its time. It may well be that the noble Lord's Bill has run out of time.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Friday, 21st July and return on Monday, 16th October. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Friday, 21st July.

Child Support Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Child Support Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:
>Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 6,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 7 to 30,
Schedule 3.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Being a doctor is tough. Not only is the speed of medical advance frenetic, but those advances have propelled the Government into making dramatic changes in the organisation of the National Health Service. Old certainties, time-honoured practice, historic institutions and centuries of traditions all seem far from secure.
This Bill is not just a minor titivation. It is the acknowledgement by doctors that the great and lasting value that they offer is their integrity and their professionalism. In a time of change they acknowledge and have asked for more powers to uphold their profession. Most people will say, "We trust the doctor". If people trust their doctor, other things fall into place.
The Bill introduces new procedures to further build the confidence of the public and to enable the General Medical Council to deal with those doctors whose performance falls below the standard we have a right to expect. It is part of a range of measures to ensure that, where professional standards are not maintained, effective remedial action is taken whether the doctor practises in the NHS or privately. Where there are shortcomings we wish there to be well understood and effective channels through which people can complain. Patients, their families and friends must have complaints dealt with quickly, thoroughly and fairly. Where justified they should receive an apology, an explanation of what went wrong, an assurance that the same thing will not happen again and action to put things right. In most cases people do not seek financial compensation. Their genuine concern is that no one else should have to suffer what they have been through.
The underlying cause of a patient's dissatisfaction may not always be obvious. Is it the fault of the doctor or the fault of the hospital procedures? Is it poor communication within general practice? Are other members of the clinical team at fault? In the knowledge that complaints procedures are not always clear, in
872
March we published Acting on Complaints, a paper setting out our plans to improve the way complaints are handled as recommended by the Wilson Committee.
We believe that, in order to ensure a speedy resolution, initially at least, it is best for the complaint to be dealt with by the people providing the service. The new complaints procedure will provide for a review by a lay panel. The panel will have a majority of members who are independent and will be advised by clinical assessors. As recommended by the Wilson Committee, there will be a clear distinction between complaints and disciplinary procedures. Where a complaint raises serious disciplinary issues, relevant information will be passed quickly to management or professional regulatory bodies so that they can consider what other steps may be necessary.
Your Lordships recently passed the NHS (Amendment) Bill. That Bill strengthened the powers of the NHS tribunal. A health authority will in future be able to ask the tribunal to suspend a family health service practitioner in order to protect patients before a full hearing takes place. The authority can only do so when it is seeking to disqualify a practitioner from providing healthcare. The scope of this power covers all practitioners in the family health services, not just doctors.
The new GMC procedures in today's Bill will complement existing disciplinary measures. For instance, at the moment NHS procedures do not cover doctors in private practice. Nor can they always prevent a doctor who resigns from one NHS post moving to another NHS post or to private practice. The proposed new powers will cover all doctors whether or not they work in the NHS. I am pleased to say that the General Medical Council has undertaken wide consultation on these proposals and there has been strong support from both within and outside the medical profession.
The General Medical Council has increasingly focused its attention on its role in protecting the public. The Bill will be a fitting tribute to Sir Robert Kilpatrick who has worked tirelessly and given strong, clear leadership during his distinguished six-and-a-half years as president. He retires at the end of August, leaving the GMC in tip-top condition, as any physician should. In its new publication, The Duties of a Doctor, the GMC has made clear that:
"Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and wellbeing. To justify that trust we as a profession have a duty to maintain a good standard of practice and care".
It also made clear that doctors have a duty to report cases. It says,
"You must protect patients when you believe that a colleague's conduct, performance or health is a threat to them. The safety of patients must come first at all times".
The Bill is part of the same picture—protecting the public.
Under its existing powers the GMC can address incidents of serious professional misconduct and serious impairment of fitness to practise arising from a doctor's own state of health. It cannot deal effectively with cases where a doctor's overall performance is seriously deficient unless it can pin down the complaint to specific incidents of grave misconduct.

873
The GMC's professional conduct committee must focus on specific, closely defined allegations about particular incidents. The allegations must be supported by evidence which would be admissible in a criminal court. The evidence is tested to the standard of proof in adversarial proceedings—and that is as it should be. However, the GMC receives details of many other cases on which it cannot take any formal action under its current powers; yet the underlying performance of the doctor concerned is very poor or, in the terminology of the Bill, the standard of professional performance is seriously deficient. At present those doctors can remain on the register and the GMC has no power to require them to put right their shortcomings.
The professional performance procedures proposed in the Bill are designed to plug that gap. Complaints may come from patients, their relatives, doctors, or other professionals and organisations. The purpose of the new procedures is to inquire into the underlying causes of any problems that have been reported and get the doctor to put them right. The GMC will consider whether the matters complained of, particularly where there is a series of complaints, indicate a pattern of serious shortcomings in the standard of the doctor's professional performance. If the allegations suggest that that may be the case, the doctor will be asked to have his performance assessed by an independent assessment panel appointed by the GMC. This will include two doctors of the same specialty plus one lay person.
The key role of the assessment panel is to identify whether there are any significant weaknesses in the doctor's performance, to discuss those with him and to give advice on what the doctor might do to remedy the situation. The new procedures could therefore work in some cases without the need for a GMC committee to be involved. However, it is clearly important that the procedures should also work where the doctor does not consent or remedial training is not effective. There is provision for a doctor's registration to be suspended or for conditions to be attached to his registration if this is in the public interest and will help to protect patients. An appeal mechanism is included which will allow a doctor to put his case to a new assessment referral committee if he objects to having his performance assessed.
I commend to the House the short paper prepared by the GMC on its proposed performance procedures. This explains step by step how the system will work. A number of copies have been placed in the Library.
The Bill is short—only six clauses. Much of it makes amendments to the Medical Act 1983. It is not possible to follow through the procedures by reading the Bill by itself. I have therefore placed in the Library a revision of the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act as they would appear on consolidation of the Bill in that Act. I have sent this report to a number of your Lordships.
Wherever possible we want expensively trained doctors to be put back on the right track. But the overriding need is to protect patients. In some cases sanctions may need to be imposed. There will be some doctors who may decide that they should retire. Those cases are provided for in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
874
Clause 1 deals with the powers of the new committee on professional performance. This committee has been described as the "sanctions committee". The committee will be empowered to impose conditions or to suspend a doctor's registration. It will do this where the doctor's professional performance is seriously deficient and the committee considers that sanctions should be applied to protect the public. Although a doctor may in the worst cases have his registration suspended indefinitely, his name will not be erased—he will not be "struck off". This is a fine but an important distinction, as the intention is remedial. The committee can also impose sanctions where a doctor has failed to co-operate with the assessment.
In cases where a doctor's failings may be considered to be beyond remedial action, the doctor may himself ask for voluntary removal from the register. The doctor may be falling behind with the latest medical techniques which have become the accepted norm and he may realise that it is time "to call it a day". He can then ask to have his name removed from the register. This is the subject of Clause 2 of the Bill.
We realise that less scrupulous doctors might use the provisions of voluntary removal to escape scrutiny of their performance or indeed to evade a conduct hearing. In order to minimise that risk, Clause 2 also provides for a reference back to the relevant committee should the doctor apply at a later date for his name to be reinstated on the register. I intend to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage that will ensure that the GMC has the discretion to turn down the application for removal of a doctor about to be brought before the professional conduct committee.
Clauses 4 to 6 have the usual technical effects. The schedule gives the GMC the power to make rules and regulations; first, to set up the assessment referral committee and the committee on professional performance. Rules will also provide for the constitution and proceedings of the two committees and also of the assessment panels. Assessment panels will be given powers to inspect medical records and, where obstructed, to apply to a magistrate for a warrant. An offence will be created where any person obstructs the work of the panel.
During the passage of the Bill in another place the Government agreed to the insertion of two amendments; first, to give a power to the GMC's health committee to impose indefinite suspension in cases where the doctor has already been suspended for two years. This power is similar to the power to be given to the committee on professional performance. The amendment is now in the Bill. The second promised amendment will extend the powers of interim suspension by the GMC's preliminary proceedings committee. At present the committee can only impose interim suspension for two months. We propose that this period should be six months and that further periods should be imposed if necessary. An amendment will, with the leave of the House, be brought forward at Committee stage.
The task facing the GMC to implement these procedures is not a small one. However, we are confident that the new procedures will fill the gap identified by the GMC and enable it to do its job more

875
effectively. The GMC is well on the way to setting up and testing its assessment programmes which will underpin the new procedures but this may take up to 18 months to complete. Nevertheless, we believe that the introduction of the Bill to Parliament has given a clear signal to doctors whose performance is not up to standard that the remedy is in their own hands.
We have been encouraged by the fair wind given to the Bill in another place by the Opposition parties. We nevertheless expect the usual close and challenging scrutiny of the detail of the Bill here in Committee. I hope, and firmly believe, that the Bill should emerge as a valuable addition to the statute book and command widespread support both within and outside Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Although this is a straightforward measure, both the practical arrangements it proposes and the legislative changes which will enable them are complex. I am very grateful to the Minister for the clear explanation she has given this afternoon.
I am also grateful for the detailed written briefing the Government have provided, particularly the document that the Minister referred to which illustrates the way it it intended to amend the Medical Act 1983. The General Medical Council has been extremely helpful. Sir Robert Kilpatrick, the president, has been generous with his time and most courteous in answering detailed questions. In a way, this Bill is almost his Private Member's Bill. I join the Minister in congratulating him on persevering to achieve the introduction of this measure, which follows many attempts by what one might describe as real Private Members in another place to achieve some of these changes.
We all agree that some changes in medical self-regulation need to be made. The Minister has said that this is not a contentious Bill. We on these Benches support its principles and hope that once this House has had the opportunity to consider it carefully the Bill will find its way speedily onto the statute book.
The Bill raises two important issues fundamental to successful healthcare: the need for consistently high standards from the medical profession and the need for patient confidence in the doctors who look after them. The picture for both has changed substantially over the past few years. Doctors have always jealously guarded their right of professional self-regulation but recently this right has been questioned in other fields, such as the law and the police; even legislators have sometimes been challenged to justify their ability to regulate themselves. The GMC has rightly recognised the general pressure to tighten regulatory procedures and to make them less opaque. But at the same time the health professions have been coping with greatly accelerated advances in medical science and technology. These have made it hard even for the most dedicated doctor to keep abreast of every professional development. That is why
876
we on these Benches welcome the remedial nature of the new sanctions that the GMC may impose on a practitioner who is judged seriously deficient.
We are all anxious in this country to avoid the litigious atmosphere that has developed in the doctor/patient relationship in the United States. It is clearly more satisfactory if the spectre of a suit for malpractice does not hang over ever clinical consultation, and yet the patient must have the right to expect the best possible care and some kind of redress if he does not receive it.
Today, patients are encouraged to challenge the tradition that "Doctor knows best" and to question their treatment. In some areas—I would cite obstetrics and HIV-AIDS services as particularly good examples—that has produced noticeable improvements in patient care. But concerns still remain. Despite the new NHS complaints system and the Patient's Charter, individual patients feel somewhat frustrated sometimes when they "want to do something", as they would describe it, about what they see as inadequate or inappropriate treatment.
On the other hand, doctors sometimes feel burdened rather than helped by the pressures of keeping up with continuing medical education programmes and clinical audit procedures, which are designed to keep them up to scratch. It would be pointless to pretend that there are not a very few who are just too indolent or unconcerned to take part in voluntary postgraduate training and education. For them perhaps professional sanctions against bad performance may be the only recourse and it is really this small group that the Bill deals with—a small minority.
The centrepiece of the proposed change is to give the GMC the power to investigate cases where a doctor's professional performance is alleged to be seriously deficient. In proven cases the GMC will be able, as the Minister has already explained, either to suspend the doctor's registration or make it conditional on receiving remedial training. I entirely support this proposal which will substantially widen the grounds on which a complaint may be made.
Most of my questions and comments are largely ones of detail about the mechanics of operating the procedure. I hope that the Minister may be able to answer some of the points in her response this afternoon as some of them are unfinished business from another place. Indeed, in suggesting the amendments that the Government will bring forward at Committee stage, the Minister has already answered some of those points.
One substantial issue which was discussed at length in Committee in another place, but was never really resolved, was the question of precisely measuring and defining a seriously deficient professional performance. It emerged in another place that new codes of conduct will be widely and publicly promulgated, but no details of performance standards were announced and key performance criteria, which are regularly used now in the NHS, were not discussed. I hope that we might move towards more exact understandings before the Bill becomes law.

877
Anyway, it seems probable that whatever criteria of professional performance are used in the future, they are bound to be based mainly on technical skills and knowledge. There are, after all, means of measuring these by objective standards.
Much more difficult, but I believe often equally important to patients, are standards of what one might call "personal conduct". All of us who have heard complaints about doctors know that they may sometimes concern a seriously deficient "bedside manner". Rudeness, dismissiveness, arrogance and indifference could all, in common sense terms, constitute a seriously deficient professional performance. It would be helpful if the Minister could make it clear whether or not the new procedures can be triggered by failures of personal behaviour, not only failures of professional skills. I would add in parenthesis that it is particularly difficult to imagine how failures of personal behaviour, and personality even, if they are to be included, can be measured, and indeed whether or not they could be improved by remedial training. I am reminded of an employer of mine who, several years ago, never mentioned what were described as "irremediable personality faults" in annual reviews simply because they were thought to be unanswerable.
One further matter in this area which needs to be finally resolved is whether or not a one-off episode of a seriously deficient performance will be enough to qualify for GMC investigation. Much of the background briefing and explanatory papers refer to a pattern of poor performance. But again, in common sense terms, it is possible to imagine circumstances where a one-off act of negligence, for example, could be sufficiently catastrophic to be defined as a "seriously deficient performance". When the Minister replies, perhaps she can tell us what exactly the situation is as regards single complaints and whether a complaint about one incident is liable to be treated less sympathetically than one which reveals a track record of inadequacy.
The proposed mechanics of investigation and action by the GMC, once the procedure has been triggered are, I must say, extraordinarily complicated. They are also extraordinarily thorough and therefore must be commended. But one does need the proverbial "wet towel" to follow them, particularly during a hot week in summer.
I wanted to make a positive suggestion that all health authority non-executive members and community health councils, should be circulated with a revised version of the GMC consultation paper on the new performance procedure once the legislation is passed. After all, they are often the first recipients of complaints. But I have to say that I was made so cross-eyed by the diagrammatic representation of the procedures that I thought that the document as it stands might do more to hinder than to help lay understanding. I do recognise that I am personally diagram-blind, but I do not believe that I am unique.
I very much hope that the information about the new arrangements will be widely distributed and understood. I would urge that perhaps professional copywriters or advertisers be employed to make the procedures clearer, and therefore more accessible, to anyone who may wish
878
to use them. After all, one of the basic points about professional regulations is that the systems must be seen to be open and readily available.
There is disquiet on these Benches that hearings under the new performance procedures will be heard in private. There is an odd anomaly in the Bill as it stands at the moment that allows a doctor under investigation to request a public hearing, but not a complainant. That suggests that the GMC and the Government have no objections in principle to public hearings, but simply wish that only a doctor may lift the "in camera" rule. I hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider this or perhaps reassure us, as was indicated in another place, that these arrangements will be kept under review and may be altered once the system has been tested for a time.
If and when an individual case does make its way through the procedural maze of assessments and committees which are proposed, the GMC and the doctor in question have, as the Minister has explained, various options for action. All of these were explored in detail in another place. I was delighted to hear the Minister tell us this afternoon that the right of a doctor facing disciplinary proceedings to remove himself voluntarily from the register, will be circumscribed. As that stands at the moment, it seems potentially open to abuse. For example, it has been suggested to me by a very senior doctor closely involved with the GMC, that a suspect practitioner might well choose to remove himself from the register, lie low for a few years, and then reapply and hope that his past was well forgotten. As the Minister has explained her amendment this afternoon, it will be those doctors facing immediate consideration by the performance committee who will not be allowed to reapply in this way. But it will be very helpful if we can have an understanding about how long the surveillance of voluntary withdrawal from the register will be allowed to continue before it becomes unsurveyed.
The British Medical Association is still most concerned about the financial implications of remedial retraining, which may be a condition of a new registration for a doctor who is finally judged to be seriously deficient. Apparently, it was originally understood that this retraining would be paid for by the health service. Now it seems that only hospital doctors will be able to be funded. There has been a recent exchange of correspondence between doctor Ian Bogle, the chairman of the BMA Medical Services Committee, and the Minister for Health, since the Bill left the other place. In a letter of 6th June, Mr. Malone states categorically,
"I do not think it fair to the taxpayer, or to the great majority of GPs who do use the existing provisions to continue their professional development and maintain high standards, for special arrangements to be made for the few GPs who will come under the General Medical Council's new procedures".
I believe that that is an unfortunate decision. To start with, it seems to confuse the type of remedial education and training proposed in the Bill with the system for continual medical education as it stands at the moment.
The other point is costs. The costs of the projected retraining are said to be substantial. Apparently, they can be anything between £6,000 and £20,000. It does

879
seem that if GPs have to pay for this out of their own pockets, it will amount to what is a fine, and a very heavy one at that, whereas as the Minister has explained and as is certainly clear from the legislative proposals, the basic idea of the new procedures is that they are remedial and not punitive. The BMA is also concerned that, knowing about the possible personal costs, colleagues of failing doctors may well be deterred from instigating procedures. I ask the Government to think again about that particular arrangement.
Those are all important points and I hope that it will be possible easily to resolve them. The principle of the Bill is uncontentious and very valuable. Its proposals will offer both responsible improvements in self-regulation for the medical profession and a greater sense of confidence for patients who wish legitimately to complain about their treatment. Both are welcome developments in our healthcare system.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for outlining the Bill so clearly. Having listened also to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I echo to a large extent many of the questions that she posed to the Minister.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill particularly warmly because the impetus for it came not from the Government but from the General Medical Council itself. Doubts are often expressed about self-regulating authorities. The fact that the General Medical Council is prepared to look for improvements in the law and in its procedures is welcome evidence of the council's determination to achieve the highest standards of medical performance and to provide the best possible care for patients.
The two new committees that are to be set up under the Bill—the assessment referral committee and the committee on professional performance—follow structures in line with the procedures that exist in other professional bodies. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, for example, has an investigatory committee hearing as a first instance, which is followed by a disciplinary committee hearing if that proves necessary. Therefore, the proposed new committees are in line with the practice of existing self-regulating authorities. That two-stage procedure gives members of the medical profession the opportunity to take remedial action through retraining and co-operation in order to avoid referral to the committee on professional performance where sanctions affecting a doctor's registration can be imposed. If those sanctions are renewed twice for a 12-month period, it could lead to an indefinite suspension.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to the cost of the remedial training and to the question of who will pay for it. According to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the costs of remedial training will be met by the NHS for doctors in practice within the NHS. I hope that I have not misunderstood that. It is estimated that that will increase NHS expenditure by £530,000 per annum. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I am concerned about the cost that appears to have to be
880
carried by doctors in general practice. The noble Baroness said that the cost of remedial training would be between £6,000 and £22,000. That is far too great for a general practitioner to carry. Indeed, it would not even be the total cost for a general practitioner because it is likely that while absent from his practice for remedial training he would have to pay for a locum.
I plead with the Government: the NHS should be honour-bound to pay for the retraining of family doctors. That should be done through the family health services authorities. That would ensure that a doctor's attempt to retrain so that he can become a valuable member of his profession does not become a sentence in itself which he is unable to fulfil.
We welcome the government amendments that were introduced on Third Reading in another place relating to the procedures for dealing with doctors who suffer from health problems. Those amendments are welcome because at the moment a doctor who is suspended for health reasons can be suspended only for a period of 12 months and has to appear before the health committee every year if he happens to suffer from a long-term serious health problem. That is upsetting for the doctor concerned and is time-wasting for the health committee of the General Medical Council. We welcome those amendments.
The Minister said that she will introduce amendments in this House—that is welcome—but the Government also undertook on Third Reading in the other place to table an amendment in this House relating to the preliminary proceedings as to professional misconduct and unfitness to practice procedures in order to extend the period of interim suspension. We look forward to considering that amendment in Committee.
I hope that the Minister agrees that the NHS has an important role to play in all of those issues. It is necessary that we improve the flow of information between different parts of the NHS so that when a doctor applies for a job the question of whether he is facing proceedings before the General Medical Council can be ascertained quickly. We all know of cases where such doctors have moved from one part of the country to another and been given a new appointment. That is of particular relevance to the employment of locums within the service. During my years as a regional chairman, I came upon such cases on many occasions and I could spend quite some time talking about anecdotal evidence of consultants and doctors who failed in one way or another, but I shall not do that because it is unnecessary. I very much welcome the Bill and only wish that its provisions had been in force during my nine years with the health service.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I join others who have congratulated the Minister on the exceptionally lucid and careful way in which she presented to the House the provisions of this Bill which I believe is to be widely welcomed not only by those who serve at present on the General Medical Council but also by the medical profession at large.

881
When I was appointed to the General Medical Council in 1971, I served for some years under the distinguished presidency of the late Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. During the time that I served under his presidency, it became increasingly clear to many of us that doctors were coming before the council's disciplinary procedures committees who were not so much wicked, nor had they committed criminal offences, but who were sick and deserved to be handled very much more compassionately. Subsequently, the Merrison Committee reported in detail upon the regulation of the medical profession, and the General Medical Council was reconstituted.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to a president under whom I served, then Dr. John Richardson, now the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, for the way in which he and the late Lord Hunt of Fawley succeeded in this House in establishing through the Medical Act of 1978, subsequently consolidated into the Act of 1983, the reconstitution of the General Medical Council. They also established for the first time procedures through which it was possible firmly but compassionately to deal with doctors whose health rather than whose conduct was the problem.
The health committee and the health procedures enabled the council to take action in the case of a complaint brought before it by a patient, by someone acting in a public capacity or through other mechanisms by inviting a doctor, in whose case it seemed that it was likely that his or her professional performance was being impaired by reason of ill health, to undergo a medical examination by consultants nominated by the council and, if he or she so wished, a medical examination by a consultant of his or her choice, and then through the work of the council to be able to accept, if he or she so wished, certain voluntary conditions upon the restrictions which might subsequently be imposed upon his or her practice while undergoing treatment with regular examination.
That health procedure, informally introduced, proved to be enormously successful in rehabilitating sick doctors. But where a doctor failed to collaborate with those informal procedures, there was available the health committee to which he or she could be referred. That health committee had the power to suspend that doctor's registration.
Perhaps I may at this juncture say how much I welcome the amendment which was inserted into the Bill in another place because, having chaired the health committee of the council, I found it distressing on a number of occasions to see doctors who were suffering from a long-standing illness and not responding to treatment having to be brought back to the health committee every 12 months to have that suspension renewed. That amendment is one which should be widely commended. It is now in the Bill, allowing a much longer period of suspension. It is something we should all he pleased to see.
Subsequently, under the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, who chaired that council, as one member said, with grace and distinction, it became increasingly clear to me as I served on the professional conduct committee—a successor of the previous disciplinary
882
committee—that there were some doctors who had been referred by the preliminary proceedings committee to the council's conduct procedures who were not so much wicked but whose professional performance fell below an acceptable standard. But it became apparent when I followed the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, as president of the council that the council's procedures did not allow us properly to deal with doctors who fell into that category.
It is true that over the past 10 years or more the medical professional at large has been introducing, with increasing success, programmes of voluntary audit of professional procedures, examining doctors' standards of practice and bringing to their attention in an informal way deficiencies which may therefore be exposed relating particularly to the outcome of illnesses which they have been treating or relating to the way in which they have handled certain clinical problems, but those are voluntary procedures.
I would, however, reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with most of whose comments I wholly agreed, that there is an increasing body of expertise now in the medical profession—not just examiners of medical students in final examinations in medicine, both internal and external, but examiners taking part in voluntary audit procedures and postgraduate examinations carried out by the Royal Colleges and their faculties—fully capable of forming, with lay opinion and advice, the assessment panels for which the Bill makes provision—people who are now experienced in assessing professional performance and in being able to assess a doctor's knowledge, skills and attitude. I therefore have every confidence that the assessment panels proposed in the Bill could prove to be extremely effective.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill's principle features are, first, to establish an assessment referral committee which will consider cases where doctors refuse to agree voluntarily to have their performance assessed. That is in many ways comparable to the voluntary procedures which have been in existence for some years in relation to health. That committee cannot impose sanctions on the doctor's registration, but it can require the doctor to undergo assessment.
In the latter years of my presidency of the GMC, I began to consider whether it was right to think about establishing, alongside the health committee, a competence committee. But I have to say that Sir Robert Kilpatrick and his colleagues on the GMC have come up with something very much better in proposing, as now set out in the Bill, a professional performance committee which will be a "committee of last resort"— a committee to which doctors failing to collaborate with the informal assessment procedures and proposals arising therefrom could then be referred, with the committee having the right to suspend the doctor's registration where his or her performance has failed to improve despite remedial help.
Clause 1 gives that committee its principal powers: conditions may be imposed—conditions which arc not just informal conditions that the doctor is invited to accept, but conditions which will have the force of law. Alternatively, the committee may impose suspension for renewable periods of 12 months.

883
Doctors will of course, as in all of the GMC's procedures, be able to appeal against those sanctions (on a point of law only) to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is within the Bill a very proper provision in that the committee on professional performance can order immediate suspension, where it is seriously concerned about the low level of performance demonstrated by the doctor, to cover the 28-day appeal period.
The committee will not have the power of erasure from the register because, as in the case of the health committee, the council proposes—I wholly agree with this—that those procedures should not be punitive but remedial in character. Perhaps I may say how glad I was to hear from the Minister that an amendment will be brought forward in Committee. It is clearly important that doctors who are elderly, and whose performance may be failing, should have the right, as under the Bill, to take voluntary erasure from the register (voluntary removal) as an alternative to facing the complicated performance procedures. It is crucial that that provision should not be used by a doctor who is about to face procedures under the conduct regulations relating to conviction or serious professional misconduct. We look forward to seeing the government amendment on that basis.
I welcome the Government's intention to introduce a further amendment to increase the powers of the preliminary proceedings committee in relation to interim suspension and interim conditional registration. At present, when the preliminary proceedings committee of the council forwards a case to the professional conduct committee or the health committee, it can impose, in exceptional cases, interim suspension or interim conditional registration, but for two months only. That period is not long enough to protect the public where there is a prima-facie case of serious professional misconduct. It is therefore important that an amendment be brought forward to extend that period to six months in order to allow the procedures to take their full effect.
Of course the Bill contains only enabling powers. Much of the detail of the procedures will be set out in rules to be approved ultimately by the Privy Council. I commend the enormous burden of work which Sir Robert Kilpatrick and his colleagues in the GMC have carried during the past few years in obtaining the universal approval of these procedures by the medical profession and those in the other health caring professions.
I also commend the Bill to the House. In doing so, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness for two assurances. The first relates to a defect which emerged in the Medical Act 1978—it was subsequently corrected—or which arose perhaps unintentionally after the health committee was established. It turned out that a doctor suspended under the health procedures might find his or her contract of employment with his or her employing authority ended by virtue of that suspension. May we take it that doctors suspended under this Bill will have their contract of employment preserved and maintained?
884
Secondly, I am aware that the medical profession is concerned about the cost of the remedial training. The cost of those procedures which are to be carried out by the General Medical Council will not be inconsiderable. The cost will be covered by a substantial addition to the doctors' annual registration fee paid to the GMC, and therefore the cost will be a burden on the medical profession at large. Surely, therefore, it is right that the cost of the remedial procedures is borne by the NHS, whether in hospitals or in general practice. I hope that the noble Baroness will give your Lordships an assurance on those issues. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that it gives me great pleasure, first, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and, secondly, to take part in a Second Reading debate on a government Bill that has received such enthusiastic support from all sides of the House. I too welcome the Bill and I declare an interest in that I am a practising dental surgeon. I shall try to explain the relevance of that a little later. I am chairman of Dental Protection and a council member of the Medical Protection Society.
I support this all embracing Bill, which will go some of the way to ensure that high quality professional performance is maintained by doctors whether they are working in general practice, in hospital or in the private sector. It is centred on standards of care for patients and is doctor-led.
As my noble friend the Minister said, this Bill follows the government document Acting on Complaints, which responded to the Wilson Report, and is very much in line with the new code of openness, which is the policy brought into the NHS by the present Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Acting on Complaints proposed that the resolution of complaints in the NHS should be local, speedy and more accessible and streamlined than the present procedures.
With the continual changing face of medicine, with new technologies and new techniques, it is important that professional standards are carefully monitored. Professional performance is now a factor in all aspects of medicine and I hope that eventually it will be linked in some ways to performance pay—a way of encouraging doctors to keep up to date. However, some form of accreditation, either in the NHS system or the regulatory body, could well deal with this matter before it becomes a real concern.
Although I tried to listen carefully to my noble friend's opening remarks, I cannot recall whether she covered the cost implications of the Bill. Perhaps that has something to do with a long working relationship with mercury and dental fillings! However, I remember that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, covered the costs. The GMC has indicated that it will fund Stages 1, 2 and 4 of the procedures from the annual retention fee but that it does not consider it appropriate to expect doctors in general to pay for Stage 3 of the procedures; that is, the remedial training. I agree with the GMC and the BMA that the employing body for hospital doctors—usually the NHS trust—and the health

885
authority for public health doctors should pay the full costs of remedial training. I hope that my noble friend can go a little further on this. As we have heard, there is the possibility of an inequity if some GPs have to pay for their own retraining and other doctors are funded by trusts or the regional department of the Department of Health. I should also like to hear how this might affect doctors who purely work in the private sector.
Redeclaring my interest as a council member of the MPS, I should make it quite clear that it is not a cost which—as has been suggested elsewhere—should be met by the medical defence organisations, certainly requiring a large increase in annual subscription already at a high level for indemnity purposes.
Medical defence organisations already undertake comprehensive "risk management" programmes which are expanding. They are available to all members and can identify doctors who are "at risk". This initiative by the defence organisations will minimise the number of doctors involved in this procedure and, it is to be hoped, will reduce the incidence of claims against doctors and reduce costs for the trust, health authorities and the defence organisations themselves.
At present, the GMC has no power to act against a doctor unless it has been found that his fitness to practise has been affected by ill-health, or that he has been found guilty of professional misconduct or convicted of a criminal offence. This defect in self-regulation will be corrected with this Bill and maintain the right for medical professionals to continue self regulation.
I hope that I am not venturing outside the remit of this debate if I ask my noble friend whether the Dentists Act could be opened to enable similar changes for NHS and private members of the dental profession. Doctors currently face a double jeopardy situation, where they may have been convicted and sentenced by the courts or have a finding against them of a breach of NHS terms of contract and a withholding of salary and are then brought before the GMC disciplinary committee. Current NHS regulations in dentistry also can impose a triple jeopardy on health service dentists; a withholding of fees, prior approval restrictions and an automatic referral to the GDC querying competence as well as the inevitable claim for negligence. A similar scheme via the GDC could similarly filter out poor professional performance within the dental profession.
It would also embrace the ever increasing number of private dentists, including third party funded dentists as in the Denplan scheme, so that all dentists could be more fairly dealt with and in the best interests of patients. At present, the only redress a private patient has, is to sue in law alleging negligence.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place, the Bill aims to achieve what many people say that they want when they complain; to inquire into the underlying causes of any problems; and to see that something is done to stop a similar incident happening again.
The Bill should take the heat out of medical negligence claims. Justice will be seen to be done and that justice will be educational not punitive. As with the
886
present system, feedback to the patient still allows a claim for negligence to be considered and taken forward where avoidable harm has occurred.
Should this eventually embrace the dental profession, the cost of retraining could be borne by the GDC through the annual retention fee, which might also include a competence payment. I could envisage the introduction of further compulsory vocational training for continuing registration and the supervision of further postgraduate training in order to retain an NHS list number.
During recent years the GMC has modernised itself and simplified some of its registration procedures. It has increased its lay membership to ensure that non-doctors play a full role in its deliberations. If the Government could consider a Dental or Dentists (Professional Performance) Bill, the opening of the Dentists Act would also allow similar changes in the composition of the Dental Council with more lay members so that the public could see that governance of the dental profession is more influenced by patients.
This Bill will be helpful to doctors who, for a variety of reasons, show standards of practice which are not acceptable. The remedy is in their hands and is doctor-led. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through this House.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I declare an interest in the Bill; I support it unequivocally. I am extremely grateful for the way in which the Minister outlined the difficulties of the Bill, which are considerable, in such a straightforward and understandable way. I feel greatly indebted to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, who spoke from the Opposition Benches making highly relevant points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned the difficulties about knowing what is deficient behaviour. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to address that problem. To my mind, the answer is that, as a whole, doctors understand what is good doctoring and understand what is a good way to handle patients. I doubt that it will he possible to be very much more precise than to rely on the doctor's ethos to provide an answer as to what is inadequate and unacceptable conduct.
I have listened to all the speeches with the greatest interest. Each one has touched on an extremely important subject, as did the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. However, I must confess that I listened with the greatest possible care to the words of my friend, colleague and successor, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I longed to find something that he had left out, but I found absolutely nothing. I longed to find something that he had not made absolutely clear, but the answer was the same. Had I found something about which he was wrong, I should have achieved something that I have never succeeded in achieving in the past 20 years. Therefore, I fall back on the fact that I am a doctor and the few words which I wish to say will be from the point of view of a doctor and not as past president of the GMC.

887
The idea behind this legislation is benign. It is absolutely specific to its basis that the conduct and sanctions which the conduct committee can impose do not come within this particular discussion or Bill. In the first place, what happens? The scanners, one of whom may or may not be the president, although in my case, I was, will look at about 1,000 cases of complaints per year. That figure may now be higher. At present only a very small percentage will be considered suitable to be sent on to be dealt with by the disciplinary mechanism with its preliminary committee and so on.
It was perfectly clear that there was a great gap. It is that gap between unacceptable behaviour, skills and knowledge and serious professional misconduct—which used to be called, rather horribly, infamous conduct in a professional respect—about which something needs to be done.
In my day, the council was doubling its size. There was the Merrison Report and it was not the time to tackle this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, began and did a great deal in terms of thinking about and reorganising procedures. Sir Robert Kilpatrick has done wonderful work. He has managed to talk the doctors into accepting an extension of the GMC powers. It has taken 150 years to do that. Although those of us who wish to see this Bill become an Act have felt impatient as the years have passed and have wanted to see it happen, it has taken a very short time out of that 150 years for the negotiations, which I know have been extremely difficult in relation to certain matters, to be completed successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the health committee, which has been a success. It was set up largely due to the work of the late Sir Dennis Hill, who was a man of remarkable ability and persuasiveness. He had the power to make people trust him. That has worked. Again, its actions have been benign. For the most part, they are carried out peripherally and it is to be hoped that the matters which we are now considering—knowledge, skill and behaviour—will be dealt with peripherally and not have to be dealt with by the new statutory committee.
The setting up of the peripheral mechanism will be extremely complicated and time-consuming. I am sure that Sir Robert's successor, Sir Donald Irvine, will be an ideal person to take on that particular task because he is a general practitioner. In the 150 years that I have mentioned already, he is the first general practitioner to hold the office of president.
Therefore, the wind looks fair. I believe that this legislation will work although it is not an easy matter. I hope that your Lordships will find it possible to expedite its passage so that we can get on with the work.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to start my few words to your Lordships by paying tribute to the late Lord Ennals. He was a Member of this House for 12 years during which time I too had the privilege to be here. He did a great deal for the medical
888
profession, for patients and the hospital world in general. I believe that he would have approved of all that we are discussing today.
I thank the Minister for being so cogently helpful in her introduction of the Bill. The measure is extremely comprehensive but, at the same time, short; it is very, very important. We have heard brilliant speeches from professional medical people. No one could have listened to more professional contributions.
I come to the debate as an ordinary but extremely grateful patient. I have been a patient for a long time, having had a birthday the other day. The Bill is important to me and to all people who are interested in the medical profession because it comes from the GMC. It is extremely rare in this Chamber or indeed in the other place for a Bill to receive the overwhelming support of the people whom it is hoped that it will help or put right. Therefore, the Bill is unusual. I hope that it will go through with the one or two amendments which the Minister outlined.
Clause 1 deals with professional performance. It seems to dot every "i", cross every "t" and meet every single hedge before it is galloped over. I hope that the Bill works. I am sure that some members of the legal profession will try to find holes in it, but I do not believe that they will be able to do so.
I should like to know who can report a case if a medical practitioner is thought to be below standard. It worries me that ordinary members of the public—the ordinary patients—would not want to let down the doctor who had probably been very helpful but who perhaps on occasions should, in the patient's view, be reported. How do they do that? How many reportings do the Minister and the department think are likely to be brought before the GMC? Will it be hundreds? I hope so; I would certainly not expect thousands. Moreover, can a doctor's colleagues report him? Can hospital trusts report such doctors? I presume members of the public can. Unless the ordinary person is able to report a doctor, however unwillingly, I fear that some will not be put in the firing line as is intended under the Bill.
I was very interested to read paragraph (7) in the schedule on page 9 of the Bill which says that individuals will not be identified. I believe that to be most important. However, we all know that leaks occur in all parts of public life these days. At the same time, a doctor's whole future and life might be ruined if such identification is possible. I hope that just causes will be found to make it absolutely certain that the hearings will be in private and certainly not with the public being allowed to attend. I was also interested to see that counsel or a solicitor will be able to represent people who are brought before the General Medical Council.
I have very little else to say, but way back in 1952 my late husband was made Minister of Health. He held that position for four years. They were exceptionally happy years, but they were extraordinarily disorganised. We had no money, the doctors were coming out of the forces, and nurses were difficult to find; indeed, the hospitals were way below standard. However, since then, science, technology and motivation—everything that a proper health service, National Health Service or private, has—have increased enormously. I wanted the

889
House to know how proud my husband would have been to take part in the Bill's proceedings here or in the other place. I am certain that the Bill would have had his support had he been with us today.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, we have before us a Bill which covers a very serious subject. It is both necessary and important. It deals with the doctor's standard of professional performance when it is found to be seriously deficient. FHSA members, hospital trust members, health authority members and CHC members will, I am sure, welcome any progress that the Bill makes towards raising the standard of doctors who fall below an acceptable level.
However, the people who are of the greatest importance are, I think, the patients. I feel that they will benefit most. Patients are the most vulnerable and at risk if they are treated by incompetent doctors. One only has to look at some of the results regarding women who have had breast cancer and were given the wrong dose of radiation: some of them now have useless arms.
When dealing with matters as sensitive as those contained in the Bill, I hope that all the procedures will be undertaken as quickly as possible. It has been of great concern to many people over the years that, when things go wrong when treating patients, there have often been cover-ups. Patients have sometimes been transferred to other hospitals when they have had serious complications. I remember one patient who had been given an epidural when giving birth to her baby in a London hospital. She became paralysed and was transferred, without any medical notes, to a spinal unit.
When one looks at the Bill and sees that there will be remedial training to improve doctors' professional performance, it makes one wonder why it had not been done many years ago. However, the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, explained that to us. I am pleased that the Bill covers doctors working in the private sector as well as those in the National Health Service. All patients need protection whoever they are and wherever they come from.
I believe that retraining will be paid for by the National Health Service trusts. But general practitioners, as self-employed contractors, would have to pay for any retraining themselves. Surely it would be possible for FHSAs, or the new health authorities, to help them with some training schemes. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how the GMC will decide whether the complaint is a performance or a misconduct issue. Do not many complaints involve both?
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice the very real problem in our society of alcohol and drug abuse at the workplace. Only last week, while listening to my car radio, I heard that doctors were one of the highest professional categories at risk of having alcohol problems. Very often doctors, many of them general practitioners, have an alcohol problem which they may hide even from their colleagues. That can affect their competence. If a train driver, a pilot or a bus driver was found to have an alcohol problem, would he not be suspended? Is this not a very real problem when doctors have responsibility for people's lives? Further, is that
890
not serious professional misconduct which can make a doctor incompetent? So many people with a drink problem will not recognise that they have one. How does one deal with rehabilitation if someone refuses to admit that they have a problem?
Can the Minister say whether that very real problem will be covered by the Bill? I believe that all doctors in medical schools should be given training as regards addiction so that they can address the issue, not only for their patients but also for themselves and their colleagues. I am glad that retraining is an important part of the Bill. But it seems necessary for the GMC to be able to put conditions on a doctor's activities for a period when he or she is restored to the register after having been struck off. Otherwise, does the Minister not agree that such people could slip back into bad habits? Will there be a monitoring system?
So many patients trust their doctors without reservation. With the responsibility of this important Bill before us, should not your Lordships make it as safe as possible? I hope that we can do so. I should like to conclude by asking the Minister one further question. Will there be such a Bill for dentists? That question was also posed by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the Bill. In my view it provides the General Medical Council with powers that can only be beneficial in dealing with the complexities of any situation where not only the interests of patients but those of practitioners need to be safeguarded. It provides the GMC with the kind of refinements of existing powers which, with the benefit of hindsight and practical experience, have become evident over the years and have now crystallised in the form of the measures in the Bill. Unless I am mistaken in my understanding of the position in relation to Clause 2, I suspect that the wording will require a little tightening. I have been in touch with the private office of my noble friend the Minister in that regard. Changes, however, must wait for later stages of the Bill. The Bill has been well received in another place by the major parties. Further endorsement is hardly required from me, but I wish the Bill well.
I, like other of your Lordships, have found tremendously helpful the consolidation of the Bill with the relevant parts of the Medical Act 1983 as provided by my noble friend the Minister and her department. I well remember times of yester-year when I would sit at my desk cutting and pasting little bits of legislation in order to make more quickly intelligible seemingly unravellable cross-references in Bills and Acts. I wonder why, with all the modern technology about and the huge power of even the most humble secretarial word processing software, it is not possible, within reason, immediately to consolidate every instrument in this way. How much more simple would life become for the humble politician and his professional advisers if that were so? But that is another story.

891
I extend my congratulations to the Minister. May the Bill get a fair wind.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill and support Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that the Bill gives assurance both to doctors and patients that where there is a complaint or dissatisfaction one way or the other both believe that there is a fair foundation for a hearing and a proper result will come from it. That is important both for patients and the whole of the medical profession.
Performance is important not only in very serious, complex illnesses but in minor ones. Who is to make a complaint? I suppose that I could have made a complaint based on one experience. On my way home from the House I intended to visit my daughter who was then in London. To that end, I was on my way to Notting Hill tube station. I do not know whether I slipped on something or, as the doctor whom I saw afterwards in Bath thought, I was mugged. Whatever the cause, one minute I was walking along and the next I was on the ground. I tried to get up and completely passed out.
When I came to I found myself sitting on the pavement propped up with several people around me. An ambulance was called and I was taken to a hospital, the name of which I will not give. I thought I had made it plain to those in the hospital that I believed that I had done something to my arm or shoulder. The net result was that they thought I had suffered a heart attack or something like that. At about 11 o'clock at night they discharged me on the basis that I was all right when I knew that I was not. When I was told to get dressed I knew that if I did not lean against the bed I would probably fall over. I had to ask the nurse to help me. I could not get home that night and went to see my daughter. The moment that I spoke to her through her Entryphone she knew that something was wrong. The next morning I nearly passed when getting in a taxi. My wife and doctor had been informed. My wife met me at Gillingham station. As soon as I saw my doctor he spotted that I had a broken arm.
I have great respect for the medical profession and for health service hospitals, but how can that happen? I have heard of other instances of people who have been discharged in similar circumstances or a wrong diagnosis has been made. I hope that such incidents will become less common. For someone to walk round with an untreated broken arm for 24 hours is a little disconcerting. When I was X-rayed at Bath hospital I had a pretty bad break and another problem. I do not quite know how I managed to get home, because I could not hold my arm up; it was just dangling down. How I got dressed the next morning I do not know. I believe that doctors and nurses should be able to diagnose a broken arm. Unfortunately, it occurred when a world cup soccer competition, or something similar, was taking place. England was playing that evening. They thought that there was nothing wrong with me, having treated me for a heart attack. I hope that the Bill will further professionalism in hospitals. I believe that what
892
happened to me was a disgrace. When I told people about it they were astounded. My doctor could not believe it.
I wish the Bill well and that all of the good things that have been said about it will happen. I also hope that the suggestions that have been made to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, will be taken into account. I believe that the British Medical Association, like the General Medical Council, is happy with the Bill and has only a few suggestions to make. If those suggestions can be incorporated into the Bill it will be all to the good.
I congratulate the Government. I also welcome the amendments with which the noble Baroness will deal on behalf of the Government.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, many of us who work in the City of London are often, I am afraid, automatically a little suspicious of self-regulation. But I have listened to the whole of this debate and join wholeheartedly with all noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill. A point which does not seem to me to have been made, perhaps because it is too obvious to make, is that the very existence of these new procedures will do much to concentrate the minds of the very few doctors in our excellent medical profession who are not doing their stuff. I think that it would go a long way to reduce a certain arrogance, which I have unfortunately found personally in some of those doctors, leading to the very many cases of appalling medical treatment with which all of your Lordships are familiar.
I have only one slight worry about the Bill as drafted, which concerns the difficulty which people who are perhaps not used to public arenas may have in bringing complaints. It may be that I am speaking particularly for those in isolated rural areas where the fear of complaining against a local doctor is a very real one. Often that allows such doctors to continue in practice for very much longer than they should. In that respect I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in finding some of the procedures rather complicated. It was there that my innate suspicion of self-regulation came into play, and I wondered whether in the lengthy debates which no doubt produced this Bill the procedures perhaps became more complicated than they need have done.
Certainly I worry about the question of a public hearing. I understand that it is only the doctor who can request a public hearing. That seems to me a very real dilemma. Of course public hearings are good things, but public hearings can very much discourage the kind of people who I feel should be encouraged to complain about some of the treatment they have received.
I do not know the answer to the problem I pose. Perhaps it is a problem for the guidelines when they eventually emerge. Or perhaps it is a question of making sure that the new procedures receive very wide publicity when they have been enacted, in the clearest possible terms.
I look forward to any comments my noble friend may have on those few remarks and join with all other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in winding up from these Benches I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for her tribute to my noble friend Lord Ennals. All of us, not only on these Benches but in the whole House, will miss him greatly, both personally and for his contributions to your Lordships' House. He was a champion of the downtrodden in all countries of the world. At his funeral a moving message from the Dalai Lama was read out.
There is little new that I can add to the remarks—all supportive of the Bill and certainly of its intentions—made from all sides of the House. In my view this is a good example of how a profession should regulate itself, although I accept the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on the complexity of the wording of the Bill.
The Bill has had a long gestation, as both the previous Presidents of the General Medical Council have indicated. Much of the thinking has emanated from the General Medical Council itself. The final form of the Bill is largely the work of Sir Robert Kilpatrick, the recently retired president of the GMC.
The extension of the powers of the General Medical Council to suspend doctors whose performance in their role as trusted advisers to the public is seriously deficient will be welcomed. It has already been welcomed by many doctors, the representative organisation of the medical profession—the British Medical Association—and many organisations representing patients.
Almost every citizen has been or will be at some point in his or her life a patient. There are times when a patient has to surrender his or her autonomy to a doctor or surgeon. Therefore, trust is essential. By allowing anyone to inform the General Medical Council when they suspect that a doctor's practice is seriously defective some power is put back into the hands of the patients. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, some patients may feel reluctant to come forward if they are to be named. They would not necessarily like the doctor to know that it was they who made the complaint. Can the noble Baroness say how that might be covered and whether it would be possible for a member of the public—a patient or a patient's relative—to make a complaint and remain anonymous?
If they are certain of their ground, doctors can anonymously inform the General Medical Council when they feel that one of their fellow practitioners is letting the profession down through incompetent or dangerous practice. Thus the profession is enabled to act as a watch-dog over its own members. In itself that should help to maintain good standards. No doctor who is practising adequately and as trained, both as an undergraduate and throughout his or her professional life through postgraduate education, need fear that provision. However, that provision might possibly be misused. Can the noble Baroness say whether a doctor falsely or malevolently charged with incompetence and then cleared by the assessment referral committee will ever know who reported him or her to the General Medical Council? It might be difficult to conceal that information as most doctors work in a fairly closed professional community.
894
I should like to pick up some points made by other noble Lords and reinforce their remarks.
I turn first to the question of the cost of retraining those doctors who are suspended and thought likely to benefit from further remedial training. My noble friend Lady Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked how the costs were to be met. Will they be met by the trusts, by local health authorities—which now include FHSAs—or from some other source? In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it is stated that the cost of administration of the new measures will be met by an £8 increase in the annual retention fee that doctors pay. As 100,000 doctors are registered that means that an extra £800,000 will be collected. The sum of £500,000 is mentioned as the possible cost of retraining doctors who are suspended. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, put forward a very important point; namely, that it should be possible for health authorities and other employing authorities to know quickly who has been suspended so that they do not make any mistakes.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the question of the contracts of employment with trusts or other bodies within the National Health Service of doctors who are suspended for re-education. How will those be preserved while the doctor undergoes remedial training, how long will they be maintained, and can they be put into cold storage? I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could address the problem.
In conclusion, we on these Benches can assure the noble Baroness and the House that we wholeheartedly welcome the intention of the Bill. A few points need clarification, as I outlined, and I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure us so that amendments at the Committee or Report stages can be cut to a minimum.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your wisdom, knowledge and constructive contribution to this debate. That is not surprising when there is such a body of expertise present in the House. Noble Lords are aware of the tragic consequences that can arise when a doctor's performance does not reach the standards required. I sense this afternoon that there is a consensus that it is only by having sound arrangements that we can ensure that the interests of patients are well protected.
I shall try to pick up some of the points made during the debate. First, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have supported the Bill—I think that is probably every single speaker—but particularly those from the Opposition Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked what constitutes "serious deficiency". Serious deficiency in professional performance is a departure from good medical practice, whether it is covered by the GMC guidance or not; that is, sufficient to call into question the doctor's registration. I appreciate that that is a rather woolly definition, but I understand that the GMC already publishes guidance on standards of professional conduct, known as the blue book. The

895
book's full title is Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practise. It is available to doctors and the public alike. The GMC has reviewed its advice to the profession to reflect the introduction of these performance procedures. It will publish the book again in the autumn. I hope that then it will become clearer.
The noble Baroness also asked whether one episode of serious lack of performance could trigger a GMC investigation. The performance procedures will look at a doctor's general standard of professional performance and not at individual incidents. Generally, I do not think that it will be apparent from a single instance whether there is a pattern of professional performance. However, where a single case involving a catalogue of errors or a single complaint about a series of incidents indicated that a doctor's standards of performance might be detrimental to patient care, that could trigger the performance procedures.
We very much welcome the noble Baroness's suggestion that we should send clear guidance on GMC procedures to health authorities and trusts. I think that that was also a point picked up by my noble friend Lord Pearson. There is a firm intention to communicate clearly to all employers and to health authorities how the procedures will work. The precise details though will need to be considered by the GMC, probably in consultation with the NHS Executive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, would it be possible for the guidelines to be available further down to the general public than local health boards and so on? It is at the general public level that the people about whom I am worried need guidelines in clear language.
Baroness Jay: My Lords, before the Minister replies, could the guidelines also be in language which is understood by members of the public, who may also be members of the health authorities or community health councils?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the NHS jargon which permeates every document that we try to produce. My noble friend and the noble Baroness have made a good point. Perhaps we could take it away, think about it and come back at Committee stage. I am sure that we would wish to involve people like community health councils, other organisations and consumer bodies because it is clearly no use having good systems when people do not know about them and when they are hidden from public view. I am sure that our intention is shared, and perhaps we could come back with more practical proposals during the course of the Bill.
I should like now to address the issue of whether the hearings should be in public or in private. Our intention is that the hearings of the committee on professional performance will be held in private unless the doctor wishes otherwise. I know that comparisons have been made with conduct procedures where hearings are held in public. However, the conduct proceedings address specific wilful acts and omissions by doctors and the standard of proof is different. We therefore feel that at
896
this time it is not appropriate to draw such comparisons, and the performance procedures are more akin to health proceedings.
The GMC has already consulted specifically on the merits of public and private hearings. The result is generally in favour of private hearings, but at the Commons Committee stage a clear commitment was given that the GMC would review the operation of the committee on professional performance three years after the first hearing. That commitment remains and I am sure that the issue will be addressed again.
The noble Baroness asked about standards of personal conduct—rudeness and those kinds of issues—and whether that would also trigger the new procedure. In principle, yes, it would. But it is unlikely that isolated incidents would do so. The complaint would need to suggest a pattern of behaviour which was offensive to patients. No one would surely want to suggest that occasional instances of, say, impatience would call a doctor's registration into question. It is a matter of getting the balance right.
On the question of voluntary removal and whether doctors facing a performance committee hearing could lie low, as it were, for a few years and hang on, the amendment that we intend to bring forward at Committee stage will give the GMC powers to prevent a doctor taking his name off the register. This will be done where professional conduct, not performance proceedings, are contemplated or are in train. In performance matters, it is intended that doctors should be able to remove their names from the register if they so wish. Conduct is wilful and performance may not be. Therefore, a doctor whose performance is deficient should be able to come off the register because the aim is the protection of the public, not a public example being made of the doctor.
The noble Baroness also asked how long allegations will be kept on file. The GMC has set no time limit at this moment. Any arbitrary cut-off point would, we think, be undesirable; rather, the seriousness of the complaint should in part govern how long such information should be kept on record and reconsidered when the doctor applies for re-registration.
I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for her warm welcome to the Bill. I know that she speaks from a distinguished career as a former regional chairman. I agree with her that the Bill is overdue. She asked, among other things, about remedial training costs, as did my noble friend Lord Colwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and other noble Lords. Our view is this and it is quite straightforward. We feel that doctors have a responsibility for ensuring that they keep up to date with current practice. The handful of doctors who will come under the GMC's new procedures should not expect the taxpayer to pay extra costs if they fail to maintain the standard of professional performance and level of competence achieved by their colleagues. Hospital doctors can discuss with their employer the need for support to undertake remedial action. That might include time off and the cost of courses, but it is entirely at the employer's discretion.

897
GPs are in a different position. They are independent contractors, responsible for meeting their own practice costs, including the costs of maintaining their professional skills and knowledge, as are doctors in the private sector. Doctors are already eligible to receive a postgraduate education allowance if they undertake regular training. In our view, the few poor performers should not expect to be paid more if they fail to take advantage of what is already available.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to ask a question? The fact that a doctor has taken advantage of the postgraduate education allowance and used it will never prevent him from not performing according to the medical practice that is expected. It is a completely different type of education. It is not remedial for something that is wrong with his whole 'outlook; it is general postgraduate education and it is different.
Baroness Cumberlege: I accept that, but the point that I am making is that there is an annual provision for GPs in order to have training. I do not know what the cost of the remedial training will be in every instance over the course of a year. It may well be that the allowances for that year would cover those costs. However, we are saying that if they do not, we feel that it is reasonable that the general practitioner should carry the costs—as indeed I am sure other professionals in other walks of life who require career development, or as in this case additional training, would carry such costs.
The noble Baroness also asked whether there was a better system for sharing information about doctors, especially about locums, who face the GMC procedures. All NHS employers should check a doctor's references, including his or her contract with the General Medical Council. The NHS guidance is very clear on this matter. We have recognised particular concerns about locum doctors. Indeed, the Chief Medical Officer chaired a locums working group to address the problems to which the noble Baroness referred. The working group's report has been issued for consultation. Officials are currently assessing comments made on it. Among the report's recommendations is a UK-wide alert system which would trigger procedures should there be concern about a locum's performance. The GMC may also be advised of that.
We share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in praising previous presidents of the GMC, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, who so changed the remit of the council when he prompted Parliament to introduce the Medical Act 1978. The noble Lord knows the issues so well, and his encouragement for the Bill is therefore very highly prized. I know that behind the scenes over many years he has influenced some of the thinking behind the Bill. I hope that through his many positions of influence the noble Lord will disseminate these proposals.
The noble Lord asked about doctors suspended on performance grounds and whether their NHS employment contract will he preserved. A number of other noble Lords raised the same issues. The answer is yes, in the sense that the suspension does not terminate
898
any contract of employment, or indeed arrangements with GPs, to provide general medical services by operation of law—that is, automatically. Rather, the matter is left in the hands of the relevant FHSA or employer. If the facts leading up to the suspension are serious enough, they may lead to a doctor's dismissal or de-listing. But this is not automatic. The whole matter is left to the FHSA or the employer, as is the case in connection with suspension, for instance, by the health committee.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and a number of other noble Lords raised the question of costs. The explanatory memorandum states that the cost to the NHS is £530,000 a year. The costs of administering the new procedures will be met by the General Medical Council. Costs will arise from the running of the two new statutory committees, the setting up of the assessment panels and the general support provided by GMC officials. These costs will be met by the medical profession through the annual retention fee. It is expected that when the procedures have been fully implemented, the net increase in the retention fee to cover these costs will be something like £8. For GPs, because of the operation of the GP contract, part of that rise, amounting to about £250,000 per annum, will be met by the NHS. Our estimates of the total cost to be met by the NHS are higher: £530,000 a year. That is because some of the costs of remedial training will, as I have said already, be met by the NHS.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn also asked whether other professions should introduce similar provisions for self-regulation, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The answer is yes; but it really is up to them to do the preparatory work. In this case the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill arose from the GMC initiative, following a lot of consultation and debate with the medical profession. Should the General Dental Council, or indeed any other health professional regulatory body, wish to develop proposals for change, the Government will of course be interested in them.
I sensed that a degree of frustration was exhibited by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, in having his fox shot by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I know that feeling very well indeed: I followed the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on many a platform. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, need have been so modest. His perceptions and insights have greatly enriched this debate, coming as they do from someone who has had a remarkable, distinguished and honourable career in medicine.
My noble friend Lady Macleod is right to paint a picture of the NHS when her husband, lain Macleod, also a remarkable man, made such an impact on the service. He is still extensively quoted—indeed, as recently as last week, when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health made a major speech at the Royal Society of Medicine.
My noble friend asked who will be able to report a case to the GMC, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We expect anybody to be able to make a complaint: patients, professional colleagues, NHS Trusts—anybody. It is an open door. My noble friend asked how many complaints

899
were expected. The GMC feels that the number of cases referred to it requiring assessment will be between about 100 and 150 per annum.
I am not quite sure that I fully understood the points made by my noble friend Lord Harmsworth. I am very happy to discuss them later should he wish. If he wishes to table amendments at Committee stage, we shall consider them fully. I believe that my noble friend wondered whether Clause 2 as drafted gives the GMC the powers to make rules as it considers necessary. Following consultations with the professions as to the details, the GMC has said that it will make the rules under Clause 2 once the consultation has taken place. Perhaps I may clarify this later with my noble friend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of doctors with alcohol problems and whether that constitutes serious professional misconduct. Alcohol problems are generally taken under the GMC health procedures and are dealt with already through that mechanism.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the GMC would decide whether a complaint related to misconduct or poor performance. Basically, it is the screener who will first consider whether by its nature a complaint falls within the scope of serious professional misconduct. That is concerned with one or more incidents or events which are in themselves sufficiently serious. Performance procedures, on the other hand, will generally be invoked by a pattern of deficiency within which each incident or event is not itself sufficiently serious to challenge a doctor's registration.
My noble friend Lord Milverton gave us a graphic account of some of the problems that can occur. Of course we try to ensure that mistakes are not made; and that is where training is so important, both initially and at postgraduate level. I am sure, however, that my noble friend, who probably has more experience of dealing with human frailty than most of us, will recognise that we cannot all be perfect.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, raised the issue of how difficult it is to bring a complaint, especially perhaps in a rural area where the GP is well known by individual members of the population. I believe that that issue was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. In principle, there is nothing to stop a patient remaining anonymous, at least in the early stages. The focus of the procedures is on the assessment of a doctor's performance as a whole, not on a particular complaint. But if there is a hearing, the patient need not appear if he or she does not wish to do so.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of whether doctors should know the name of the complainant. I believe that that will depend on the case, but I shall come back to the noble Lord as I do not know the answer.
I am sure that there are a number of points that I have not addressed. I shall read Hansard very carefully, pick them out and write to individual noble Lords if I have missed some of them. In conclusion, the Government believe that self-regulation is the best way to govern a
900
profession. It is perhaps a question of "Physician, heal thyself". The profession itself knows what standards its members should meet.
I am sure that your Lordships will wish to support the medical profession in its vigilance to uphold standards and its desire to have the powers to exclude those who jeopardise the integrity of their profession. I believe that it is immensely encouraging that doctors have recognised that the empathy between doctor and patient is even more important when scientific and technological advances enable doctors to offer treatments that are at the bounds of comprehension and the limits of moral and ethical acceptability.
This is an important Bill. It is part of our commitment to make sure that the National Health Service delivers the highest possible standard of care and professional performance. Our changes mean that patients in future will have even greater confidence than they had before in the treatment that they receive and, once this Bill is enacted, in the doctors who deliver that care both within the NHS and outside it. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether she has any information about the timing of the future stages of this Bill?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is an extremely difficult question. I shall have to go to the usual channels and find out. I do not know.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers 1995
5.31 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 11th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 made various changes to the laws on balloting, including the requirements that ballots should be conducted only by post and he subject to independent scrutiny. These changes mean that union members can now have greater confidence that ballots will be properly conducted.
The 1993 Act also introduced for the first time a requirement for unions to provide at least seven days' notice to employers of ballots and strikes. Notification of ballots or strike action is an important right for employers, enabling them to manage their businesses more effectively and efficiently.
The current code of practice on trade union ballots on industrial action was last revised in 1991. The draft code before the House today has been amended to reflect the changes made by the 1993 Act.
As background it may perhaps be helpful for me to say a few words about the purpose and legal status of the statutory code. The aim of the code is to set out and explain the requirements of the relevant law and to help unions and employers turn what is on the statute book

901
into actual best practice. I must stress that, as noble Lords are undoubtedly aware, the code does not—indeed, cannot—change or add to the law. It merely puts the law in a more accessible form and makes some recommendations for good practice. These recommendations are not legally binding. However, the code is admissible in evidence and may be taken into account by a court or tribunal if it appears relevant to any question arising in proceedings.
Section 204(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 states that when a Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise a code of practice, he shall, after consultation with ACAS, prepare and publish a draft of the code, consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly. A draft was therefore issued for public consultation last October, for comments by 19th January this year. In all, we received 21 responses: 14 from employers or employers' organisations and seven from trade unions or similar bodies. All comments were given detailed consideration and a number are reflected in the revised code before your Lordships today.
The revised draft code has been given a new title to cover both the balloting process which a union must satisfy to be protected against proceedings which could otherwise be brought to stop it organising industrial action and also the new requirement to give notice to employers of a union's intent to conduct a ballot or call for industrial action following a ballot. In broad terms, the most significant changes from the previous code are: first, new recommendations about the information which a union should in certain circumstances include in its notice to employers of intended official industrial action; and, secondly, new recommendations, and a clarification of the description of statutory requirements, to encourage unions to let employers know if there are significant differences between information notified in advance and what happens when the ballot is actually held. The revised code also confirms that union notices, when they are provided, must represent the union's genuine intentions.
Like the current code, after an opening section describing its scope and legal status, the revised draft code follows the sequential process involved in balloting, with the addition of the provision of notice to employers. It follows the practice of previous industrial relations codes by showing re-statements of the requirements in primary legislation against a shaded background; the remainder of the text comprises "good practice" recommendations or similar guidance.
It may be helpful if I outline briefly the content of the code. Section A explains the scope and legal status of the code, its intended purpose and the assistance that it can provide to unions, their members and others. Section B makes recommendations about observing procedure agreements and other considerations which should be taken into account before a ballot is held. These recommendations are aimed at ensuring that all possibilities are explored and industrial action is genuinely the last resort.
Section C sets out the new requirements for independent scrutiny of ballots where more than 50 members are given entitlement to vote and recommends that a scrutineer should be appointed before steps are taken to satisfy any other requirements of the law. It covers the requirements of the scrutineer's terms of appointment; and states that there must be no interference with this function from the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and that the trade union must comply with all reasonable requests made by the scrutineer for the purpose of carrying out those functions.
The code adds that it may be helpful for a union to entrust additional tasks to the scrutineer (such as the supervision, production and distribution of voting papers and being the person to whom voting papers are returned). It also recommends that unions should make adequate arrangements for scrutiny even where ballots involved 50 or fewer members, though these do not necessarily have to involve an independent scrutineer.
Section D restates the law on the method of voting; entitlement to vote without interference or constraint; and entitlement to vote in secret without any direct cost. Recommendations are made about arrangements to ensure secrecy of voting.
Finally, Section E restates the law on ensuring that votes are accurately and fairly counted and on the notification of details of the ballot result. This section also makes recommendations about procedures to ensure accurate and fair counting of votes; systems to help ensure that statutory requirements about notification of the result are fully satisfied; obtaining and providing copies of the scrutineer's report; notifying details of ballot results; and matters which a union should take into account before deciding to organise industrial action.
An issue which has been of concern to a number of those commenting on the code is that unions may be required to provide names of individual members to employers. There was a full debate on this matter prior to the introduction of the legislation and it would not he right now to go over the same ground in any detail. However, it might be helpful for me to remind your Lordships of what Ministers said during the passing of the legislation; namely, that there could be some occasions when it would be necessary for unions to give names to employers because, realistically, there could be no other means of identifying those involved. Since the 1993 Act, the case of Blackpool and the Fylde College v. National Association of Teachers of Further and Higher Education has shown that the law is working exactly as Ministers had said it would. In that particular case, around a third of the college's lecturers were union members but the employer had no way of knowing who most of them were, and therefore no way of putting the college's case to those who were to be balloted, unless the union provided their names.
It will of course he rare in practice for a union to have to give names. In many cases the employer will know which employees arc to be balloted, for example, because they pay their union subscriptions by check-off deductions from their wages. But nobody need he afraid

903
to do so since the law provides full protection for employees against dismissal or other action on the grounds of trade union membership.
This code of practice reflects the spirit and the letter of the 1993 legislation on this issue, making clear that the need to provide names arises only if workers cannot be identified by other means; for example, grade or work activity.
This code, if approved, will be a valuable source of reference for unions, union members and others. Taking account of its recommendations can only help improve the conduct of ballots, and that in turn will help continue the improvement in this country's industrial relations which has been such a feature of the last decade. Following the recommendations of this code will help ensure that union members have a proper, democratic voice in their union's decision on whether to call industrial action; it will enable employers to put their side of the argument before workers vote on whether to strike; and it will enable employers and others to have a reasonable period of notice during which to prepare for the effects of industrial action. The guidance helps explain the requirements of the relevant law, so that nobody can complain that he or she was unaware of the law or could not understand it. Finally, the good practice recommendations are aimed at avoiding disputes both within unions and between unions and employers. Following them will improve industrial relations.
For those reasons I commend the draft code of practice to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 11th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft code of practice before the House. He will not be surprised to learn that I do not much care for it. I do not care for the legislation on which it is based—the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. I accept, with reluctance, that despite vigorous opposition in this House mounted by myself and my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, we were unable to persuade either the Government or the House at that time that the legislation then proposed was weighted heavily against trade unions and was therefore unjust and unfair.
We accept, as the Minister said this afternoon, that industrial action is a last resort. I speak as a former senior trade union official. I spent a large part of my working life as an official and had my share of disputes—and resolved them. It should not be assumed, as the Government seem to, that unions exist for the purpose of running strikes. We accept that strikes are damaging, not only to industry and commerce, but often to the members themselves who have to exist on strike pay and may lose substantial amounts of money. It is a worrying time for the members, their families and union officials who feel themselves responsible for their well-being. But the right to strike must exist as a longstop. It is only forbidden by law in oppressive, despotic and undemocratic regimes. The ultimate right
904
of workers who have a grievance collectively to withdraw their labour is an important right; indeed, a civil liberties issue. Having said that, we also agree with ballots and participation by members in the industrial decisions that govern their lives. My union always balloted its members, and not only on dispute action, but also on other issues directly connected with members' employment.
Our objection to the 1993 Act is that it sought to tie up unions in a great deal of bureaucracy before they could obtain immunity; in other words, before their actions would be regarded as lawful within the meaning of the Act. The same thing applies to the draft code. In my copy the coloured sections presumably refer to the actual law while the uncoloured or white sections are the code, which is not the law but a kind of guide. In my view all that simply adds to the red tape, indeed to the hurdles that unions must surmount before they can be sure that they have complied adequately with all requirements.
The code contains great chunks of print dealing with the provision of notice to employers, the printing and distribution of ballot papers, communication with members, counting the votes accurately and so forth, none of which is in the law as I understand it. It simply adds to the amount of material that must be digested by union officials before even contemplating industrial action. It is far too much and elaborates unnecessarily, I should have thought, what is contained in the Act.
Again, the code seems to be one-sided. One would not think, on reading this material, that it takes two sides for there to be a dispute. The employer may well be culpable; may well have refused to negotiate or attempted to undermine existing terms and conditions and so forth. It is clear that in those circumstances the Government feel that employees should put up and shut up. To draw attention to what I mean, the code makes the point—this is stated on the sample ballot paper—that the member must be allowed to vote without interference from or constraint imposed by the union or any of its members. But what about constraints and intimidation—I can assure your Lordships that they are quite common—indulged in by employers?
Furthermore, paragraph 38 states that the union should ensure that nothing appears on the ballot paper which might encourage a voter to answer one way or the other. Apparently, therefore, the union may not make any recommendation to its members. Then there is the point made in paragraph 46 indicating that the ballot could fail to satisfy requirements unless the union makes sure all members, officials, employees and so forth do not, even inadvertently, exercise constraints upon those entitled to vote. That is an impossible requirement, particularly in a large union. It is true that there is a provision whereby the union executive may retain immunity by repudiating the actions of such an individual, but the action may not come to its attention for some time, perhaps not until someone mounts a challenge.
The provisions are much too sweeping and go beyond what the law, bad as it is, requires. Paragraph 48 refers to the special arrangements which need to be made to ensure that voting papers reach members who are on

905
holiday, sick or on maternity leave. That again may be asking too much of a union which may have large numbers of members and would not normally keep records of people on maternity leave, on holiday or sick.
There is then the point to which the Minister referred in his explanation, which gave us so much trouble when we debated the Bill in the House. I refer to the requirement which could mean that employers have to be supplied with the names of union members. I well remember the arguments I advanced against this when we debated the Bill. I was assured by the Minister, and it has been repeated this evening, that although the Government wanted to retain that requirement as a longstop, it was most unlikely that it would ever be used in normal practice. It now transpires that there is a case—to which the Minister referred this evening—concerning NATFHE—where the judge did not take the view that it would be a rare requirement; indeed, quite the contrary.
If the Government's view is that that requirement should exist only in rare cases, a much greater attempt should have been made to see that it was quite specifically included in the code. As it is, I can tell the Minister from my own experience that there are members, particularly those in supervisory or senior positions, who may be promoted but who retain their union membership and with that the right to have a ballot paper, who may not want to have their contributions deducted by check-off and who may not want their employers to know that they are still union members and are still entitled to vote. I made a plea on behalf of such people when we debated the Bill and it attracted a little sympathy even from noble Lords on the other side. I am disappointed therefore that more has not been done in the code to emphasise the points that were then made.
Of course the Government claim, and the Minister did so again this evening, that their so-called reforms have reduced the number of industrial disputes and have been responsible for what is claimed to be a great improvement in industrial relations. I do not agree. There has been a large increase in unemployment since the late 1970s when the last Labour Government held power. Not only that; those in employment feel a great deal less secure, as I said when we debated the casualisation of the labour market last week. Manufacturing industry in particular has shrunk in size; far fewer jobs are available in what remains. Those are all potent factors in reducing the number of disputes and the readiness of employees to risk what they have, even if it is unsatisfactory. The legislation has assisted the general sense of insecurity because unions are seen as having less power to protect their members. As I said in the debate last week, the general sense of insecurity and the lack of the feel-good factor may well give this Government a great deal of trouble when the next election occurs.
In the meantime, since the code has already been through the other place, I assume that we have no alternative but to accept it here. However, I understand from my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—who I am glad to see is with us tonight—that he believes that a section
906
of the code is actually wrong in law. I believe he has given notice to that effect. If that is so, then the Government should take it away and look at it again.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches supported the earlier stages of the trade union reforms which were brought in by successive Conservative governments and felt that a great deal of reform was needed. But as the legislation progressed, particularly the 1993 Act, we felt that the Government were going much too far and were trying to undermine trade unionism in this country. We have said on a number of occasions that it is not possible to run an industrial country and a successful economy where large numbers of people are employees without having properly organised trade unions with proper rights, properly protected.
The Government must recognise that it is time to strengthen responsible trade unionism rather than attempt to undermine it, which has been their policy all along. We accepted, and accept willingly and support, the idea of ballots. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, accepted that ballots were a good introduction. It was one of the pieces of legislation to which we gave unqualified support. The Government got what they wanted long ago and it is time to strengthen the position of responsible trade unions rather than to undermine them further.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that in much of the detail of the order there is a great deal of unnecessary burden placed on trade unions in the organisation of strikes. The right of association is an essential human right. But the right of association in the industrial scene means nothing unless there is the right to withdraw labour and that means that properly conducted and under proper conditions the strike is an essential part of an essential human right. We all know that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but when it is being used, the employees and members of the trade union should be entirely untrammelled in their right to use it within the framework of the law.
In our view the Government have gone too far in trying to restrict proper trade union activity. I should like especially to refer to the point made towards the end of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and on which we spoke with considerable force when the legislation was progressing. That is the question of the employer's right to have names of people who arc members of trade unions. To belong to a trade union is a right. It is a right of the individual person and it is not the business of the employer or anyone else to decide who is a trade unionist and who is not. There are people who do not wish the employer to know. While the noble Lord may say that the law protects them against victimisation, there are all manner of ways in which people who displease employers can he handicapped without it reaching the point of being anything which could legally he described as victimisation. We consider that the decision to give the employer the right to have those names is quite wrong.

907
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will no doubt say, as so many people on the Government Front Bench say on occasions such as this, that it is only a small matter, that it will not happen very often, that it will happen only on rare occasions. That is no argument whatever. Good law is about dealing with exceptional circumstances. In the majority of cases there are not issues that have to be raised, but it is in the exceptional case that the law is important. The fact that it does not happen often does not make a bad law into a good law or a bad regulation into a good regulation. I repeat that we accept the opportunity for strike ballots and we accept that there has to be a code to deal with that. But we consider that some of the detail of the code is very mistaken.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an excellent document which will be of considerable help to those engaged on both sides of industry in the event of disputes. The noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench objected to the code on the ground that it contained too much material. That is a criticism which can so often be made—and rightly made—of a great many government publications. But what I think the noble Baroness failed to recall is that sometimes industrial disputes are conducted not by high-powered unions with skilled and experienced management but by small unions without very much expertise or knowledge available among their officials. Therefore it is desirable, in order to cope with such cases, that there should be a very full exposition of the right conduct of a dispute of this kind.
This document will very much help in, I am glad to say, the increasingly rare cases of disputes of this kind. The noble Baroness tried to brush aside a conspicuous feature of our industrial scene over the past few years. I refer to the striking—that is perhaps the wrong adjective—the noticeable reduction in industrial disputes. It is not good enough just to say that there is unemployment and so on because unemployment itself—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will wait just a moment, I am in the middle of a sentence. I shall give way to her when I have finished it. It is desirable to remember that unemployment is diminishing quite rapidly while, on the other hand, industrial disputes do not seem to be increasing. I shall certainly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to make the point which I am sure the noble Lord is expecting me to make. Of course unemployment affects strikes. All the statistical records show that whenever there has been a high level of unemployment the level of strikes has fallen quite dramatically. We shall have to wait a long time to know whether it is the reforms rather than the economic situation which have had this effect on industrial relations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot just brush aside the fact that the number of industrial disputes has very much diminished
908
and at the same time unemployment has been diminishing very substantially. She cannot just brush that aside and say that because of low unemployment there has been an improvement. There has been a real improvement in industrial relations.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the new employment, such as it is, is often part-time and very often much more casual and much less secure? It is the lack of security that contributes to the unwillingness to risk what one has.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is another very interesting theory. The fact that the noble Baroness cannot dodge is that the number of industrial disputes is only a fraction of what it was a few years ago. Therefore, in that context, it is very desirable that the position should be set out as clearly as it is in this document. It is more than possible, as I was saying a moment ago, that such disputes as there are will be carried on by unions of very limited experience. It is therefore desirable that the legal and other factors affecting the handling of these disputes should be set out clearly and fully so as to give real guidance to those engaged in the dispute, both on the employer's side and on the union side.
I very much welcome the production of this excellent document. It is yet another example of the good industrial relations policies of which the present Government have every reason to be proud.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, as my noble friend said, I have given the Minister notice, albeit very short notice, of a point which is central to the draft code and I must therefore put aside all points other than that with more than my customary moderation, failing to argue with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, although he told us that it is important that the code should be clear to both sides—I shall come on to that point—and also with the Minister; we shall see perhaps in Hansard whether he did not justify the protection of those who were taking industrial action by virtue of the protection against dismissal of those undertaking trade union activity. If he did, he was, with respect, wrong, because trade union activity does not in this jurisdiction, although it does in most Western European jurisdictions, include industrial action.
The point of which I gave the noble Lord notice is, it is true, a short but central one to the code and it has emerged only recently, although perhaps some of us should have seen it before. But that can be said of everyone else. If it is right, the Minister must take back the code and have it altered just slightly—I repeat, just slightly—but in respect of a point which has engaged the interest of many of your Lordships. I refer to the section which requires the union, when inducing its members to take industrial action, to give seven days' notice in the course of which it must describe the members. It is quite clear that in many situations that will mean naming them, as the Government now well know from the case to which the Minister averted of Blackpool and the Fylde College.

909
When the Government describe the effect of this section they do so in the annexe on page 24. Since this is a point of law I have to ask your Lordships to bear with me in reading the precise words into the record. Paragraph 5 of the annexe states:
"A trade union which organises f industrial action without satisfying the requirements of section 226"…
that is the basic section on balloting—
"or 234A (for notice to employers of official industrial action)"—
that is the section I am addressing to the Minister—
"of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 will have no Immunity'. Without immunity the trade union will be at risk of legal action by; (i) an employer (and/or a customer or supplier of such an employer) who suffers (or may suffer) damage as a consequence of the trade union's unlawful inducement to his workers to break or interfere with the performance of contracts".
It is my submission, which is now shared by a large number of people—it was also shared by the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, during the debates in 1993 in the passage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill—that the words in brackets,
"(and/or a customer or supplier of such an employer)"
are wrong in law. In saying that, I appreciate that this passage is on a white page and not on one of the beige pages which purport to state the law. It would be extraordinary if anyone suggested that merely being on a white page was any excuse for a mistake in law in this code of all codes. It is undesirable that the code should state the law wrongly; it is improper and arguably ultra vires if it does so.
What is the ground on which I put to your Lordships that very simple point? It may be summed up by saying that the Government have extended the range of plaintiffs more widely than Section 234A, which was inserted into the 1992 Act by the 1993 legislation.
The union, in giving seven days' notice, must identify and describe in order that the employer may ascertain the members who are about to take action seven days later which are continuous or discontinuous. But the obligation to make that description is owed and expressly stated in Section 234A(1) to be owed "as respects his employer". It is quite clear that that obligation is "as respects his employer".
It does not stand alone in the Act. There is another place in Section 226A. That also clearly and explicitly imposes the obligations to give the employer a ballot paper and to notify him who is likely to take part by describing the individual members. It appears in two places in the Act. It imposes a duty only "as respects his employer".
What the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and my noble friend Lord McCarthy and myself debated in the course of the passage of the 1993 Bill, was whether or not there were different hoops through which the union must jump as regards the person who turns out to be the plaintiff. That is slightly absurd because the union must decide what to do before it knows who the plaintiff is. That is the point which we kept putting to the Minister.
Later, the Minister corresponded with me. I suspect that his filing system will retrieve the letter more easily than mine. We exchanged correspondence and the Minister agreed with me in the end that it was the Government's intention to insert different hoops for
910
different plaintiffs or applicants, as they might turn out to be. The central point of that correspondence was a different person; namely, a member of the union, who can demand a ballot to be supportive of the action as regards the hoops in the new subsection (2) of Section 62.
Noble Lords will understand me when I say that "hoops" describe the large number of acts which have to take place. There has to be a secret ballot; it has to be on paper and by post. All those requirements are of course common to the different categories. But as regards the member of the union, there is one small hoop which is not demanded. That relates to notifying the employer of the result. Regarding what we might call "ordinary plaintiffs", that requirement is inserted in the new subsection (2) of Section 226.
Therefore, we were left with this. There could be a member who, if he applied to the court, the union would get through even though it had failed in just this one small step. There could be the ordinary plaintiff in respect of whom what I might call the ordinary list of requirements such as secrecy, post and so on were satisfied. But then the third hurdle came in which was debated separately during the passage of the Bill. Two extra hurdles were inserted in respect of the employer; namely, Sections 226A and 234A. The ballot notice had to be given before the ballot and after the result the notice of industrial action had to be given to the employer.
That is absolutely clear, and it still is, but I cannot see why. If one is advising a trade union, it is no good saying to them, "Well, if it turns out to be just a member, you could have omitted that, or if it turns out not to be the employer who brings the action, you could have omitted this". But that is the law and that is what the Government confirm it to be. Therefore, it is very important indeed if the Government now say in the code that a plaintiff, who was not included in respect of the two extra requirements for the third category, can now bring a legal action which the Act manifestly says he cannot; namely, a customer, a supplier or anyone else, other than the employer in respect of whom the duty is owed. Plainly, the protection is lost only, "as respects his employer", which is the precise phrase used.
This is not a small point. There are civilised employers. The Minister looks surprised. I shall tell him why it is not a small point. There are civilised employers who are not demanding individual names. There are civilised employers who say, "We believe you ought to give seven days' notice"—the union may disagree with that—"but we are not going to ask for the names of the members as long as we have a general idea". To do that puts the temperature up in any dispute. Anyone who has ever seen an industrial dispute knows perfectly well that it raises the temperature, and some of us wonder why that provision is not there.
If a customer or supplier, and no doubt a lot of other people, can rest on the failure to give names, what is the point of the employer acting sensibly like that? It means that some other person will go running off to court, if the code is right; namely, the customer or supplier. But the law says that that is not the case.

911
Either this code is going to encourage a lot of customers and suppliers to waste their money on actions before we get it straight or the Minister can take this matter back and put it right. It is a well-known point in analysis. The 1993 Bill was very difficult to analyse. As I say, it took correspondence after the debates for it to be made clear that we were right in saying that the hoops through which the union must go are not the same as regards all types of possible plaintiff. That is the point.
Section 234A does not give the supplier and the customer a right of action if the union fails in some respect or other. There are other respects because the union has to give seven days' notice and to say whether the action will be continuous or discontinuous. There has to be no commencement of the action before the proper day in either of those categories. Giving the names is only one of the points. The most important introduction to industrial conflict law in 1993, was Section 234A.
Therefore, I urge and entreat the Minister to go away and discuss this matter before he puts it through. He can put it through tomorrow if everyone says that the point I make is wrong. I can certainly bring in a few opinions to say that the point is right. In other words, it is not my particular point. It should have been raised before. To put through a code which is clearly wrong and on a point which is of great importance, which goes to the centre of many disputes, makes one ask: how far are these obligations to be pressed on the factory floor? What goes into the law is not always what happens in real life.
The code as it stands is an incitement to people to say, "Look here, you can't give way on any of this or somebody else will bring an action for an interlocutory injunction"—because that is how it is done. Therefore, I beg the Minister to take the point seriously and although I am sure that the Government are counting their days for legislation on the fingers of a number of hands, it would not waste many hours if the Minister took this point away and got further advice on it from independent counsel.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I begin by—I shall not say "apologising" because that is probably the wrong word, but by making clear that I am probably the only participant in today's debate who was not present for your Lordships' debates on the 1993 Act. So, not merely because it is beyond the scope of the code of practice that we are debating this evening, but also because I am not in a position to do so, I think it appropriate to leave that matter on one side. Those battles have been fought and won in the past; they are not battles that should be fought again this afternoon.
Equally, much reference has been made to the Government's record on employment and other matters. We have had some kind comments from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who underscored the real achievements of this Government in improving the economic condition of this country and, with it, the number of jobs.
912
However, criticisms have been levelled at us from the Benches opposite. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said, we debated such matters just over a week ago, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I say again that because we have discussed the matter so recently, this is not the time to go over all that ground again. We had an excellent debate on that occasion and I do not believe that we can take the matter much further at this point.
A number of criticisms have been made about what we are doing. I shall endeavour to touch on them and to reassure your Lordships. A point that is sometimes overlooked is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, explained, we are talking about an extremely complicated and technical aspect of the law. In those circumstances and against that background, we do not believe that it is appropriate in generic terms to level at this code of practice the criticisms that in some way or another it is too long or too detailed.
As I have said, we are talking about something that is extremely complicated. The purpose of the document is to help ordinary people the length and breadth of the land to deal with a topic which, by anybody's analysis, is extremely difficult. We hope that the provisions will not merely help those who are involved in this area, but that they will also help labour relations in general because, as has been explained, good labour relations are good for the country.
It has been suggested that the code should equally have been addressed to employers. The answer is very simple. The law itself is addressed to unions because it is unions which can benefit from the statutory immunity provided that they follow the correct procedures. The decision to organise a ballot is solely for the union. Any subsequent decision to call industrial action is also solely for the union. The decision on which members to ballot or call out is also for the union alone. The employer has no part in any of this process. His workers may break their contracts of employment with him, and he is entitled to be informed about a ballot and any subsequent call for action, so that he can if he wishes put his side of the argument and take any possible steps to reduce the damage caused by industrial action.
Perhaps I may now refer to the case of the Fylde College and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. The reason that the statute provides that the employer should have identified for him those who are union members and who are contemplating action is, first, so that the employer can exercise his legitimate right to put his side of the argument and, secondly—the Benches opposite did not touch on this point at all—because the employer employs people for a particular purpose and if they down tools and leave for a period, he has to find alternative ways of trying to organise his business. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that he should be able to mitigate the damage that he might otherwise suffer.
I fully understand the comments made about this by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, but it would be useful to consider the relevant section of the statute. The relevant notice has to describe, so that he, the employer, can readily ascertain,

913
"the employees of the employer who the union intends to induce or has induced to take part or continue to take part in industrial action".
It is clear that that does not mean having to name names. The test is satisfied however it is done so that the process that I have described can properly be carried out.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who referred to the steps that have to be taken to ensure that ballot papers are properly distributed. Much has been made of the recommendation that the union should make special arrangements to get voting papers to members who are on holiday, sickness or maternity leave at the time of the ballot. Again, I re-emphasise the fact that the code cannot add to the law. The law requires that as far as reasonably practicable every person properly entitled to vote must be sent a voting paper and given a convenient opportunity to vote. Obviously what is reasonably practicable will depend on the circumstances. In a national ballot it would not be reasonable to expect a union to be able to take account of individual members' circumstances. But in a ballot at a small employer where perhaps only 10 or so union members are involved, all of whom are well known to the shop steward, it could be perfectly reasonable to take account of such matters as sickness or maternity leave. The code simply reminds unions that they must do what is reasonably practicable. I do not believe that that is in any way objectionable.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She seemed to be arguing tautologously. If I heard her correctly, she said that it is right that there should he the right to strike which is untrammelled within the limits of the law. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would dissent from that basic proposition. What we are concerned about is how circumscribed by the law that activity will be. In contemplating such matters, I believe that it is relevant to say that the way in which we protect unions in this regard is by a form of statutory immunity from actions in tort for inducing breaches of contract—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to me particularly. Of course, I said that there was a right to strike within the limits of the law. The whole point is that I was complaining about the nature of the law.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I was far from clear at that stage exactly what the noble Baroness was arguing in this context and where she stood in the context of the legislation as it relates to this code of practice. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention which has clarified the matter.
The final point that I should like to address specifically is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who advised me that he intended to raise a point with regard particularly to page 24 of the code of practice. With your Lordships' agreement, rather than endeavour to give a quick answer to what was on the noble Lord's own admission an extremely technical point and because I do not have the statute before me, I should like to adjourn the House for pleasure for, say, 10 minutes so that I may be properly advised on the particular point raised. It is clearly an important point. Although the noble Lord indicated earlier that he intended to raise a point on that part of the code, we
914
were not exactly clear as to the point that he intended to address. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for about 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.18 to 6.30 p.m.]
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to take instructions on the matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for giving us the benefit of his widely recognised expertise.
I understand that the circumstances pertaining to the extent and nature of the immunity referred to in paragraph 5 on page 24 of the draft code of practice are to some extent different. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. We must bear in mind that the paragraph appears in the annex to the code of practice. While it may he in a section which refers to trade union liability, it is not in the part of the code to which I referred in my opening remarks. That appears on a coloured background.
In paragraph 5 we are providing a gloss on the law. The code of practice is not a legal textbook. It is intended in simple language to give a general indication of the law in this regard. In respect of Sections 226 and 234A various immunities are granted. As I have explained, the nature of those two immunities is slightly different. Nevertheless, depending on the particular circumstances—but in any event, relating to the circumstances which are described in paragraph 5—a trade union will be at risk. We are not saying that it is inevitably the case that a successful legal action might be brought. We are saying that there is a risk that there may be a legitimate case. I believe that against that background it is a proper form of words to use in the circumstance.
It is not intended to be a definitive and precise description of the law; it is intended to be a general description of the law in this area. In that regard, I believe that it is correct that, depending upon where the immunities exist, there can under certain circumstances be occasions when those immunities can be challenged in the courts. It is merely the case that in this instance immunity can be changed in a slightly different way, depending on whether the action relates to Section 226 or Section 234A.
When describing the process which led to the order coming before your Lordships' House, I explained that there had been wide consultation on the document. It has been distributed widely and examined by a large number of people. Twenty-one specific responses were received from bodies such as the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The text was not picked up by anyone as being in any way wrong. That is important because, as I explained earlier, we are talking about a gloss on the law to give an indication of what the law is. We are not giving an exact analysis of a precise situation such as one would expect to find in a legal textbook or to receive in counsel's opinion or from a solicitor.

915
I believe that in that context what we have stated in the code of practice is correct. There is a risk of legal action. Because it does not go further than that, we are perfectly in order to have included the paragraph in that particular form of words.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to clarify the new interpretation which he has put forward and which, I suspect, is not present in the minds of the many people who were consulted on paragraph 5.
The case appears to be that the Government are saying that without the immunity in question, which includes Section 234A and the duties owed only to employers, the trade union will be at risk of legal action whether the person bringing it is the employer, the customer or the supplier. However, what is implied is that the employer will win the legal action and that the customer or supplier will lose the legal action. The Government are saying merely that someone might bring a legal action, just as they might have said that an Eskimo might bring a legal action or that the union might be at risk of a person in Tunbridge Wells bringing an action whether or not they might win.
Does the Minister assert that that is the way in which the ordinary person, to whom the code is addressed, will read it? Will not the ordinary person say, "When the code says that the union is at risk of legal action by employer, customer or supplier it is saying that the union is going to lose if there is no immunity."? That is the normal meaning of those words. Is it the Government's intention that that is not the meaning? The meaning is that there might be a legal action in one court or another here or in Scotland and that it might succeed or it might not. What is the point of a paragraph stating that when the rest of page 24 deals with who will win and who will lose?
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but it appears that he is now the one who is putting a gloss on this part of the document. He is reading it in a manner which, by his own admission, is intended to spell out that we are trying to make the document as frightening as possible. Under the statute there is a risk that one might break the law under these circumstances. It is reasonable to point that out to people, bearing in mind that they may be going forward and taking the steps that we are debating.
In no sense are we using a valued and weighted phrase in stating:
"the trade union will be at risk of legal action".
If the paragraph had stated:
"the trade union will have broken the law",
I can see that that may well not he true. However, in the generality of the case and in the gloss using layman's language, there is a real possibility that under the circumstances described there could be a risk of legal action against the trade union. I do not believe that the inclusion of those words in any way goes to the heart of the matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not a lawyer and I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn knows a great deal more about these issues
916
than I do. However, I believe that if the code is intended simply to put a gloss on the law, that gloss ought to be correct and not incorrect. My noble friend suggested that the deletion of the words,
"and/or a customer or supplier of such an employer",
would put the whole statement in line with the law as it now stands. The Minister appeared to agree that my noble friend was right in his estimate of what the law is.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point that I am making—and it was refined by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—is that Sections 226 and 234A relate to immunity. The important point is that under certain circumstances there may be immunity which may lead to an action by an employer which will not lead to an action by a customer or supplier of such an employer. It is important to look at the text. The word "immunity" appears in the heading in quotation marks. It is a general word. Paragraph 5 of the code states:
"Without immunity the trade union will be at risk of legal action by; (i) an employer (and/or a customer or supplier of such an employer)".
The employer has a wider course of action open to him if he wishes to proceed than does a customer or supplier. But that does not gainsay the fact that there are circumstances when the customer or supplier can bring an action. So long as there is a possibility that such a customer or supplier can bring an action, the proposition as stated in paragraph 5 that the trade union will be at risk of legal action is entirely consistent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
6.40 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust that this matter may he rather less contentious.
Section 13 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced a new company law procedure. It allowed directors of non-trading private companies which had reached the end of their useful lives to apply for them to be struck off the register of companies and dissolved. This new procedure will come into force on 1st July for companies registered in Great Britain. A fee will need to be paid to recover the costs incurred by Companies House in processing the applications. The purpose of these regulations is to prescribe that the fee will be £10 in respect of the making of a striking-off application.
To apply, directors have to fill in a simple form and send it to Companies House. They must also copy the completed form to anyone with an interest in or dealings with the company. Unless there are good reasons why the company should not be struck off the register, it will he dissolved within a matter of a few months.
The new procedure offers a simple, inexpensive and swift way for private companies which are no longer needed to terminate their affairs. They will be dissolved,

917
thus relieving their directors of obligations under the Companies Act which are no longer necessary or appropriate. For example, it will save the costs of preparing statutory accounts and, where necessary, having them audited.
In return, the procedure contains certain safeguards for those dealing with or involved in the company. As I said, directors must send copies of the application and anyone may object to the application by showing the registrar that there is good reason for the company not to be struck off. A good reason might be that the company is still trading or that a creditor is taking steps to recover a debt.
Processing the application will involve Companies House in staff and computer costs and relevant overheads. We propose to set a fee of £10 to cover those costs. Directors will incur other costs in making the application; for example, copying and sending the completed application form to anyone with an interest in or dealings with the company. They may also choose to seek professional advice although Companies House is providing comprehensive guidance notes to assist. I am confident that the fee is reasonable and will not deter applicants. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister is quite correct in his assumption that in relation to this instrument, we have no objections to raise. It is entirely non-controversial.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1995
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1995
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 3) Order

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order
6.43 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 31st May and 5th, 19th and 27th June be approved [22nd, 23rd and 24th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should point out that I am moving all four protection orders, although due to a printing error the Order Paper refers only to three.
I seek your Lordships' approval for four emergency orders made on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to ban fishing for certain types of shellfish in waters off the east coast of Scotland and around Orkney. They were made as a result of a build-up of the naturally occurring paralytic shellfish poisoning toxin, or PSP as it is known, in excess of the internationally-agreed safety level of 400 units. I beg to move.
Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 31st May and 5th, 19th and 27th June be approved [22nd,23rd and 24th Reports from the Joint Committee] .—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we have no objection to these orders on this side of the House. They are brought forward year after year and I should not dream of "musseling" in on the Minister's speech.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1995
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to remove from control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 the substance propylhexedrine. Until 1991 propylhexedrine was among the substances listed in Schedule IV to the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As a party to that convention, the United Kingdom was required to impose such controls as were necessary to fulfil the provisions of the convention. This was achieved by listing the drug in Class C of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act and applying the controls of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985.
However, in 1991 the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided that propylhexedrine could be removed from international control as there had been very little evidence of misuse worldwide for a number of years. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary for the United Kingdom to control it unless, of course, we have any particular domestic reason for doing so. We have no such reason. Propylhexedrine is used in some countries as a nasal decongestant and to reduce appetite in cases of obesity but it has not been manufactured or marketed as a licensed medicine in this country since 1987 and there is no evidence of its misuse here.
Before submitting an order of this kind to Parliament for approval, the Misuse of Drugs Act requires that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the expert body which advises the Government on drugs issues, is consulted. It has considered the question and is content for the substance to be removed from domestic control.
If the order is approved, we shall then bring forward an amendment which will also delete propylhexedrine from the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. The changes would take effect from 1st September. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the order is brought forward with the approval of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, we are satisfied with it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Breast Milk Substitutes
6.47 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why, in the Infant Formula and Follow-On Formula Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/77), they have disregarded the World Health Organisation code on marketing of breast milk substitutes by allowing brand name advertising to the public through the healthcare system.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this evening I shall try to focus my remarks quite narrowly on the words of the Unstarred Question. Of course, there is a much wider issue at stake; that is, the increasing recognition by both government and the health professions of the health benefits of breast feeding and the need to promote it. There is steadily accumulating evidence that human breast milk has health benefits not only in the developing world, where the use of formula milks can be a virtual death sentence, but also in the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.
I shall go into more detail later about the health benefits for both child and mother. But I believe that the Government are fully aware of the evidence which supports the benefits of breast-feeding and they have stated repeatedly that they wish to promote that further. In fact, the whole tenor of the regulations which we are discussing is to control the composition, advertising and marketing of alternatives to breast-feeding in the spirit of the WHO code of 1981, which regulates the promotion of artificial feeds for babies and young children. The implied aim of the regulations is to protect and promote breast-feeding. The regulations implement Commission Directive 91/321 of the EC, now the EU, which was itself the result of prolonged discussion by the European Commission, the European Parliament and MAFF with the overall aim of complying, as far as possible, with the WHO code.
The first United Kingdom version of those directives—the draft version of the regulations in question tonight—was issued in December 1993 by MAFF for consultation. It called for comments from interested organisations and individuals, as is the norm with proposed new legislation. It was enthusiastically backed by 60 organisations concerned with health, including the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors' Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Diabetic Association, as well as some 160 individuals. Some of them called for strengthening of the draft regulations further to restrict
920
promotion. The draft regulations were opposed, at least in the part dealing with advertising, by 10 organisations, all of which were manufacturers, promoters of distributors of infant formula preparations, as well as just three individuals.
Despite the large body of responsible professional opinion backing the draft regulations, or asking for them to be strengthened, the final version is now law and is more lenient than the draft version instead of being tighter as the professional organisations wanted. To be specific, Regulation 17, which is concerned with restrictions on advertising of infant formulae, has been greatly watered down compared with the draft. Regulation 17 reads:
"No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula except,

(i) in a publication specialising in babycare and distributed only through the healthcare system; or,

(ii) in a scientific publication".

It then goes on to cover some areas with which I am not concerned tonight. In the draft version which preceded it, which was backed by the health professions that I have mentioned, Regulation 17 started by saying the same:
"No person shall publish or display an advertisement for an infant formula except …. in a publication specialising in babycare… or in a scientific publication".
The wording, up to then, is identically followed by the current regulations. But, after that, the draft law goes on to say,
"publications of which in either case the intended readership is one of independent persons qualified in medicine, nutrition or pharmacy. or having a professional qualification in maternal or childcare".
Those words have been eliminated from the regulations now in force, and the words,
"and distributed through the healthcare system",
have been substituted.
The Minister must surely realise that that is an entirely different proposition. Mothers can be, and are, reached directly through,
"publication[s] specialising in babycare distributed through the healthcare system".
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said that the new regulations put into statutory form the current voluntary agreement with the baby food industry to restrict advertising to the general public. However, the draft regulations, in line with the WHO code, would have tightened up and further restricted advertising to mothers—for example, through the healthcare system. At present that is quietly going on in quite a big way, despite the voluntary agreement. For instance, Bounty Packs, sponsored by the baby milk industry, giving information about baby care, including breast-feeding and also formula milks, to mothers and offering tokens in exchange for usual baby care items such as shampoos, soap and nappies are being given to mothers in maternity units. Indeed, the sponsors pay 70 pence per patient to those hospitals which allow Bounty visitors to see newly-delivered mothers when they are still at a very vulnerable stage. That income is modest, hut, in a maternity hospital which receives 2,000 patients a year, it is a useful, small extra item of income.
The names and addresses of the mothers seen are collected, thus allowing further promotional material to be sent to them by the Bounty sponsors. As the Minister knows full well, the advertising industry is highly ingenious and will use the provision allowing promotion "through the healthcare system" to the full.
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, stated in a television interview that promotional material under the new regulations will not be going directly to mothers; it will only do so via health professionals. That contradicts her repeated statements, and those of other Ministers, that the new regulations represent the continuation of the present voluntary agreements, which are in fact widely circumvented—or perhaps circumnavigated. I gave your Lordships one illustration, but there are other cases. It appears that the Government have not taken the majority opinion of responsible health professionals who responded to the call for consultation, but have taken the minority opinion of the baby milk producers in watering down the draft regulations issued for consultation in 1993.
I personally feel a sense of déjà vu when asking tonight's Unstarred Question. At about this time last year, I was asking your Lordships to support an amendment which would have restricted the advertising of tobacco products in much the same way as the draft regulations in question would have restricted the advertising of infant formula milks. Then, as now, the Government opposed the proposal while accepting fully the health arguments. In fact, the reduction of smoking was actually a target of The Health of the Nation White Paper. In my view, the Government's position is manifestly hypocritical in both cases.
However, there are still some ways in which the regulations could be made to help control infant formula promotion better than the current voluntary agreement. At present the guidelines for the implementation of the regulations are being drawn up. I hope that the Minister or his colleagues will listen very carefully at these consultations to the views put forward by representatives of the health professions who are on the working group which is drawing up the guidelines. Perhaps the Minister can give me some indication of how soon those guidelines will be available.
In comparison with artificial feeding, breast-feeding has been shown in very careful studies to decrease infections, improve intelligence, decrease subsequent diabetes and reduce pre-menopausal cancer of the breast in women who have breast-fed. The cost to the National Health Service of treating the excess gastroenteritis alone caused by bottlefeeding has been calculated to he about £18 million per annum.
Britain still has a low breast-feeding rate compared with some other industrialised countries. Only 62 per cent. of women start breast-feeding at all and only 25 per cent. are still breast-feeding when the baby has reached three months of age. That rate has actually decreased over the past 10 years, whereas in Norway virtually all mothers start breast-feeding and 90 per cent. of them are still partially breast-feeding when the baby is three months old.
Norway has a strict advertising ban on baby milk promotion, as has Holland, France, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain. However, Norway has also promoted breast-feeding in many other ways; for example, it has made it compulsory for firms to allow women time off while at work to breast-feed. Not surprisingly, the perinatal and infant mortality rates in Norway are both better than ours, despite the fact that Norway has a scattered and remote population many of whose members live out of the reach of health services.
It would be possible to continue further. Indeed, the subject is complex and there are many lines of argument that I could follow further. However, I believe that I have said enough this evening to amplify the printed words in the Unstarred Question and to give the noble Earl food for thought—a description which could well apply to breast milk itself.
7 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Rea for his excellent introduction to this mini-debate. His contribution this evening has been so extensive that it leaves me with very little to say. I should like to stress one aspect of the subject and introduce a slightly different idea that may he considered.
I believe it to be generally accepted that breast is best and that breast-feeding is beneficial to both mothers and babies. However, it has become public knowledge only through research which has been conducted which has shown that it is beneficial to mothers and babies. It is unfortunate that more publicity has not been given to research which shows that mothers who breast feed suffer a reduced rate of breast cancer. We need to publicise that fact time and time again to get it across to the public at large.
My noble friend referred to déjà vu in terms of the debate last year on tobacco advertising. It is interesting to note that tobacco products carry a health warning. One of the suggestions that I make tonight is that breast milk substitutes should carry a health warning similar to that relating to tobacco products. I believe that it would be sensible for breast milk substitutes to carry words to the effect that the use of those products would increase the risk of breast cancer. It has been elucidated through scientific research that this is a fact. It seems only sensible that we through government action should ensure that that fact is widely publicised. It seems logical that, using the precedent of the health warnings placed on the packaging of tobacco products, we should use a similar system for baby milk formulas and like products.
One of the matters that emerged strongly in the remarks of my noble friend was that, on the one hand, those in the health field in a professional capacity recommended one course of action and, on the other hand, the commercial interests recommended another. It is a little disturbing, but not surprising, that the Government have sided with the commercial interests. I believe it is only sensible that we in Parliament recognise the problems of commercial imperatives. It is

923
a little sad that the Government seem to be able to listen only to the commercial interests and not to professional reports and concerns.
One wonders whether the problem should be viewed in a slightly different way. I draw an analogy with the defence industries. We all know that one of the problems facing those industries is the reduction in demand caused by the peace dividend following the end of the cold war. For a number of years my party has called for a defence diversification agency to ensure that the talents, commercial acumen and abilities of the commercial enterprises that produce defence products can be harnessed to produce peaceful products. I believe we have to recognise that, like the defence industries, here is a whole industry that produces breast milk substitutes. We need to recognise the importance of those commercial interests. They provide employment and economic activity. Perhaps it is sensible to consider the creation of a baby milk diversification agency to look at and develop ways in which the commercial interests, which at the moment produce baby milk formulas, can be harnessed and used in a more beneficial manner. I have been considering this matter for only a short time. The idea came to me a week or so ago. For example, instead of these commercial interests providing a product that is harmful to mothers and babies, perhaps they can produce a product, which may be similar and may use the same technology and raw materials, for use in the pet food industry. Instead of providing a product that is harmful to human beings, perhaps they can provide a product that is beneficial for pets which the British public love so dearly and for which they want to provide nutrition.
That is only one suggestion for diversification of the commercial interests away from the anti-social activities in which they are engaged at the moment into more socially beneficial areas. I notice that my remarks have brought smiles to the faces of some noble Lords who sit on the opposite Benches. But I hope that this matter can be considered seriously. This matter has immense implications for the health of both babies and their mothers. By stressing the risk run by both mothers and babies due to bottle feeding, the fact that breast-feeding is healthy for mothers, and the possibility of the diversion of the commercial interests into a socially responsible activity which will not deny them their operation entirely, we may go forward on this subject.
7.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this subject in his Unstarred Question. It is a pity that as well as having a qualified medical practitioner speaking in the debate we do not have a noble Baroness to speak also. It is unfortunate that on a subject which involves so much the interests of women and their children it should be an all-male debate. But I am quite sure that, given the usual care and concern that noble Lords give to their speeches, it will not be that much weaker.
My reason for speaking in this short debate is that I have been aware that for a number of years the World Health Organisation has taken a fairly strong line on the
924
whole business of the worldwide marketing of breast milk substitutes. Of course, in the third world they have created considerable problems, not just because of the nature of the products themselves but because of the radical changes in behaviour, particularly in tribal areas; for example, the mixing of milks with dirty water on some occasions and so on. One hopes that that kind of problem does not prevail in a country such as ours, although it may.
In 1981 when the argument was raging on a worldwide basis, the British Government signed up to the World Health Organisation's international code in relation to the marketing of breast milk substitutes. That draft code was concerned with the dissemination of totally impartial and non-commercial information to nursing mothers. That is an admirable aim. It did not preclude the passing of authorised information to health professionals in this area.
In 1990 the Government signed up to a European declaration—the Innocentri Declaration—which had two aims. They were to take action to give effect to the principles and aims of the articles of the code and also to stimulate imaginative legislation by European governments to protect the breast-feeding rights of working women. The Government saw no difficulty in signing up to that declaration.
Then in the early 1990s we had draft regulations on the subject. They were followed in 1995 by a statutory instrument. All of those came close to the requirements of the World Health Organisation. Then the Government published The Health of the Nation, which gave great weight to the encouragement of breast-feeding by nursing mothers.
The present regulations which we are discussing represent an important departure from the principles of that international code to which the Government acceded. Quite correctly, the Government sought the views of a number of organisations. A list of 48 organisations has just been shown to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The majority advised that we should not change the practice of excluding commercial advertising to nursing mothers but should adhere closely to the original guidelines laid down by the World Health Organisation. There was a small number of those who felt that the rules should be relaxed. Not surprisingly many of them represented commercial interests in the artificial milk manufacturing industry. That is where the anxiety lies.
The manufacture of breast milk substitutes is a very profitable business. Between £5 million and £7 million a year is spent on advertising these products. I do not know how much the Government spend on their literature encouraging and recommending to nursing mothers that they make every attempt to continue breast-feeding as long as possible. (The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just whispered in my ear that the figure is £100,000. That is derisory in comparison with the large amounts spent by commercial interests on advertising their products.) It is curious that, against all the advice of non-commercial organisations, the Government have decided that the views of the commercial lobby should prevail in this way.

925
I do not want to go into detail, because the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has given us a good and succinct account of the benefits of breast-feeding. After all, mothers have been breast-feeding since the beginning of time and we are all here. In those countries where breast-feeding is still the norm a very high percentage of mothers continue breast-feeding until a late stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, indicated, in the Scandinavian countries the figure is between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. However, they have the social security support necessary to enable them to do so. That is an important point which was rather surprisingly raised somewhat obliquely by other noble Lords. If one is seriously to encourage women to continue breast-feeding, one has to create the financial circumstances in which they can do so. That may well have been one of the considerations that the Government had in mind in arriving at their decision to allow the further dissemination of information.
I am sure that when he rises to answer the Question the noble Earl will tell us that the Government are seeking to increase the quality and amount of information available to nursing mothers. I hope that he will not say that because I shall not believe a word of it. I do not believe that other noble Lords will either. We all know that everything that is advertised is advertised selectively and, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, highly ingeniously. Any sensible person would come to the conclusion, as did many of the 48 bodies that advised the Government, that what is needed is appropriate information provided by professionals so that women can make an informed choice rather than being fed modern promotional information by way of videos, information packs with free gifts and all the paraphernalia of modern commercial advertising.
Here again the Government have lost sight of the main issue. It is not the interests of commercial groups or the interests of doctors; it is not even the interests of mothers. It is the interests of babies. Have the interests of babies been properly considered? The question of whether if one is breast-fed for three months one is less likely to have migraine, gastro-enteritis or whatever is far too technical for me. However, it seems to me that the Government have moved too far on the side of commercial interests. I shall be very interested to hear how the noble Earl will explain the swift decision to come down so strongly on that side.
7.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for initiating it, and I welcome the opportunity to reply to some of the points raised by noble Lords who have spoken.
First, I should like to emphasise the Government's commitment to the promotion of breast-feeding as the hest means of nurturing a baby. That is based on medical advice which is quite unequivocal about the advantages of breast-feeding for both mother and baby, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, rightly pointed out.
926
Government policies have consistently supported breast-feeding. That is reflected in the steps that we have taken and are still taking to promote it. To take two examples, in 1988 the Government set up the very successful Joint Breast Feeding Initiative as a pilot project to assess new ways of supporting mothers who choose to breast-feed; and in 1992 the National Breast Feeding Working Group was set up. Fresh guidance on breast-feeding based on its good work has been issued to the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, stressed the importance of getting the message across to mothers of the importance of breast-feeding. The guidance recently issued to the NHS on breast-feeding lists the benefits of breast-feeding to mothers as well as to babies. The guidance has been widely circulated among healthcare professionals.
We do not believe that the new Infant Formula and Follow-On Formula Regulations 1995 weaken our commitment to breast-feeding. All noble Lords who have spoken today have criticised the Government for not implementing the WHO code. They should remember that the code has been developed to meet the needs of a large number of countries which inevitably have very different economic and social conditions. The code consists of aims and principles despite its rather legalistic wording. It states that governments should implement its principles and aims in a way that is appropriate to their social and legislative framework. That is what we have done.
I turn now to the specific points about advertising. The WHO code effectively prohibits advertising of infant formula, although it allows some information and supply of product samples to the healthcare system. The UK has never gone so far as that recommendation. Since 1983 our industry has operated in accordance with a code of practice which was drawn up in consultation with government departments and health professionals. It allows advertising in the healthcare system where it is under the control of the healthcare authorities.
The EC Directive 91/321 also did not go so far as the WHO code. It allows advertising in publications specialising in baby care and in scientific publications and lays down detailed rules about the content of the advertising. It also allows member states to he more restrictive if they wish. Indeed, the UK's code of practice is more restrictive than the EC directive.
Before draft implementing regulations were issued for consultation, the Government made it clear that the UK's existing restrictions would be maintained. Nevertheless it was open to us to explore the reaction to a more restrictive option. Therefore, in the draft regulations it was proposed that the controls on advertising should be quite far reaching, allowing advertisements to appear only in magazines where the intended readers would be professionals involved in maternal and baby care. It was no surprise that these proposed controls generated a considerable number of responses to the consultation, split between two opposing views. One view was that, while supporting the advertising controls proposed, the Government should go even further and use the directive's option to its full extent to ban all advertising of infant formula.

927
The opposing view was that we should not use the option at all and we should stick to the minimum controls required by the directive. The latter view drew attention to the Government's policy of deregulation and the thrust of my ministry's legislative programme: only to introduce regulation where there is no viable alternative.
There was also very strong feeling, and it is one that I share, that such strict controls would impinge upon a mother's right to have access to information. Those mothers who are not able to, or choose not to breast-feed, have a right to decide for themselves what is best for themselves and their children. Who are we to say that a mother cannot make a judgment for herself? She should also have sufficient information so that her decision is an informed one.
Industry takes the view, and many agree, that advertising of infant formula is not about persuading mothers not to breast-feed, and to bottle-feed their babies instead. Rather, it is about giving mothers, who have already decided to bottle-feed, information about the infant formulae available so that they may make their own choice about the product they wish to select for their baby.
However, while not denying the validity of such views, the Government are, as I have already said, fully committed to supporting the promotion of breast-feeding. We were therefore very conscious that to adopt only the minimum in the directive would have meant controls that were less restrictive than those already in place under the voluntary agreement with the industry. This, we decided, did not provide the support which the promotion of breast-feeding deserves.
It was only after very careful consideration that we concluded that the option which best served this dual purpose was the one that has been operating voluntarily and successfully in this country since 1983. This means that advertising of infant formula will continue to be allowed but only in baby care publications distributed through the healthcare system and in scientific publications, and in certain trade journals not seen by the general public. Although it may be seen to ignore the majority, to paraphrase the noble Lord's words, the force of the argument was with the minority.
This does not mean, as some have argued, that manufacturers will have even more access to advertise. The wording of the regulations also specifies that such publications must be
"distributed only through the healthcare system."
Furthermore local healthcare units will continue to exercise their own judgment about the baby care publications, containing permitted advertisements, which they wish to accept for distribution by them or to be available in places such as waiting rooms or pre-natal clinics.
I am aware that during the debates on these regulations in another place and indeed in your Lordships' House tonight, figures running into millions of pounds have been quoted as the amount the baby milk industry spends on advertising. This amount has been set alongside expenditure by the Government on information about breast-feeding, as if to show a
928
difference in commitment towards ensuring that mothers receive appropriate advice. Quite apart from the fact that the industry produces information on breast-feeding and baby care—some of which is quite excellent and unbiased—I would also point to a source of advice for mothers that is not only beyond the ability of infant formula manufacturers to imitate, but also something that they cannot buy—the on-going face-to-face contact with healthcare professionals. No leaflet or magazine can substitute for the opportunities women have to talk through their expectations, concerns or experiences with an appropriately trained healthcare professional. Advertising breast-feeding is an integral part of the day-to-day work of midwives and health visitors. This is why the Government have decided to commit some of the money they spend on supporting breast-feeding to the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors' Association's joint programme Invest in Breast Together—to help improve the quality of advice and support these health professionals are able to give mothers and mothers-to-be.
Much has been made of the fact that during the consultation health professional bodies expressed support for a total ban on advertising. But the results of at least one independent survey would seem to suggest that some of their members think differently. This survey suggests that a ban on advertising of infant formulae is opposed by the majority of health professionals involved in the care of mothers and babies. It seems, from the survey, that professionals at the sharp end agree with the Government that a limited form of advertising should be available. This is the best way to ensure that mothers who wish to choose not to breast-feed make that choice in informed circumstances with professional advice readily available to them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed to the breast-feeding rates in other countries. The basis of the collection of statistics like that can vary enormously from country to country. That makes it extremely difficult to compare the true rates of breast-feeding. A range of complex social, cultural and psychological factors influences a woman's choice on how to feed her baby. Such things as the attitude of friends and family, public attitudes, the particular difficulties which a mother may experience and what best suits her lifestyle all play a part.
What I do not accept is that the limited and restrained amount of advertising of infant formula that we allow in this country overrides all those other considerations and plays a vital part when a woman makes her decision on how to feed her baby. But what is not in dispute is that our breast-feeding rates are lower than we wish them to be. We must do what we can to improve the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested that infant formula was harmful. Infant formula is harmful in the sense that it can cause an increased incidence of gastroenteritis but the healthcare professionals should make mothers aware of that. At the end of the day, it is for mothers to make their own decision. That is brought out clearly in the Government's publications.

929
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out that Bounty pays hospitals for access to new mothers—something that I learnt at first hand in the past few months. If health professionals are so concerned about Bounty's access to new mothers, they are perfectly free to take steps to withdraw that co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that there should be a health warning on formula products. He said that the product will increase the chance of breast cancer. There is already a requirement in the regulations that the packaging must include a statement, as follows:
"recommending that the product be used only on the advice of an independent person qualified in medicine, nutrition, or pharmacy or having a professional qualification in maternal or child care".
It is difficult to see how we could go much further than that. It is the professionals who should be pointing out to mothers the risks of not breast-feeding.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what progress was being made by the working party implementing the—
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. He mentioned the names of the professionals through whom infant formula information is given. I understood that that was a stipulation in the draft regulations that has been withdrawn from the current regulations. Is the noble Earl saying that those professions are the only ones through which the information is given now? Is it stated in the current regulations or in the draft regulations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the current regulations, advertising is permitted only through the healthcare system and certain publications. I am not sure whether the noble Lord referred to the point that I just made in response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about labelling. My point was that, as I said earlier, healthcare professionals are in the business of advising mothers and mothers-to-be about the best ways of feeding their babies. If they are conscientious, as we know them to be, they will draw attention to the risks and benefits associated with either method.
As I was saying, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me what progress was being made by the working party implementing the regulations. I assume from the noble Lord's remarks that he was referring to the group set up by the Department of Health to prepare the "Secretary of State's guidelines" as referred to in Regulation 21(3) (b). These are guidelines in respect of the donation of educational and informational equipment or material by manufacturers and distributors of infant formula. The working group comprises representatives from the appropriate healthcare professions, industry and Baby Milk Action. The Department of Health intends to issue draft guidelines based on the work of this group for consultation towards the end of the summer, with a view to issuing the final guidelines by the end of the year.
930
The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Monkswell, referred to the difference in the Government's attitude towards tobacco advertising and advertisements for infant formula. Both noble Lords will be aware from what I said that we have not banned advertisements for infant formula. We have set limits on where they may appear, bringing them very much under the influence of the healthcare professions. A person's decision to smoke tobacco is one that directly impacts on him or her as an individual. The Government believe that voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry provide the best way of controlling its advertising and promotion. A mother's choice of feeding method, however, bears directly on her baby. For that reason, we believe that mothers should have the opportunities to talk through all the issues surrounding this decision with an appropriate healthcare professional. The restrictions on the advertising of infant formula have been developed to protect and promote breast-feeding so as to encourage mothers to give their child the best possible start in life.
We considered most carefully the comments of those who responded to the consultation exercise and the views of another place before deciding the final form of the regulations. I am therefore aware of the great strength of feeling that this issue understandably generates from all sides of the argument. The Government remain committed to the promotion and protection of breast-feeding as the best means of nurturing a baby. However, we also remain convinced that mothers have the intelligence to decide for themselves what is best for their baby, and that this limited form of sensible and responsible advertising will not cloud their judgment. I believe that the balance we have struck is the right one.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may state for the record that the figure of £100,000 spent by the Government on promoting breast-feeding that was attributed to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, should have been £150,000. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether that is the true figure.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my understanding is that the cash sum expended on promotional material was something of the order of £130,000 to £150,000, but I will take further advice. It is in that region. My point, however, was that there is a hidden effort, as it were, or a hidden sum of money being spent on the promotion of breast-feeding through the day-to-day work of healthcare professionals whose job it is to advise mothers. That is an extremely important element in the Government's effort to promote breast-feeding among the many other initiatives that we have taken.

Sheffield Assay Office Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  UN Conference on Women, Beijing
  UN Conference on Women, Beijing
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Principles and Objectives
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Principles and Objectives
  Civil Nuclear Plant: Protection
  Civil Nuclear Plant: Protection
  Working Mothers: Select Committee Recommendations
  Working Mothers: Select Committee Recommendations
  Fissile Material Stocks
  Fissile Material Stocks
  Corporal Robert Strong
  Corporal Robert Strong
  Armed Forces: Serious Accident Procedures
  Armed Forces: Serious Accident Procedures
  Research Councils: Technology Foresight Response
  Research Councils: Technology Foresight Response
  Somerset House
  Somerset House
  Civil Enforcement Agents
  Civil Enforcement Agents
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960: Review
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960: Review