Sitting of 16 March 1995

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read. To be considered on Thursday 23 March.
QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current progress of the peace process.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about recent progress in the peace negotiations.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Representatives of the Government continue exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein arid the loyalist parties. We have made clear the need for constructive discussion on the decommissioning of arms and for the parties to join in an exploration of the ways by which this can be most effectively achieved.
    Mr. Soley: Given the considerable achievement by everyone, including the Government, of keeping the peace process moving, can we make sure that we do not get bogged down on the arms issue, which could be part of the normal negotiating procedure? I think that the Secretary of State will find considerable support in all parts of the House if he proceeds in that way although he might not find support for it when he picks up a British or American newspaper.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the outset, but it is important for substantial progress to be made on the issue of decommissioning arms before parties can enter discussions with the Government on political matters. I agree very much with what was said yesterday in Congress by Mr. Holbrooke, the Assistant Secretary with
    1010
    responsibility for European and Canadian affairs, who said that decommissioning should begin now and should not wait until the end of negotiations.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, for the progress of the peace process to continue, it will be necessary to maintain the confidence of the nationalist community? Does he not recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is seen by many in that community as a sectarian force, and does he not think that some offer of reform and restructuring might assist in ending the log jam in the present negotiations and discussions?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I wish to pay a tribute to the RUC, whose steadfastness has done a great deal to lead to the ceasefires some seven and a half and six months ago respectively. Secondly, the RUC is well aware of the need to acquire, retain and enhance confidence right through the community, including the nationalist community. In that it is having considerable success now that it does not have to spend time in anti-terrorist operations to the extent that it used to. Thirdly, questions of restructuring the RUC are way beyond the mark. The RUC and the police authority together are sensibly engaged on examining the way in which the transition to more peaceful circumstances may be managed.
    Mr. Hain: May I wish the Secretary of State a happy St. Patrick's day tomorrow? Opposition Members are united in supporting his determination to progress the peace talks. I wish that that were true of all his hon. Friends. I urge him to resist the determination of those weary old warhorses who have signed early-day motion 803 to keep Sinn Fein from the negotiating table. They seem obsessed with that. It is vital to get Sinn Fein, along with all other parties to the dispute, around the negotiating table as soon as possible so as to maintain the momentum.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman began very well with his question, for which I thank him, but it deteriorated fairly soon afterwards. I do not recognise his description of any of my hon. Friends. All hon. Members, my hon. Friends included, wish to see the process of talks towards an overall political settlement resume and succeed. The hon. Gentleman said that Sinn Fein should be part. If it can show itself to be like any constitutional party and no longer inextricably linked with or connected to a paramilitary organisation, that will become possible as far as the Government are concerned. But if peace has come for good, why can it not give the assurances for which we have asked and which I have communicated to all hon. Members in a letter which I wrote this week?
    Sir James Kilfedder: Is it not sickening that the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, should describe himself as a "man of peace", unless of course he is referring to the fact that his terrorist organisation has been responsible for sending countless men, women and children to the peace of the grave? Despite the ballyhoo in Washington, may I urge all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland in the meantime to engage in meaningful dialogue either on the framework document, or on any other document that may be produced for those talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to words that, along with many others from that quarter, a large number of people throughout the United

    1011
    Kingdom and more widely find hard to take. On the second part of his question, I warmly agree that it is of the highest importance for constitutional parties to engage in discussion of those issues, which must inherently be interwoven in any final accommodation or settlement. I hope that that will come about. I believe that it will.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the long list of Government concessions already given and pocketed by the IRA terrorists, will the Secretary of State inform the House of any further concessions outstanding or intended to be granted in the foreseeable future? Does not he understand the frustration and anger in the community at such rewards being given to unrepentant IRA murderers, and the insult that that causes to law-abiding citizens in the community?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Since I do not recognise that any concessions—let alone rewards—have been made to the IRA, it follows that I cannot give notice of any further ones. There will not be. Peace-loving constitutional people in Northern Ireland and more widely have deep hostility to those who claim that they are committed to peace and democratic methods, and who cannot and refuse to give the assurances that the Government have asked for: that they are prepared to deal seriously and constructively with the question of getting rid of the arsenal of arms they have, which is appropriate only to an army, and not appropriate to people who are concerned with peace.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Can my right hon. and learned hon. Friend confirm, as he made clear in his recent Washington statement, that, in the policy and principle of progressive disarmament, we have the best hope of delivering all parties into substantive talks, and that only those talks in that circumstance can deliver peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very glad to reiterate to my hon. Friend what I have said time and again, as has the Prime Minister—that constitutional parties and politicians cannot be expected to sit down and discuss the future structures of Northern Ireland with people who, by implication, reserve for themselves the right to go back to the use of arms, which they have used with such devastating and evil effect over so many years.
    Mr. Maginnis: Since Martin McGuinness, who leads the Sinn Fein delegation to the exploratory talks, and Gerry Adams, who now rubs shoulders with President Clinton, were both flown to the Whitelaw Cheyne walk talks in 1972, has the Secretary of State any intelligence that he can share with us as to when those two individuals cut their links with the IRA and became democrats? We would all be interested to know that. Since the Prime Minister suggested on 16 January that the IRA and Sinn Fein were two separate organisations, and the Secretary of State told us on 7 March that they were still inextricably linked, did the Prime Minister ignore intelligence that was available to him at the time, or does the Secretary of State have new intelligence that he can share with us? We would appreciate some elucidation on that issue.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Over many a long month and year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and the hon. Gentleman have acknowledged and asserted that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they are separate
    1012
    organisations, linked inextricably as they are. The hon. Gentleman knows very well the capacity in which Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams came to London when they met the noble Lord Whitelaw, and he is perfectly entitled to make that point. However, what I have to do and what I have to urge others to do is to look forward and encourage those who now claim to be politicians who are committed to peaceful ways of resolving political disputes and issues. We must encourage them to demonstrate that, because only they know their true intentions. We have to go by objective outward and visible signs, and it is those for which we are calling.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unwise to overlook the fact that the vast majority of the nationalist community have been involved in a peace process over the past 25 years, and that during that peace process over those long, difficult and dangerous years, that large section of the nationalist community kept alive their faith in the political process?
    Does the Secretary of State further agree that, when we reach a stage, as we should very soon, where, in effect, the political process supersedes the peace process, we can start to do what we all set out to do—to create a solution to a very serious problem? Does the Secretary of State agree that the longer a peace process is seen to operate in isolation from a political process, the more difficult it will be to solve the problems that we have to solve?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked at the beginning of his question—that the overwhelming majority of the nationalist community were wholly committed to peaceful ways of dealing with political matters and condemned with disgust the violence that was perpetrated in the name of their cause. That is absolutely true. That is expressed in the enormous majority of nationalists in a recent poll—over 90 per cent.—who called upon the IRA to surrender their arms.
    We all want to see—we believe that it is the only effective means of achieving stability in Northern Ireland—a process by which constitutional politicians sit down and discuss the issues and reach agreements about them. That is the way forward and I believe, therefore, that it is much more propitious for that that peace should be established. That is the way in which they are linked as the hon. Gentleman said.
    Ms Mowlam: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Opposition want progress to be made on the decommissioning of arms, but we do not want that issue to become a stumbling block in the peace process because the talks are crucial to keeping the momentum going. In that light, will he clarify to the House some of the statements that he made in answer to earlier questions? He has asked for "visible signs" and for "clear and constructive assurances". Can the Secretary of State be more specific about what he was referring to? At one point he referred to decommissioning beginning now. It might be helpful if he could clarify whether that is a precursor to dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I was saying that it is only the IRA and Sinn Fein who know what their true intentions are. The rest of us listen to their words, but we have to make up our own minds as rational human beings by reference to what they say, what they do and, more aptly, by what they do not do. That is what I meant. I drew

    1013
    attention to what was said by Mr. Holbrooke on the Hill yesterday to show how important it was that decommissioning should commence.
    I made clear in the letter that I sent to all hon. Members the other day what was necessary for exploratory talks. I said:
    "Before Ministers will participate there must first be a clear and reliable assurance from Sinn Fein that constructive discussion—particularly in achieving substantial progress on decommissioning arms—would be facilitated and accelerated by Ministers joining the dialogue."
    In other words, there is no magic formula which is the one and only one which can possibly be espoused. Another way of putting it would be to say that they have got to assure us of serious and substantive talks designed to lead to concrete steps on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. You know it when you see it; let us not get tied down to a legalistic approach to something that is very simple and easily understood.

    Private Lee Clegg
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in discussing the release on licence of Private Lee Clegg.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Private Clegg was informed last week that his case will be referred to the life sentence review board for consideration at its meeting on 6 June.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The case was reviewed on 20 January, so why was it so long—until last Monday—before we found out that it is to be reviewed again in June? The life sentence review board met in February and is to meet again in April, but we are told that Private Clegg will have to wait until June. Is it not the Secretary of State who takes the final decision on the recommendations? When will he be in a position to announce Clegg's release in view of the weight of evidence that proves that Clegg was not responsible for what took place?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern and I wrote a letter to him that he should have received yesterday or today. In line with normal procedures, Private Clegg's case has been reviewed with a view to determining when it should be considered by the life sentence review board, the body which advises the Secretary of State on the release of life sentence prisoners. The question of eligibility for release on life licence is, rightly, always considered with great care and in great detail. I am satisfied that 6 June is the appropriate date for consideration of the case by the board.
    Mr. Brazier: Further to the previous question, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to include in the review of such cases, with which he is assisting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the fundamental question whether it is possible in principle for a criminal offence of any sort to occur during a volley of shots, the first of which—indeed, all but one of which—was deemed to be legal, given that under British law one has to have a guilty intent to be guilty of a crime of this kind?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Again, I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in these matters. He will know the terms in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced the review of the law of
    1014
    murder. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the central feature of the criminal mind, known to lawyers as the mens rea, and I do not doubt that such matters will be under consideration.

    Framework Documents
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the response in Northern Ireland to the framework documents.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations and of what general nature he has received following publication of the framework documents; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (M r. Michael Ancram): "Frameworks for the Future" was published on 22 February. It is too early to make a full assessment of the response in Northern Ireland, and many people and organisations are still studying these complex documents before responding. So far the Northern Ireland Office has received 147 letters of varied content from members of the public and from Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reaction from the parties in Northern Ireland suggests that the nationalists feel that their views are well represented in the framework document? Has not the time therefore come to provide some cheer and comfort to the Unionists? To that end, will he continue to place great emphasis on the need to decommission IRA arms and assure the House that he will consider fully and favourably the proposals contained in the Unionist parties' own documents?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises a number of issues. On his final point, we have made it clear that we shall consider and discuss any documents put on the table for discussion about the future of Northern Ireland which address the issues. It is important to recognise that there are a number of interlocking issues across a number of different relationships that we have discussed many times in the House which must be addressed if we are to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. Any suggestions that address those issues—wherever they come from—which are capable of securing agreement are matters that we would certainly wish to discuss with the parties. I give that assurance again.
    As for the decommissioning of arms, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has this afternoon already clarified the Government's position. I merely add that it is a matter of fact that if we are talking about sitting round a table to come to an agreement on a settlement for Northern Ireland and the parties round it are asked to join parties such as Sinn Fein, they will not do so unless they are satisfied that there has been a sufficient decommissioning of arms by the paramilitaries for all parties to be present on the same basis.
    Mr. Greenway: What time scale does my hon. Friend have in mind for talks on the framework documents? Is he aware of the intense interest of the people of this country in the resolution of the problem,

    1015
    and especially in a fair and proper decommissioning of arms, without which they see any negotiations as completely unfair and improper?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot add to what I have already said about the decommissioning of arms. The Government have no set deadlines or timetable. The purpose of the framework documents, in which there has been enormous interest within Northern Ireland, was to assist and promote discussion and negotiation involving the parties. About 120,000 copies have so far been issued within Northern Ireland. There is much discussion and debate taking place on what is within the documents and on others' ideas about the issues. The debate is constructive and healthy. We hope that it will lead in a reasonably short time to the parties coming together and looking for a constructive way forward.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that, after the initial euphoric response from specially briefed industrialists and the media, the general reaction has been one of dismay and disappointment, despite Government-inspired media hype that elderly politicians were out of touch with the electorate? Will he recognise now that many young people are saying that it is the "You've been framed" document?
    Mr. Ancram: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I find that many people, and especially the young, are saying that it is time for political representatives to talk about the issues. The purpose of the framework documents was to assist in that process.
    I have read with great interest some of the reactions of other parties within Northern Ireland. I have discovered such levels of misunderstanding of what is within the framework documents in some of the responses that I would welcome a chance to get alongside the hon. Gentleman, for example, to go through the documents line by line to explain to him the Government's intention.
    Mr. Murphy: The Minister will confirm that the framework documents make much of European links. Does he agree that an essential part of the process of peace and reconciliation will be the financial help that will come from the European Union? Will he give the House and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that the European level will be truly additional to and over and above the Northern Ireland budget, and that the Treasury will not use the extra cash to reduce its spending plans for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: I am not certain whether this arises directly from the framework documents. The documents make it clear that a north-south body would be able to advise the two Governments on matters of common European interest affecting the whole of the island of Ireland. It would possibly manage certain programmes that are already cross-border within Northern Ireland, such as Intereg. Effectively, all representations to Europe would be through the two sovereign Governments. Any moneys forthcoming would be subject to the usual treatment unless the Governments agreed otherwise.

    Prison Visits
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to how many visits per 28 days Northern Ireland families of prisoners are entitled; for
    1016
    what reason there is a difference between this figure and the entitlement of families in the rest of the United Kingdom; and when he plans to change their entitlement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is our intention to introduce a second paid visit every four weeks in Northern Ireland, in line with the change introduced in Great Britain last year.
    Mr. Walker: I thank the Minister for removing that disparity. What are the travel and administration costs of the financially-assisted visits for prisoners in Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland prison rule No. 65?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the precise figures in the detail that he may seek. I will ensure that he has that information. However, the proposals have a cost to the taxpayer which must be accommodated within the budget of the prison service in Northern Ireland.

    Criminal Justice System
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for reforming the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir John Wheeler: We have put forward a range of measures in recent years to improve the working of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. They include the Criminal Appeal Bill, introduced last month, establishing in Northern Ireland and England and Wales the criminal cases review commission. Other measures are in preparation.
    Mr. Mullin: Would it be too much to ask that the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 be applied to all cases in Northern Ireland? In particular, is it not about time, in the light of all the other changes taking place in the Province, that interrogations in police custody were tape-recorded? Did the Minister read the remarks of the judge in the Ballymurphy case the other day which ended after 138 days? The judge said that, had audio recording been available, the case could have been dealt with in six days. Is it not about time that that state of affairs was dealt with?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am well aware of the proposals to include video and tape recording of all interviews in police custody in Northern Ireland. Those matters are kept under regular review in the light of the changing security circumstances. I shall continue to be advised by the Chief Constable as to the need to retain the existing arrangements, which I hope may well change in the near future.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been much talk about changes in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland? There is a great deal of sympathy for Private Clegg and his family. However, the fundamental difference between us and the men of terror is that we believe in, and live by, the rule of law. Any departure from the rule of law, by anyone, would be a departure from the peace process.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks well in favour of the rule of law. The plain truth is that it is the terrorist gangs who depart from the rule of law. It is the terrorist gangs who

    1017
    want to remove people from Northern Ireland who do not fit with their specifications, and it is the terrorist gangs who hold arms and engage in armed robberies. That is what this House roundly condemns.
    Mr. Trimble: I welcome the Minister's reference to the Criminal Appeal Bill. Does he agree that that demonstrates the ease by which legislation for Northern Ireland can proceed upon proper grounds, and will he recommend that to his colleagues on either side of him?
    With regard to the future of the criminal justice system, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no question of a precipitate rundown of the Diplock court system while we still have so many unsolved terrorist cases and so many terrorists who have not yet been made amenable? Will he also support the representations that we have made that there should be consideration, together with the Home Office, about what permanent anti-terrorist legislation the United Kingdom will need?
    Sir John Wheeler: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that, of course, I understand why he makes that point. When it is possible and appropriate to include Northern Ireland considerations and issues in legislation originating from England and Wales, that will be done. As for the operation of the Diplock courts, they operate having regard to the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. If it is the case—as it is—that people are still intimidated and could not sit as jurors or give evidence as witnesses other than through the protection of the existing legal measures, those measures must be sustained.

    Framework Documents
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to consult (a) community groups, (b) churches and (c) other public institutions on the framework documents.
    Mr. Ancram: Copies of "Frameworks for the Future" have been made widely available within Northern Ireland. The Government have encouraged all those who read it to consider the proposals it contains and to let us and the political parties know their views.
    Mr. McFall: What legislative powers does the Minister envisage will be devolved to a Northern Ireland Assembly? How does he see the relationship between that body and the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the first part of the framework documents he will see the Government's proposals set out, including proposals that legislative powers over matters regarded as transferred, or as essentially transferable, in 1973, be given to an assembly. Obviously the relationship between that assembly and local authorities will be a matter for discussion when the framework documents are being considered, but it would also be a matter for consideration by the assembly itself, once it was set up.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consult the European Foundation as to the merits of allowing a north-south body to be the interlocutory mechanism for dialogue with the European Union on the disbursement of funds relating to the northern part of Ireland? Will he consider the precedent that such a devolved body could
    1018
    pose for other parts of the kingdom in their relations with Brussels were devolution to extend ultimately to Scotland?
    Mr. Ancram: I am interested in my hon. Friend's question and will certainly wish to consider some of the nuances of it, but I am can tell him now that as regards its European representations, any assembly set up within Northern Ireland would have to operate, as does any other part of the United Kingdom, through the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister was kind enough to tell us earlier of the vast volume of copies of the framework documents circulated throughout Northern Ireland. Would that be approximately on a par with the circulars that we receive from the Inland Revenue, and would the response be roughly equivalent? Will the Minister press on with the consultations and talks with other parties, as we have done, for the simple reason that, apart from the initial response of what one might call the hired hacks, those who have carefully read the document have concluded that it is divisive and fatally flawed? At the end of all those consultations, will he consider producing another consultative paper—an outline paper on which there could be widespread agreement?
    Mr. Ancram: I listened with interest to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I have not yet come across a case of citizens going out voluntarily to collect the forms that he mentioned, or ringing to ask for those forms to be sent to them, as has happened with the framework documents. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the fact that within Northern Ireland, which is a mature democracy, there has been great interest in the documents so that people can inform themselves about what is being proposed and can play a part in advising their political representatives on the line that they might take in negotiations.
    As for the talks, I repeat that the important thing is that the issues identified within the framework documents as those that have to be dealt with be discussed. We do not claim a monopoly of wisdom either in the British Government or in the Dublin Government. We simply say that in the documents we have identified the issues and have suggested ways in which they could be resolved. If anybody else comes forward with other ways that could secure the necessary measure of agreement we would welcome that as part of the discussion. I shall certainly be pleased to meet any party at any time to take the discussion forward.
    Mr. Beith: To what extent has the Minister ascertained the views of the political representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries on their willingness to take part in discussions on the document and to assist that process by participating in the decommissioning of arms?
    Mr. Ancram: I must first say that I have not been in direct communication with the representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries, any more than I have been involved in the exploratory discussions with Sinn Fein. The same criteria would apply in that case as apply to Sinn Fein. It is our understanding from statements that have been made that representatives of the loyalists are keen to enter discussions and that, although they may have reservations about certain parts of the framework documents, they are prepared to enter discussions on the

    1019
    basis of the documents. Again, I welcome discussion from whatever quarter it comes, so long as the criteria for becoming involved in discussions, in terms of the decommissioning of arms, have been met.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister of State for the many initiatives that he has taken since the documents were published. Does he not agree that, far from being divisive, they are an excellent basis on which to take the discussions forward, through whatever mechanism and whatever medium, and that, closely and on a continuing basis, the English majority are watching to ensure that all Unionist politicians rise to the moderate opportunity presented?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I find it difficult to understand how a document that is based on the consent and agreement of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can be divisive; after all, if we believe in democracy, the consent of the majority and the agreement of the political parties within that part of the United Kingdom must be at the very foundation and roots of democracy.
    Ms Mowlam: We welcome the consultations on the framework document, and wish the Government well. What message has the Minister for the many groups—trade unions, businesses and parts of the voluntary sector—whose members I have consulted in the past couple of weeks? They are frustrated not only by the lack of any clear economic strategy for the use of the money that is available from both the public purse and international funds, but by the lack of accountability and transparency in relation to how the money is currently allocated.
    Mr. Ancram: I find the hon. Lady's question very surprising. As she knows, we are consulting various parties about how moneys can be spent. We are trying to encourage inward investment into Northern Ireland, to provide jobs and prosperity for its people. We are keen to ensure that whatever dividend results from the cessation of violence and, I hope, the permanent establishment of peace is shared as widely as possible, and that no part of the Northern Ireland community feels that it has not gained advantage from it.
    The most important element in any future prosperity for Northern Ireland, however, must be political development. The question concentrates on that, and I would welcome the views of trade unions, Churches and business organisations, from whichever quarter they may come.

    Investment Forum
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what positive responses to date have resulted from the Investment Forum held in Belfast last year.
    Mr. Ancram: We are pursuing 17 potential inward investment projects as a direct result of the forum. There are other spin-offs: for example, our overseas sales teams have seen a significant surge of interest in Northern Ireland as an investment location.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his reply, and congratulate all who have been involved in the Investment
    1020
    Forum. I also send good wishes to those who will be involved in similar activities in the United States later this year.
    Does the Minister consider that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament can reasonably expect opportunities to meet those who visit their constituencies with a view to investment? Will he encourage Industrial Development Board officials to involve Northern Ireland Members of Parliament more in future than has been customary in the past, and allow them to engage in consultation with such groups on the clear understanding that consultation is confidential?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass on what the hon. Gentleman has said to my noble Friend Lady Denton. He rightly said that any such contact would have to be on a confidential basis. As he will realise, there is considerable competition for the projects that I mentioned in my original answer to go elsewhere, and it would not be clever of us to try to conduct such negotiations in public.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my hon. Friend aware of the wide interest created in Northern Ireland by the forum, which was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself? Is he further aware—as I am sure he must be—of the enormous export opportunities that it has generated, and will he assure the House that the momentum will be continued, because of its great importance?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point. The Investment Forum was very much the start of the process, not the end. The Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland is working hard to carry forward the initiatives that were begun in the forum. It is interesting to note that calls to the IDB in London have doubled since 31 August, when the ceasefire was announced.
    Mr.Spellar: Does the Minister accepet that, although new investment is welcome, existing businesses must also thrive if the peace dividend is not to be perceived as a peace deficit? In particular, will he assure us that every effort is being made to ensure a steady progress of orders at Harland and Wolff? What is being done to obtain the order for a floating production oil system for that yard?
    Mr. Ancram: If I may, I shall pass that last question on to my noble Friend Lady Denton and ask her to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely clear to those of us who work within Northern Ireland that peace of itself is not enough to bring the incentives for inward investment and exports of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Political development is needed to underpin the incentives for investment. That is why we put so much store by the political process. That is the only way in which confidence will be created in a stable future of Northern Ireland which will bring the benefits to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Illegal Weapons
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the recovery and destruction of illegal weapons in the Province.
    Sir John Wheeler: Since the announcement of the ceasefires, up to 5 March 39 weapons, just fewer than

    1021
    2,300 rounds of ammunition and almost 600 lb of explosives have been recovered. Substantial progress on decommissioning paramilitary arms is needed to move the political process forward. We continue to pursue decommissioning of illegally held arms during the exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein and loyalist paramilitaries.
    Mr. Robathan: I welcome that response from my hon. Friend. Will he reassure the House that the security forces will continue actively to search for illegal weapons? Does he agree that the most positive contribution that could be made by President Clinton and the glittering guest list at last night's Sinn Fein dinner in New York would be for them to press Gerry Adams and to explain to him that there could no further progress towards a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland unless substantial progress was made on handing in illegally held weapons?
    Sir John Wheeler: I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces will continue to pursue all illegal acts in Northern Ireland and, in particular, to search out the stocks of weapons and explosives that still exist. On his latter point, I should simply say that Provisional Sinn Fein should act. It is actions that count, not words.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    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. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of Labour councillors personally benefiting from fraud, corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is such that people should be informed about it before they vote in the local government elections?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are many cases of waste, inefficiency and malpractice in Labour councils; increasingly, one has seen that in auditors' reports. It is right that the auditors should investigate and make those matters public.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as a matter of fact, that in a few weeks' time two new tax rises will be introduced—the cutting of mortgage tax relief and of the married couples allowance—which will add about £250 a year to the average family's tax bill?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly confirm the tax changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I will also confirm for him that, as a result of the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now well into the most sustained recovery on the most secure basis that this country has seen for many years, with the economy growing at almost 4 per cent., exports at record levels, the current account in surplus, investment rising and unemployment now having fallen by 600,000—a set of economic circumstances that
    1022
    we have not seen for many years. That is largely due to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend took the right decisions at the right time.
    Mr. Blair: Are not those tax rises, on top of the existing ones, one reason why people feel so angry about this Government? Is not the truth that, with taxes up, mortgages up and living standards falling, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is confirm what the vast majority of the British people already knew: that unless you are one of the favoured few at the top, you are worse off under the Tories.
    The Prime Minister: Which taxes would the right hon. Gentleman cut? Which pieces of expenditure has the right hon. Gentleman opposed? How many times has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought extra expenditure of one sort of another? When is he going to understand the most basic economic fact—that he cannot promote expenditure and call for tax reductions and expect to be taken seriously? We have taken the measures necessary for this country's economy. That is why our economy is more effective, more efficient and more competitive than any other economy in western Europe.
    Mr. Blair: I will tell him what I understand, that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since he asked me the question again, let me tell him what is wrong. What is wrong is to fight the election promising to cut taxes then raise them by 7p in the pound.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is right for this country, why does he not for once acknowledge the changes that there have been in this economy? Why does he not for once acknowledge what once he used to say—that his plans for a minimum wage would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge what a large number of business men are now telling him across Europe—that his plans for the social chapter would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge that this country now has an economy that Labour could never have achieved if it had followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who on every conceivable occasion has guessed wrongly about what should happen with this economy?
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those parents who have set up an organisation called PASS to defend the right of parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools? Will he arrange for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman does not need one, but his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who speaks on education from the Labour Front Bench most certainly does, for he would still destroy the chances for parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools,

    1023
    even though the vast majority of hon. Members in this House, including the right hon. Gentleman, know that that choice should be available to every parent.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's comments on waste and inefficiency, how does he justify an increase over the past four years of 36 per cent. in the amount of public money spent on Government entertainment? What would he have to say to a council which was forced to sack teachers and which responded by raising by more than a third the money that it spent on its own entertainment?
    The Prime Minister: I think what I would say to any council which was contemplating that sort of action concerning teachers would be: how many administrators in education is it looking at, why are there two administrators for every three teachers in education and why do county councils like the right hon. Gentleman's seek to look at teachers before they look at other areas of savings?
    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in the past couple of days to discuss Anglo-Belgian relationships with his counterpart the Prime Minister of Belgium, and in particular what must have been a disappointing visit for him to west London on Tuesday night? At what is undoubtedly a difficult time for British football, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelsea football club on a stunning victory on Tuesday night, its fans on the good-natured manner in which the game was watched, and the Metropolitan police especially on the firm but sensitive way in which the game was policed?
    Madam Speaker: I should just inform the hon. Gentleman before the Prime Minister attempts to answer that question that, nice as it may seem, the Prime Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Chelsea football club.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass credit for the success to the players. May I simply say that I am delighted at how well they did?
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Did the Prime Minister read this morning's comment by Lord McAlpine that a spell in opposition would be a good thing for the Tory party, and does he agree that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Tory party and of the nation coincide?
    The Prime Minister: I did see the comments in the New Statesman and Society. I understand that Lord McAlpine is promoting his book, which is a work of fiction.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share the pleasure of my constituents in Basildon at the first visit
    1024
    to this country of a President from the Philippines, Fidel Ramos? Will he tell the House whether any trade agreements have been reached as a result of the visit? Finally, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to assist and encourage the President to try to alleviate the plight of street children and to take forward the social reform programme?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I am delighted to welcome President Ramos to the United Kingdom. He will find a very warm welcome here and would clearly find one in Basildon also, were he able to visit it. I am not sure whether the President is here long enough to do so on this occasion, but when I meet him later on this afternoon I will be happy to pass on the invitation. I understand that it has been a successful trade visit and a number of contracts have been signed with substantial British companies.
    I know that President Ramos is achieving a great deal with his social reform programme and I know that the whole House would welcome all that can be done to help street children, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from Sir Colin Figures and Sir Peter Marychurch concerning knowledge of an impending attack on airlines at Frankfurt airport in December 1988; and what response he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: We have received no such representations.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, could Sir Colin and Sir Peter be invited to shed light on the very specific jictels—Joint Intelligence Committee telegrams—giving clear information about the downing of an aircraft in October, November and December 1988? Could they shed light on the agreement reached by western intelligence with terrorist elements in the middle east about the downing of just one airliner, rather than 10 or 12, in what was described by Mohtashemi as "the rain of blood", and also on what they know of statements by United States agencies about Major Charles McKee not being able to return to the United States alive?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that detailed question so that I might examine the matter before responding.
    As he knows, the Lockerbie investigation is the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country. I have to reiterate to the House that the Lord Advocate has discovered credible evidence against two people only, and they remain the only two accused. If concrete new evidence were brought forward, it would of course be fully investigated. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me prior notice—that western intelligence agencies would enter into a deal with terrorist groups to allow the destruction of an aircraft—is utterly and completely unfounded. It did not happen and the hon. Gentleman can be assured upon that point.

    Engagements
    Madam Speaker: The next question is from Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: Question 5.
    Hon. Members: Question 6.
    Mr. Skinner: All right; Question 6.
    Q6. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports today that if the Tory party loses more than 1,000 seats in the local government elections in May, which it undoubtedly will, senior Tory Members of Parliament are going to kick him out like a dog in the night? Last year, the Prime Minister said that he had got three bastards in the Cabinet: I do not think that he can count.
    The Prime Minister: As for counting, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's Question 5 and Question 6 at the same time.
    The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question might well have been asked of me last year, the year before last, and the year before that. It almost certainly was, and it will very probably be asked of me next year, the year after and the year after that.
    Sir Graham Bright: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in this morning's newspapers suggesting that he is considering plans to change how state education is funded? Will he confirm to the House that that is not so?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I can tell the House
    1026
    categorically that it is absolutely without foundation. I do not know whether it is incompetence or malice, but it is certainly inaccurate.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today's statement by the rail regulator that decisions on sleepers and Motorail are a matter not for British Rail but for the Government? Will he therefore confirm today that there will be a full and formal consultation before any decisions are taken on those vital services?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Fort William sleeper. Representations on that can be made during consultation on the ScotRail public service requirement. In the meanwhile, British Rail will retain the assets.
    Madam Speaker: As we started late, I can allow one more question.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two Conservative-controlled district councils in my constituency—Forest Heath and St. Edmundsbury—plan no increase in council tax this year? Is he aware that the only reason why my constituents will pay more council tax this year is because of Lib-Lab controlled Suffolk county council, despite it having used up some £16 million of reserves so carefully built up by the last Conservative administration?
    The Prime Minister: Lib-Lab councils are a very expensive luxury indeed and I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Last year, Conservative councils cost around £131 less at band C than Labour councils, and this year the difference looks as though it may be even greater—probably as much as £160 less. I hope that the electorate will bear that in mind in May.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House provide information on forthcoming business?
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 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill.
TUESDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of European Community Document No. 5097/95 relating to the common agricultural policy price proposals for 1995-96 and related measures.
WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Progress on remaining stages of the Jobseekers Bill.
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Jobseekers Bill.
Debate on the civil service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 24 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 22 March to consider European Community Document No. 11287/93 relating to external frontiers.
[Tuesday 21 March:
Agricultural Price Proposals 1995-96—European Community Document No. 5097/95; relevant European Legislation Committee report HC 70-x (1994-95).
Wednesday 22 March:
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document No. 11287/93, External Frontiers; relevant European Legislation Committee report HC 48-xxix (1993-94).]
In the following week beginning Monday 27 March, I expect on the Monday to take progress on remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill, which would continue to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 March. I am not yet in a position to give details for Wednesday 29 March and Thursday 30 March, but I anticipate taking Government business on the Thursday until about 7 o'clock, with a debate on the motion for the Adjournment thereafter.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Before moving on to next week's business, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on an event that is to take place this Saturday in Birmingham—your inauguration as chancellor of the Open university?
On next week's business, can the Leader of the House explain why, given so much pre-publicity by Ministers about National Science Week next week, we are not holding a debate in the House of Commons on science policy?
Secondly, given the two important defeats in the House of Lords suffered by the Government this week on pension rights of divorced women and remarried war widows, will the Leader of the House give us an
1028
assurance that the Government will not seek to overturn those two significant steps when the Bill returns to the House for its remaining stages?
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we are likely in the near future to have a debate on dentistry in the national health service, in view of the 800,000 patients, 3,000 of whom are in my area, who have had national health service dental care withdrawn?
Finally, in view of the comments made—not in a book—by the former Conservative party treasurer, Lord McAlpine, that the Prime Minister has
"stuffed up the Conservative Party"
and that
"Opposition might cleanse the Tories",
an opinion that Lord McAlpine claims is shared by Tory Members of Parliament, can we have a debate on the consequences for Britain of a lame duck Government, probably a stuffed lame duck Government, who have certainly lost their authority in their own party, in the House and in the country?
Mr. Newton: Rather unusually for the hon. Lady, as she usually manages to ask slightly more sensible questions, her last one sounded as if she was practising as a scriptwriter in a rather second-rate television comedy show. [Interruption.] I am probably exaggerating the quality of the show.
Perhaps I might take the other questions in the order in which they were asked. First, I need hardly say that I do indeed join the hon. Lady in the congratulations that she extended to you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, I should have thought of that myself, and I am very happy to join in now.
On National Science Week, the hon. Lady will be aware that we recently had a debate about science, although I accept that there is pressure for another, and I shall bear that in mind. Ministers generally, and I hope all Members of Parliament, will be anxious to support the aims of National Science Week, which was very successful last year. I believe that it will be even more successful this year, and I shall seek further opportunities for debate in due course.
On the House of Lords decisions, the hon. Lady will be aware that, as is usual in dealing with decisions in another place, the Government will wish to consider carefully the implications of the decisions that have been made.
On dentists, the hon. Lady might have registered the fact that in England today nearly 21 million adults and more than 6 million children are registered with NHS dentists, and that there has been a net increase in the number of adult patients registered with NHS dentists. Indeed, since June 1992, the figure is equivalent to one extra patient every four minutes.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend, if not next week, as soon as possible afterwards, offer an assurance of a very early debate on the first special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was published on 7 March

1029
1995? That is a matter of grave concern to the House, and is delaying the important activities of the Select Committee.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that point in mind, and it might also be appropriate to have further discussions in the usual channels about the way in which to respond to that report.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If the Leader of the House is not prepared to hold a debate on the NHS in relation to the lack of NHS treatment from NHS dentists, will he carefully consider the proposals that are afoot to consider restructuring out-of-hours consultancy visiting fees for doctors? Is he aware that, if the current proposals were put into effect, they would act as a perverse disincentive to rural GPs to have any night visits for their patients? It is a serious matter, which needs urgent attention in the House.
Mr. Newton: In view of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his point, I shall draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it not rather insulting to the Select Committee on European Legislation that the Leader of the House has announced that the uniform visa for the European Community will be considered by European Standing Committee B, when that Select Committee specifically said that it should be considered on the Floor of the House?
Can my right hon. Friend further explain what is the point of debating the common agricultural policy on Tuesday, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just issued a table in the other place showing that the average cost per person of the CAP is £4 a week, while the Foreign Secretary told us in a letter the other day that it was £6.50 a week and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us just two weeks ago that it was £7 a week? Would it not be better to scrap the CAP debate until we can find out the right figure and instead debate the uniform visa format, consideration of which on the Floor of the House was judged vital by the Select Committee?
Mr. Newton: I thought that the misunderstanding about the common visa—it is not the principal point of the document to which I referred—which my hon. Friend raised last week, had been cleared up. noted that he had generously tabled an early-day motion thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for placing a scrutiny reserve on the discussion that took place in Brussels last week. It is a matter of interest, but I think that a debate in the Standing Committee of the kind that I have confirmed today is the appropriate way forward.
As for the CAP and in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, it seems entirely sensible to have a debate on it, which might help to clarify any confusion that exists in my hon. Friend's mind or that of anyone else on that matter. There is no confusion about what is in common between my hon. Friend and the entire Government: the desire to make the CAP more efficient and effective and to continue the process of reform.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on the need to decentralise power
1030
throughout the United Kingdom, especially in view of the report in today's edition of The Herald on Government-funded research? That report found that in England there is a clear majority in favour of regional elected assemblies; that there is an even bigger majority in Wales in favour of a Welsh Assembly; and that the overwhelming majority of Scots are in favour of a Scottish Parliament. Why are the Government stubbornly refusing to respond to the wishes of the people on that matter?
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a majority in every part of the country in favour of regional assemblies, he needs to do some more research. Whatever that research might show, we all know that the only reason for the Labour party's proposal for regional assemblies is that it is the only way in which it can make sense of its proposal for devolution in various places. Moreover, the net result of such assemblies would not be an increase in local democracy, as is often claimed; rather those bodies would suck up power from existing local responsibility.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate soon on the levels of council tax in north-west Kent? Conservative-controlled Dartford borough council has brought down the council tax, but Liberal-Labour-controlled Kent county council has increased it. That means that all my constituents will have to pay more council tax because of the financial irresponsibility of the Lib-Lab-controlled Kent county council.
Mr. Newton: I should certainly wish to consider the possibility of providing further opportunities for debate on local government and related matters for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I suspect that similar points could be made about Labour and Liberal-controlled areas in many other parts of the country.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 721?
[That this House welcomes the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee is carrying out an investigation into nuclear proliferation; and calls upon the Government to hold a debate on the subject before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference takes place in mid-April.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the conference on the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is vital? Does he also accept that concern has been expressed about how Government policy in recent years on Trident and THORP has fitted in with that treaty? We should have the opportunity to debate nuclear non-proliferation before the conference begins in April.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand if I can make no immediate promise of a debate on that matter. The Government are co-operating with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is holding an investigation into some of the matters raised. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Committee earlier this year, we firmly believe that indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty would be in the best security interests of all.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend offer a debate on conservation of fish

1031
stocks in the world's oceans? There is some urgency on that because we know that the Spanish fleets have devastated the fishing grounds of Namibia, have finished off the stocks off the coast of west Africa and are now moving into the waters off Newfoundland. We have no true guarantees of what they may do in the Irish sea. Wherever they go, they perpetrate an ecological disaster and leave desolation behind them. Should not the House come to a view on the changes that are required in international law to address that problem?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the exchanges with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier this week and of the efforts that are being made by the Government to contribute to sensible negotiation to find a sensible solution to the dispute between Canada and the European Union. It is clear that that solution must be based on regard for conservation and must be effectively enforced.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Would not it be a good idea to have a debate on what is happening to the Motorail and sleeper services in the north of Scotland? As I interpret the Prime Minister's response to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) a few minutes ago, he seemed to give an assurance that those services would still be running while formal consultations were taking place.
That is exactly the assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to give at the most recent Scottish questions, despite the fact that a Scottish Office Minister had previously given that assurance to the Scottish Grand Committee. Does not the Leader of the House appreciate that the uncertainty in itself is deeply damaging, particularly to the tourist industry in Scotland? May we have a debate and a decision, and may we have that assurance repeated now?
Mr. Newton: I am obviously not in a position to add greatly to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I think he had it in mind that, while decisions at the moment are matters for the commercial judgment of British Rail, steps will be taken to ensure that the equipment and infrastructure—for example, the rolling stock—are maintained in place.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on job creation in Derbyshire, especially in the light of yesterday's excellent news that unemployment in the county has dropped by 4,000 over the past year, which is a drop of more than 9 per cent.? Such a debate is important in the light of today's even better news that Toyota is to build a second factory in the county, which will employ another 1,000 people.
Mr. Newton: Again, I shall bear that request for a debate in mind because it has many attractions. I am quite sure that every hon. Member will welcome the further decision by Toyota. It is reaffirmation of the company's confidence in the economy of this country and, dare I say it, it is further confirmation that Britain, for reasons not
1032
unconnected with the social chapter that Labour wants to impose upon us, is far and away the most attractive place for people to come to do business.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Government are pushing forward the Disability Discrimination Bill on 27 and 28 March, should not the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at least have an opportunity to make some progress in Committee so that the House may have an opportunity to decide between the principles contained in those two measures? I hope that the Minister does not find my question too unsophisticated, which is what he said last week.
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not wish as a weekly routine to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is unsophisticated, if only because it would be untrue. As I said last week, I have no plans to change the normal arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills. However, I have plans for making sure that the important Government Disability Discrimination Bill makes progress.
Mr. Harold Elletson: May we have an early Government statement on the state of Anglo-American relations, particularly following President Clinton's decision to allow Sinn Fein to raise funds in the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people in this country found the sight of Bianca Jagger and other celebrities hobnobbing with Gerry Adams at a fund-raising dinner in the United States yesterday, which took place precisely because of that decision, absolutely disgusting?
Does he also agree that people in America who want to know more about what is going on in Northern Ireland would do well to listen to the group from Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which has gone to Washington to protest against Mr. Adams? They should listen particularly to Thomas Clarke, whose son Malachy hanged himself in December after being beaten up by a Sinn Fein-IRA terror gang.
Mr. Newton: Plainly, many hon. Members, including myself, well understand why my hon. Friend makes those points. I hope that he, in turn, will understand that I commented on the matter during Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday, and that I would not wish to add to those remarks.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House give credit to the BBC for showing the film last night on euthanasia in Holland? That programme was done in a sensitive manner. I know that he might not have seen it himself, but did it not raise many serious issues that are at least worthy of a debate? Will he arrange for that?
Mr. Newton: Not having seen the film, I am not in a position to comment directly. As it happens, however, I saw a discussion of the film later at night on the BBC. That discussion was responsible and balanced, and it clearly showed some of the difficulties in the proposals that are sometimes urged upon us.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on early-day motion 763?
[That this House notes the honourable Member for Leicester West, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, is interviewing leading industrialists and

1033
businessmen on their remuneration packages whilst at the same time offering these people his services on how to improve their public speaking and presentational skills; further notes that other services offered by the honourable Member for Leicester West include advice on making people redundant and serving on the Remuneration Committee of Ladbroke plc which awarded the Chairman of that company a salary of £583,000 per annum—£108,000 per annum more than the Chairman of British Gas plc—and in addition awarded five directors of the company 1.3 million share options worth £2.3 million; believes that these activities represent a conflict of interest with his current position as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; and calls on him to resign immediately.]
Thus the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment would have an opportunity to defend himself properly.
Mr. Newton: The Employment Select Committee has just made a number of recommendations on a matter that may not be directly related to the issue that leads to my hon. Friend's question, but that could be appropriate for a debate. Short of that, I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, but I have read reports in newspapers that the Committee may give further consideration to the matter.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the future of the railway rolling stock industry in view of the announcement made at 3 o'clock this afternoon in Berlin that Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., one of Britain's two main rail manufacturers, is to merge with the German company Daimler-Benz? Is he aware that the financial markets suggest that, in the long term, that may bring work into British factories because of lower labour costs and high productivity in this country, but that, in the short term, an order from Britain for more Networker trains for London commuters is vital to keep the York works open? Unless such an order is made in the next few weeks, the York works will close, and the enormous multi-million-pound opportunities for exporting the railway body shells that are built in York to Germany and other parts of Europe will be lost for ever.
Mr. Newton: There are two points there. On the latter one, of course I recognise the urgency of ABB's position. We have been over this ground before, so the hon. Gentleman will know that it is a matter for British Rail, but I understand that it intends to issue tenders within the next couple of weeks. I am not so sure that the thrust of the first part of his question will be as welcome among Labour Members as it is among Conservative Members, but I agree with it.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to make a statement in the House next week on the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that, in the 1989 discussions, it was acknowledged that all former members of the secret intelligence service should not write books based on their experiences? Since that occasion, two officers—Brian Crozier and Desmond Bristow—have done so, and next week a BBC journalist is publishing a book that includes direct quotations from no fewer than 27 officers, without any reference to the Minishy of
1034
Defence D-notice committee. Does not that drive a coach and horses through the Act, as many of us at that time predicted would happen? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement by the Home Secretary next week?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to arrange a statement, but I can undertake to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 735 on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill?
[That this House notes the overwhelming support for the abolition of cruelty to wild mammals shown by honourable Members on 3rd March when the Second Reading of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill was agreed to by 253 votes to 0 and calls on the Government to ensure that Parliamentary time is given to ensure the Bill passes all its stages; further notes that supporters of cruelty to wild mammals were too embarrassed to show their lack of support and abstained; and believes that the unanimous vote for the Second Reading of the Bill should be reflected in the composition of the Standing Committee.]
That Bill received its Second Reading on 3 March by 253 votes to zero. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Bill will go into Committee and will he take this opportunity, or arrange for an early opportunity, to explain what is going on? When Bills leave the Chamber after being given an overwhelming Second Reading, we expect them to turn up in Committee so that hon. Members can continue the consideration. What is going on?
Mr. Newton: It is not for me to determine the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considers private Members' Bills. It has been working away on a number of Bills in the order in which they were given a Second Reading by the House. That is entirely reasonable and sensible.
Mr. Harry Greenway: As one of the longest-serving members of the council of the Open university, may I associate myself with the warm remarks about your installation on Saturday as our chancellor, Madam Speaker?
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the disgraceful pressure from Ealing council to spend planning gain money from the Tesco development of the Hoover site miles away from Perivale in Southall? That matter should be brought before the House. The people of Perivale are more than annoyed—they will not have it.
Mr. Newton: It occurs to me almost weekly that were my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate on Ealing and were successful, he would have enough material to occupy an hour and a half on his own.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House hear the long, courteous and considered response that the Prime Minister gave to my careful question at Question Time? In the circumstances, could we have a statement from the Law Officers, particularly the Crown

1035
Office in Scotland, producing what the Prime Minister called "concrete" evidence that these Libyans had anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing?
The Prime Minister challenges us to produce concrete evidence. That is very difficult, and we do not think that the Crown Office is in any better position. Is it not time that those Law Officers made a statement in some sort of democratic forum about the basis of their evidence?
Mr. Newton: As always, because of the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman puts his question, I shall reflect on what he has just asked. As far as I am aware, he did not give me notice of the follow-up to the question that he asked the Prime Minister, so I shall not attempt to answer him off the cuff.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Could we not have a debate on dentistry? The nation's teeth have never been in better condition. It is not a pleasant subject to discuss, there is no need for it and it is ridiculous of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to suggest taking up the time of the House with it.
Mr. Newton: I was left mildly puzzled by the time my hon. Friend had finished his question. I thought that he began by asking for a debate and then demolished the suggestion halfway through.
Mr. Jessel: I said, could we not have a debate?
Mr. Newton: Oh. At any rate, whatever my hon. Friend intended, I agreed with the general thrust of what he was saying.
Mr. Bill Olner: The Leader of the House will be well aware of reports in the newspapers about £5 million payouts for fat cats who are being made redundant from the Treasury. Will he find time to debate that matter? I am sure that many people in my constituency of Nuneaton who are on short-term and part-time contracts find that sum of money extremely offensive.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the hon. Gentleman's point. The terms are those approved by Parliament in 1987 and, more recently, under the civil service compensation scheme, which was laid before Parliament last December.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision to discuss in European Standing Committee B on Wednesday the crucial issue of the control of the European Union's external frontiers? Will he do so not only in view of the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, but because it is a matter of widespread public concern? It aroused the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who wrote to my right hon. Friend yesterday alongside seven authentic Conservative colleagues, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
Will my right hon. Friend also give due recognition to the fact that at the European Council meeting, the Home Secretary himself put a scrutiny reserve on that aspect of policy? Does he accept that, at the very least, the public
1036
deserve a debate on the Floor of the House? The matter should not be brushed under the parliamentary carpet by a quiet sitting upstairs in Committee.
Mr. Newton: The very fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last week put a scrutiny reserve on the issue in the way of which my hon. Friend is aware is a sign that the Government are in no way dismissing the importance of the matter. It was based on a misunderstanding, and the document that is being discussed goes considerably wider than the narrow point that the scrutiny reserve touched on last week. I do not think that, even with the best will in the world, I can add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House assure us that when the special Committee that he chairs reaches a decision on the allegations that two hon. Members took money for questions, it will be debated and determined by the whole House? To help that along, will he arrange for a debate on early-day motion 3?
[That this House believes that the amounts of money received from all interests, at present required to be registered in the Register of Members' Interests, should be declared.]
The early-day motion seeks to ensure that the Register of Members' Interests lists not only the firms and trade unions in which hon. Members have an interest, but the sums received.
Mr. Newton: I think that the House, and certainly you, Madam Speaker, would regard it as inappropriate for me to discuss at the Dispatch Box the affairs of the Privileges Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, or what might follow its report, so I will not. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be inappropriate for there to be a debate on the matter at this time, especially in advance of any recommendations that the Nolan committee might make.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support a call for a debate on the idea of English regional government? Many of us would welcome the opportunity to express the opposition of people in the English regions to the idea of being saddled with an expensive extra layer of government simply because a few Scottish Members want to saddle the people of Scotland with a talking shop in Edinburgh. It would give me an opportunity to express the views of the people of Kent who would not like their affairs to be run by a bloated bureaucracy in faraway Reading. More important, would it not give the Opposition the opportunity to tell us which services would be run by the English regions and which would be ripped from local government?
Mr. Newton: My first step might be to put my hon. Friend in touch with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who questioned me earlier, put them together in a room and watch the fun.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Has the Leader of the House seen reports of the remarks made this morning by Mr. Charles Gallagher, the president of the House Builders Federation, expressing his regret at what he sees as the Government's abandonment of home ownership as one of their key values? He referred not only to the tax changes that were mentioned some minutes ago

1037
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) but to the remarks made recently by the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, which apparently distanced the Government from their goal of increased home ownership. May we have a debate next week on home ownership so that we can establish what the Government's aspirations are and assess whether, as Mr. Gallagher suggests, home owners and aspiring home owners would be better off under Labour policies?
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, if people believe that, they will believe anything. As for the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not hitherto aware of the remarks to which he refers, but it is clear from what he said that they are based on a profound misunderstanding.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As, on "News at Ten" last night, a director of Railtrack with responsibility for safety virtually confirmed that automatic train protection will not be installed across the entire rail network, which breaks a firm commitment that the Government have given the House and the country for the past six years; and as the departing British Rail chairman, Sir Bob Reid, has predicted that franchisees will become bankrupt if the rail privatisation plans go ahead—indeed, he claimed that he personally would prefer to put his money into a butcher's shop—can we have an urgent debate on the grounds of safety, especially in view of the confusion reigning over what the Government's transport policy with regard to the railways is and, indeed, whether they have one?
Mr. Newton: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the advice received from the Health and Safety Commission and from Railtrack, and will make an announcement in due course. Secondly, while many attempted interpretations have been placed on the interview with Sir Bob Reid, he made his support for privatisation very clear.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on early-day motion 774?
[That this House expresses its disquiet at the continued domination of prominent Tories and Freemasons in appointments to top jobs in the National Health Service in Wales as witnessed by the appointment of Derek Morgan, President of the Bridgend Constituency Conservative Association to be Chairman of the largest NHS Trust in Wales, and of David Crosby, prominent Tory and
1038
Freemason to be Chairman of the Cardiff Community Healthcare Trust; recalls the ringing declarations of the Secretary of State for Wales and his junior Health Minister that these posts were being advertised and would be appointed on merit only; but notes that these two appointments are examples yet again of the same old names and the same old games; and consider that the breaking up of the NHS into several dozen businesses in this way has enormous attractions to this government in diverting tax payers money into the pocket of prominent Tory supporters to give sustenance to the party after its contemptuous rejection at the ballot box in the Islwyn by-election.]
The motion deals with the appointment of Mr. David Crosby as chairman of the Cardiff Community Healthcare trust, when he is a prominent Conservative and a prominent freemason. Will the Leader of the House make available information on how many other freemasons have been appointed to quangos both in Wales and elsewhere? There is growing evidence that they are infecting the national health service especially. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that packing quangos with Conservatives is bad enough, but packing them with freemasons is positively sinister?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I shall seek to respond to the sort of question that the hon. Gentleman has asked in the way in which he asked it, beyond saying that it seems to me that the right course is to appoint people with the appropriate qualifications to do the job that is required.
Mr. Ian Pearson: Given reports today that Sir Robin Butler has found that the Secretary of State for Health breached Government rules on propriety because civil servants seemed to want to dash out and publish the right hon. Lady's speeches in Government-funded magazines, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the politicisation of the civil service, including the use of taxpayers' money for Tory propaganda?
Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir Robin said that he was satisfied that the purpose of the article was to communicate to NHS staff a policy statement relevant to their work, but he thought that the form of the article laid it open to the interpretation that it was publicising a party political event. I am sure that that was not intended. In any event, the Department of Health has assured Sir Robin that it will exercise rigorous scrutiny of such publications in future, and that is plainly right.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday, I took up with you the issue that had been raised by the apparent purloining of papers belonging to a Member, which were subsequently quoted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in the debate on the Gas Bill. I say "apparent" because I am in no position to make an objective determination of the facts, which is why I raise the matter with you. The same point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). You were good enough to say that you would examine the facts and make a statement in due time in response to the points of order raised with you. I was wondering whether you might now be in a position to do so.
Madam Speaker: I did have inquiries made. I understand that departmental documents relating to the debate on the Gas Bill were found by the tape machine in the Library Corridor. They were not stolen.
I deprecate the fact that the papers were not returned to the Department right away. Instead, Members speaking in the debate on the Bill used sections of the material in an attempt either to embarrass the Minister or to tease him. It is up to the hon. Member to determine the reasons for that. I am sure that he will agree with me that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should ensure that they or their officials are not so careless in future as to leave confidential documents lying around.
Mr. Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I have given a ruling.
Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Minister concerned notice of it.
During my Adjournment debate on 22 February—the subject was the Forth rail bridge—the Minister misinformed the House due to wrong information about an inspection and a report subsequently prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on structural and engineering matters. It appears now that there was no such report and I have received a letter to that effect from the Minister. The findings were based on a 1992-93 report by British Rail before the new painting regime took place. That is an important facet of the argument. My hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were accused of scaremongering in respect of the state of the bridge. Madam Speaker, will you investigate the matter and seek an apology from the Minister on our behalf?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of the detail of his point of order. He merely let me know that he was going to raise a point of order on the matter. The matter is difficult, but I believe that it is not a point of order for me. There is obviously a difference of opinion and I advise the hon. Gentleman that he must pursue it with the Minister concerned. I am sure that he has ample ways of attempting to do that and that he will do so.

BILL PRESENTED
  MEDICAL (PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE)
  Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Gerald Malone and Mr. Tom Sackville, presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to make provision relating to the professional performance of registered medical practitioners and the voluntary removal of names from the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
Orders of the Day

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—is a statutory corporation which was established in 1948 to assist overseas countries in the development of their economies by investing in financially viable and developmentally sound business enterprises. The corporation provides loans, equity and management services in a wide range of economic sectors, operating on a quasi-commercial basis outside Government channels. It enables us to provide direct assistance to the private sectors in developing countries.
  Although now called the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC was established by this Parliament. The members of the corporation are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and it is funded by the United Kingdom Government.
  At present, the CDC operates in 52 countries, 39 of which are members of the Commonwealth. A Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the CDC in 1992 concluded that it provided a particularly valuable form of assistance to economies in developing countries.
  Last year, the CDC invested around £240 million, a record level. Eighty per cent. of approvals were in the poorest countries, above the target agreed with Ministers. Its total investment portfolio stands at over £1.6 billion.
  The corporation's task is to use the disciplines and practices of the private sector in order to promote sustainable development in countries. It invests only when projects are expected to make a positive contribution to national development; participates only when its involvement adds value; and structures its investments according to commercial criteria. The corporation actively seeks to improve the links with British and other private sector overseas investors, so that it can build on its traditional role as a catalyst for mobilising international finance alongside its own investment.
  The new focus in developing countries on private sector-led development is opening up new opportunities for the CDC, both in new and traditional areas. It might be helpful if I briefly give some examples of the range and scope of the corporation's activities.
  In Zambia, in October last year the CDC took a majority shareholding in Chilanga Cement Limited, the largest cement producer in Zambia and an essential component of the Zambian economy. The corporation has management responsibility for a major programme of rehabilitating and enhancing the productive capacity of that company. Notably, 30 per cent. of the company's shares are to be sold to local private
  1042
  investors, marking an important stage in the Zambian privatisation programme and the return of an active capital market in Lusaka. It is ironic to note that the CDC first become a majority shareholder in Chilanga in 1949, and has now returned to this position after a long period in which the company has been run by a Zambian state-owned company.
  In Uganda, the Development Finance Company of Uganda—DFCU—has the CDC as a leading shareholder. The demand for asset finance in Uganda is high. Many businesses are growing rapidly and require quick access to finance for new plant and equipment. The corporation and DFCU have promoted the Uganda Leasing Company which opened for business in January. The corporation will provide 21 per cent. of the equity and a loan to the new company. The managing director has been seconded from the CDC.
  Because of Uganda's history, there is a low level of savings, and many would-be entrepreneurs are frustrated by being unable to raise finance for their projects. The Development Finance Company of Uganda has now set up its own venture capital fund. It has enabled mortgage business for house construction and house purchase to expand, and with it the prospect of respectable profits and regular dividends.
  The DFCU has nine investments in parastatal companies made in the 1960s, and has thus been well placed to play an important role in Uganda's privatisation programme. The DFCU was centrally involved in the privatisation of East Africa Distilleries, in which it had a 23 per cent. stake. In 1992, the DFCU and the other minority shareholders persuaded the Ugandan Government to sell its 51 per cent. stake to International Distillers and Vintners, which has taken over the management and turned the company round in a matter of two years.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Minister a question? I am not trying to be especially mischievous; I genuinely want to know the answer. He will know that my hon. Friends were deeply opposed to privatisation of the CDC, but why did the Government decide not to privatise it in the end? What were the pressures on the Government not to privatise, and what interests did they have in mind when they made that decision?
  Mr. Baldry: We considered that it would be far better for the CDC to remain in the public sector. We considered all the options, and that was the conclusion to which we came.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why?
  Mr. Baldry: Because we believed that that was in the best interests of the CDC and those whom it seeks to serve.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is just a general response. In principle, we do not believe that the CDC should be privatised, but there must be reasons why the Government have come to the same conclusion. There must have been some argument in the Department, and the case put against privatisation must have been

  1043
  overwhelmingly convincing to Ministers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us something of what the debate in the Department was about?
  Mr. Baldry: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being mischievous after all, or whether he is teasing. Unlike the Labour party, which has a dogmatic opposition to the word "privatisation", we are not driven by dogma. The CDC serves a valuable purpose, and it was obviously right that there came a time when we considered whether it should not remain in the public sector. However, having regard to the particular work that the CDC does, we concluded that it would be better for it to remain in the public sector.
  Also in Uganda, the CDC and the International Finance Corporation, with other companies, are developing Uganda's first cellular telephone network, covering 15,000 subscribers in Entebbe, Kampala, Jinja and Tororo. Using the most advanced digital cellular technology, the company will provide high-quality digital telecommunications services, including mobile communication and interconnection to the Uganda Post and Telecommunications Corporation fixed-line network and international gateway.
  In India, the CDC has made available a £25 million loan to the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. The HDFC was the first housing finance corporation of its kind in India and has been a leader in developing that sector, with currently 387,000 borrowers and 210,000 depositors. Seventy-five per cent. of its business is with individual home buyers and, with the CDC's financial backing, the HDFC is continuing to expand its business as opportunities grow with the liberalisation of the Indian economy.
  In Sri Lanka, the CDC has approved a second loan of US$30 million to the National Development bank to finance the expansion of its existing operations in term lending, leasing and other financing for predominantly private sector industrial clients in Sri Lanka. Overall demand for term finance has been growing at an average of 30 per cent., and is expected to continue in that way.
  The CDC's first investment in South Africa is scheduled to be made through the establishment of a fund to make equity and quasi-equity investments in franchise operations mainly owned or operated by previously disadvantaged groups. Nedbank investment bank will be contracted to provide management and technical services to the fund management company, and the CDC's involvement will be purely equity of nearly £2 million.
  Throughout the world, the CDC is investing and helping developing countries to promote their economies.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The list of projects that the Minister has given is very creditable, and will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
  As the Minister knows, the Prime Minister recently returned from a visit to the middle east, where I understand that he visited both Gaza and the west bank. As far as the Minister is aware, is there any reason in
  1044
  principle why the CDC should not support projects in those areas? If there is no such reason, is he aware of any such proposals?
  Mr. Baldry: In principle, there is no objection to the CDC's operating in any part of the world. In practice, when it wishes to operate in a new country, it asks the permission of Ministers. As far as I know, it has made no application or proposal in relation to Gaza or the west bank; if it did so, any such application or proposal would be considered on its merits.
  The CDC has recently been granted permission to operate in a number of countries. There is nothing ideological about our attitude: we want to ensure that the CDC is put to the best possible use wherever it operates.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, when the CDC makes an equity investment in some enterprise in the developing world, it is every bit as rigorous and aggressive in insisting that that enterprise is run on commercial lines, that opportunities for efficiency gains are taken and that waste and overmanning are eliminated—and in resisting local political pressures to adopt a non-commercial course—as a genuine private sector investor would be when shareholders' money was at stake?
  Mr. Baldry: Yes. As the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs discovered when it examined the CDC's work, it has an impressive record of ensuring that its money is put to the best possible use, and that the companies and equities in which it invests use that money in the best possible way. I know of no CDC scheme that has been the subject of public criticism, either in the country concerned or in this country.
  In the past, the CDC's resources have been found almost entirely through concessional loans from the British Government. The returns made on the proceeds of its investments have been available for further investment. In 1993, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced that the CDC would no longer receive net new loans from Government, but would no longer be required to pay interest on new and existing loans. As a result of the repayment of outstanding interest and capital on loans and other realisations, an increasing amount of new investment is being made, at decreasing cost to the aid programme.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: My hon. Friend has been describing a British success story—the story of an organisation which, as I think he will agree, has successfully transformed itself from a colonial supporting organisation to an organisation that is worldwide, or at least which operates in many interesting and important parts of the world.
  Will my hon. Friend clear up two points? First, is he confident that the loans straitjacket will be sufficiently loose for the CDC to be able to borrow effectively and support its work without cost to the British taxpayer? Secondly, how can we more effectively promote the CDC's image internationally? This success story—this British-grown international finance corporation—is very little known outside its client base.
  Mr. Baldry: The answer to the first question is yes. As for the second, in the countries that I visit—

  1045
  Pakistan, the Dominican Republic and other countries where the CDC operates—its work is widely recognised and appreciated. People realise that it is an instrument with which the British Government are helping to develop and sustain private enterprise in those countries. It has a high standing, which is also to the credit of the United Kingdom.
  Although the interest rate was lowered to nominal levels in 1994, a full interest waiver for the CDC requires an amendment to the existing Act, which is proposed in the Bill. The Bill also recognises the CDC's continuing need for external borrowing. Last December, the CDC obtained funds from a source other than the British Government—in this instance, the European investment bank.
  It is also exploring the possibility of borrowing from other lenders. Its total level of borrowings is already very close to the existing statutory limit of £850 million, and an increase in that ceiling is essential to ensure the corporation's future financial health.
  Counted within the limit is the borrowing of CDC's overseas subsidiaries, which will increase roughly in line with the overall increase in its portfolio. The Bill proposes an increase initially to £1,100 million, and then, following the further agreement of Parliament through an affirmative resolution, to an overall ceiling of £1,500 million. That should be sufficient to provide a firm basis for the CDC's future investment programmes well into the next century.
  It is a reflection of the CDC's success that the overwhelming majority of new investments will be financed from the returns on existing investments. In 1993, equity realisations of £27 million were made, allowing an overall level of £48 million to be transferred to reserves. It remains the intention of the CDC to unlock the very substantial level of assets held in some long-standing investments so as to secure resources for further expansion of its work in developing countries.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: There is no real controversy about the Bill. Any controversy is about whether it goes far enough. If this is a British success story, why is such a marginal increase being made in the resources which are available? I am confident that those resources will be inadequate in the pretty near future. Why are not the Government backing the success story more fully?
  Mr. Baldry: With respect, only a member of the Labour party could describe an increase in borrowing limits from £850 million to £1,500 as marginal. It is a substantial increase in the CDC's borrowing powers. Certainly, the CDC is confident that the increase will enable it to operate well into the next century.
  The CDC opened a new office in South Africa last year. This year, it plans to open offices in Mozambique and Uganda. The CDC has helped to establish a venture capital fund in Tanzania, which it also manages. It provides risk capital for local businesses, and complements efforts to establish a local equity market.
  In South Africa, even with its far more highly developed capital market, development capital funds for small entrepreneurs can still be very difficult to obtain. Following the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime
  1046
  Minister last September, the CDC is announcing this month an investment of £9 million in a new development capital fund in Johannesburg.
  Clause 1 of the Bill increases the statutory limits on the total amount outstanding in respect of sums borrowed or guaranteed by the corporation from £850 million to £1,100 million, with provision for an increase by order for a sum not exceeding £1,500 million.
  Clause 2 provides the powers necessary to ensure that the terms of existing aid loans for the CDC should become interest free.
  Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to determine the remuneration of members of the corporation. The Bill makes no change to the Secretary of State's powers to appoint members of the corporation.
  Clause 4 gives effect to the repeals set out in the schedule, and clause 5 makes provision for the title and extent of the Bill.
  The House last reviewed and agreed new borrowing limits for the CDC well over a decade ago in 1982. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed then on the value of the CDC's work for developing countries and for Britain.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way before he concludes?
  Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the House will again agree to endorse the work of the CDC, to place it on a sound financial footing to carry it into the 21st century and to enable it to continue its excellent work in promoting the private sector's investment and jobs in developing countries. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.27 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome the opportunity to express general support for the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and to congratulate the Minister on the ise way in which he went through the clauses. I am afraid that he went through them so quickly that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was unable to intervene. I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.
  Not a great deal divides us on the Bill, but I should like to raise one or two important points. As the Minister said, from its inception under a Labour Government to the present day, the CDC has provided much-needed investment in the poorest countries of the world. In 1993, 72.9 per cent. of total investment went to the poorest countries, of which almost 30 per cent. was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa. Nobody could possibly disagree with that.
  Initially, that investment was concentrated in former colonial countries, which subsequently became members of the Commonwealth. Last year, when things had to be changed, as the Minister said, permission had to be sought and was granted for CDC involvement to extend to El Salvador and, indeed, to South Africa—countries, as we would all agree, in need of, earning and deserving the support of this country and of the CDC.
  In such countries, where inward investment is essential but private investors are often very hesitant, the CDC carries out its vital work: pump-priming local economies, meeting the needs of some of the poorest

  1047
  people of the world for vital infrastructure, contributing to economic and political stability, and sending out positive signals for the rest of the world to follow, which I hope is especially true in the case of South Africa, Mozambique and others.
  As the Minister has said and the reports have told us, the CDC is not only effective but has been very efficient in the years that it has operated. In the past, its investment funding has been largely self-generating, supplemented by long-term, low-interest loans. The Minister mentioned the Chilanga cement project in Zambia. I am pleased to tell the House that I shall be visiting that project next week when I visit Zambia. The CDC offered me the opportunity to see the project, and I look forward to it very much indeed.
  In the financial year 1994-95, there was a net flow from the CDC to the Government of £7 million and, at the same time, £1,677 million was invested. Final audited figures, I understand, for 1994 are not yet available, but the 1993 figures show that the net cash injection from the Government represented less than 5 per cent. of the level of new investment and 0.5 per cent. of external aid spending.
  This Bill is interesting not so much for what it says as for what some of it fails to say. We can all support the move to raise the CDC's borrowing limits, given its good track record and the enduring needs of developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. I am not so sure, however, about the recommendations to remove Treasury controls over salaries, pensions and allowances.
  I do not doubt that that will result in substantial gains for some members of the corporation—an outcome synonymous with the privatisation process. Indeed, I am sure that I was not alone in thinking that the CDC was at some point being lined up as a candidate for privatisation, on the grounds that it would give it the commercial freedom that it seemed to be seeking. I therefore welcomed the Foreign Secretary's statement in May ruling out privatisation.
  The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did not make it terribly clear why privatisation was ruled out. There was a recognition that a privatised CDC would have aims, objectives and a financial structure inconsistent with its development role. From reading the report, that seems why privatisation did not go ahead, and I am very glad that it did not.
  In the Minister's winding-up speech, would he tell me why the argument that the CDC could obtain the commercial freedom it sought without privatisation was in contrast to the argument and action over the Crown Agents, which has just been debated in another place, where it was argued that only by the removal of the Crown Agents from the public sector could they have the greater financial freedom that they sought and needed to expand?
  I find the argument inconsistent. What was the difference? The Minister, in all fairness, has not explained the reasons. I agree with the Minister and the report that it is inconsistent to deem that privatisation could rule out, hamper or in some way limit the aims
  1048
  and objectives of the CDC. It would be interesting to know why the Crown Agents were treated rather differently.
  Speculation about the future role of the CDC continues to grow. This Bill does not answer all my concerns, which were fuelled by recommendations in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1993, the CDC's own five-yearly review and various odd comments from Ministers. Reference was made in the review to the
  "wider world in which the CDC now operates".
  During debates in this House in 1992, before her elevation to another place, the Minister for Overseas Development mentioned
  "the expanding role which I hope it"—
  the CDC—
  "will have in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union … There is nothing to stop CDC work in eastern Europe provided there is sensible risk".—[Official Report,; Vol. , c..]
  I hope that any possible involvement in that direction will not be at the expense of our commitment to Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister give us that assurance? It is particularly important, given the Government's endorsement in 1993 of the quinquennial review recommendation to drop the operating target for the proportion of investments in the Commonwealth.
  I also ask the Minister to assure the House that any such initiative will be funded separately, and that the poor of South Africa, Mozambique or wherever the CDC intends to operate will not be paying for investment programmes in the former Soviet Union. That is a concern that we all share about the aid programme, and the widening operation of the CDC.
  In some ways, this Bill is unfinished business, and we will be looking again at the role of the CDC, especially as it expands. There are many areas of investment in which it is prohibited from action—the provision of schools, hospitals and colleges, for example—and although I am aware that it is not, strictly speaking, an aid organisation, the social spin-off of projects should be one of the guiding factors determining their acceptability. Surely that is not too much to ask.
  The Government's track record on aid and development is increasingly tarnished, and typified by scandal and mischief, from the misuse of aid funds for the Pergau dam to the wrecking of the Lomé negotiations and the deterioration in the aid budget. While it does not redress the balance, the sound reputation of the CDC makes a different contribution to aid and development projects. I trust that Ministers will bear that in mind during the coming months.
  4.36 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I will not take up more than a few moments of the time of the Minister and the House, because there is such broad unanimity on the Bill. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and the Commonwealth Development Corporation on this tremendous British success story.
  I am particularly interested in the expansion of the CDC from Commonwealth countries into other needy countries worldwide. Of course, it was a lapsus linguae on the part of the Opposition spokesman on aid, the

  1049
  hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), to mention Mozambique, which I do not believe is a member of the Commonwealth. I appreciate her view that the poorest of the poor should not suffer with expansion in eastern Europe, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Russia.
  The CDC has broadened its remit very dramatically indeed, which is to be welcomed because private investment in countries in difficult economic circumstances cannot be bounded by old colonial boundaries, however attractive that may seem historically. I very much hope that the CDC will investigate China and Russia, and I want it to find ways to help some of the poorer countries in the middle east, such as Yemen. The investment in Johannesburg in the wake of the abolition of apartheid is going to be one of the most wonderful developments, and is very exciting indeed.
  This Bill will bring some modern structures into the CDC. I welcome the move, for example, to have the chief executive on the board. Like the hon. Member for Eccles, I welcome the fact that we will look more sensibly at salary levels.
  I want to consider enlarging the British Government's publicity machine for the CDC. I have been fortunate to visit a number of CDC projects in operation in India and parts of Africa and, as someone who has been to some of the poorer areas of the world, it has been a great joy for me to see an organisation so deftly picking up investment opportunities, staying with a company while it begins to flourish and then withdrawing.
  No commercial organisation could ever carry out that sort of operation. After all, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is asked by the Government only to wash its face, not to make a profit, and any profit is ploughed back into the organisation. It is an altruistic attitude, and it is right and proper for a national Government body to achieve that.
  I regard the Commonwealth Development Corporation as the silent partner of the Overseas Development Administration's major humanitarian aid effort, and all I ask the Minister is that we should somehow discard that over-humble attitude. We should stop it being the silent partner and try to get its wonderful developmental work known much more widely among the British people.
  After all, its work is sponsored through the taxpayer—or is it? Will the Minister assure us that the borrowing levels will not be inhibited by the Treasury? Internationally, the wider borrowing requirements take a burden off the British taxpayer while assisting people in poorer developing countries who need loans, development and, above all, British expertise, which is carried out superbly as only the CDC seems able to do.
  I ask the Minister again: will he please think hard about publicity about the CDC? It is a wonderful organisation. It is the United Kingdom's home-grown international finance corporation. All I ask is that we should shout a little louder on its behalf.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am glad to see that we are debating this Commonwealth Bill because I thought that this year we would debate a different Commonwealth Bill, which
  1050
  would rule out the Commonwealth Institute. I am pleased to see that the Government have backed off from the Commonwealth Institute Bill, because they would never have got it through this House or the House of Lords. I congratulate the Government on recognising more than they did in the past the value of the Commonwealth.
  This could be a golden age for the Commonwealth, now that we have got rid of some of the problems of the past, like apartheid in South Africa and Baroness Thatcher, and moved on so that some good can come out of Commonwealth initiatives. I know that the CDC covers a wider area than just the Commonwealth, but it is good to see Commonwealth initiatives; I was particularly pleased about the current initiative in Sierra Leone.
  The CDC is well thought of and extremely successful. The central problem remains, however, of why more is not done to bring it to the attention of the British public and expand it more fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked a good question, which has not yet been answered. I hope that the Minister will find time later to say why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems to be giving the CDC such a modest push. When other small achievements are trumpeted, those of the CDC are not.
  May I start by making a couple of quibbles about the CDC? In its annual report, it appears to be a London-based quangocracy of some kind. The board appears to lack balance, and I hope that the Government will take that into account when considering how it is developed. There is an absence of women among senior members of the board. That is a major weakness, given that development in many parts of the world is led by women. Their perspective should be included on the board.
  I wonder how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assembles the board of the CDC. Judging by the annual report, it simply has a whistle down the road to the Overseas Development Institute or Chatham House, and says, "Who have you got here?" or goes around its pals in the banking world. I have nothing against the ODI and Chatham House, as I support both organisations, but the CDC board seems to he stuck in a bit of a rut, as it includes no one from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
  Do those parts of the Commonwealth not get a look in when it comes to appointments to the board? Much of the best development is now done by major British non-governmental organisations operating in the same parts of the world as the CDC, but they are not represented on the CDC's board.
  I also wonder about the CDC's right-wing tilt. Not only does the text of its annual report have such a tilt but it is the only annual report I have ever seen in which the pictures of board members are tilted to the right as well.
  More seriously, the chairman's report on page 8 is worrying, as it says:
  "CDC's prospects are aided by the wide-spread acceptance of IMF/World Bank led policy reform".
  Where is that widespread acceptance? This is one of the consequences when a country does not send its Prime Minister to the social summit, because he and all those associated with him get out of touch.

  1051
  The summit communiqué, which was agreed at the social summit, says:
  "Programmes drawn up by institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, designed to restructure the economies of developing countries, should take social factors more into account to avoid disruption".
  I hope that the CDC realises that it is not accurate to say that World bank and IMF programmes are widely accepted. Even the World bank and the IMF admit that they have made major errors in their structural adjustment programmes. I hope that that matter will be brought to the CDC's attention.
  That apart, we agree that the CDC is well thought of in the House. It has achieved a great deal and is living proof that good-quality industrial and commercial development can be carried out in the most unpromising circumstances. It is extremely good that the CDC should be attempting initiatives in some countries in Africa where it is currently operating—like Sierra Leone and Sudan. I doubt whether it is operating in some of those countries, as nothing industrial or commercial is likely to be going on in Liberia at present, although the annual report says it is.
  The Government do not make enough use of the CDC, and the major question that I wish to raise is whether the Bill goes far enough, in terms not only of its borrowing requirements but of commercial freedom. Will the Minister clear up that matter? Is the CDC allowed to borrow commercially if its wants to? If not, why not?
  That is basically the problem with the Post Office. The Labour party believes that some organisations in the public sector could be given more freedom. The CDC is trying to achieve the maximum possible economic and social development, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and it would be tragic if such development could not proceed successfully, because the CDC was held up by Treasury rules and Government dogma, which currently prevents the Post Office from being liberated.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to reply to that point during the course of his contribution? I am not being mischievous again, but it would help the debate if the Minister would deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend put, which is extremely important and repeatedly raised with us by development organisations.
  Mr. Worthington: It is the crucial point. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the CDC says to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does it believe that it has enough commercial freedom? I am willing for the Minister to intervene.
  Does the CDC believe that the Bill before us is the one that will enable it to do its job to the best of its capabilities? I am keeping going to give the Minister every opportunity to answer. Does the CDC have the freedom to enable it to do valuable work in the
  1052
  developing world to the best of its ability, or is it at all hamstrung by Government restrictions? Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  Mr. Baldry: I will answer later.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. It would help our debate. This is a debate.
  Mr. Worthington: My other questions are about zones of operation. Where is the CDC allowed to operate? There is a strange part in the annual report about countries in which the CDC is allowed to operate. That is directly under the Minister's control. What agreements have been reached with the CDC about specific zones of operation?
  I was unfortunately called out during part of the Minister's speech, and he may have discussed the matter, but we need complete clarity about central and eastern Europe. Will the CDC be allowed to operate in central and eastern Europe, or will it be restricted? Will we be told whether it has been decided that at present the CDC should not be allowed to operate in central and eastern Europe? I do not oppose it operating there, because I believe that the CDC could do a valuable job, but what decision has been taken on that matter?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ms Lestor) said, we would not want money that would otherwise contribute to economic development in sub-Saharan Africa to go into central and eastern Europe. That is not to say that the CDC does not have a role in that region—I think it does—but I do not think that the Minister mentioned that crucial subject.
  Will the Minister also clarify some matters in relation to South Africa? In the most recent annual report accessible to us, we are told that the CDC is not allowed to operate in South Africa. I am sure that that has changed. South Africa has been a Commonwealth country and, since it is the key country in that part of the world—the Minister mentioned it in his speech—the CDC will operate there. On what scale will it operate? I referred, perhaps wrongly, to a marginal increase. It is not a marginal increase, but I do not want the CDC to be hamstrung. To what extent will the CDC be fully encouraged to do the work that it would want to do in South Africa? That is another key question.
  Will the Minister specifically say whether the CDC will be allowed to operate in the middle east? The Prime Minister has just returned from Gaza. The greatest need in Gaza and on the west bank is for economic development, so that the people rapidly realise that change is occurring. The skill of the CDC is that it reaches an area before the private sector is fully committed, and Gaza and the west bank are such areas. Once again, I ask the Minister: what is the ruling of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about whether the CDC will be able to operate in that region?
  There are several important questions, one of which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. The Minister has not answered it. My hon. Friend mentioned structure and commercial freedom, and asked whether the rules that are laid down now are the right ones for the CDC.
  I want assurances from the Minister that the CDC and the Government are aware of the widespread questions about World bank and International Monetary

  1053
  Fund policies that are regarded as having been deeply flawed. I should not like the CDC to be in a time warp in which it would say that they were fully acceptable.
  I should like the Minister to answer the geographical questions but, as he will gather, there is general Opposition support for the CDC.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As everyone knows, the Bill will receive a Second Reading, and I hope that it will pass all its remaining stages this evening. The Second Reading debate gives us the opportunity to mention several general matters concerning the CDC, as well as certain matters with which the Bill is not expressly concerned but which are none the less relevant.
  As was said at the outset, it is interesting that the CDC has retained its place in the public sector, on the ground, as I understand it, that to be there is more consistent with its development role. That shows, to the satisfaction of some of us in the House, that at least there are some bounds to the Government's doctrinaire approach to privatisation. In many respects, I have always thought that that was a pretty arid argument, because the issue must surely be the effectiveness of an organisation rather than its place in one sector or the other.
  It is important to realise that a large contribution to the new investments made by the CDC arises from surpluses and recycled funds. That puts a large premium on good management and sound decision-making. We can have some confidence in that regard. The Minister has referred to the 1992 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, to point to its conclusion—that the help provided by the CDC is especially valuable to the economies of developing countries.
  In another important element, the report recognised the competence and dedication of the staff of the corporation. It is also worth noticing that the operating costs of the CDC are very low, and bear favourable comparison with other similar organisations.
  Like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I am worried about the issue of areas of operation. Indeed, during the period of the hon. Gentleman's enforced absence during the Minister's speech, I drew the Minister's attention to the issue of Gaza and the west bank. It seems to me—I think there is some recognition of that in the policy that attaches to the CDC—that it is thought to be legitimate that the CDC should operate in a region where some element of the interest of the United Kingdom arises.
  Having visited Israel shortly before Christmas last year, and having continued since then to try to keep a monitoring eye on events in the middle east, and especially that part of the middle east, I am convinced that the success of the peace process established in the middle east, and especially involving the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Israeli Government, will largely depend on the extent to which the economic aspirations of many people in Gaza and the west bank can be recognised and fulfilled.
  The Prime Minister's visit this week is timely and appropriate. I understand from some of the reports that he took with him many people with commercial interests, one of whom at least, I understand, said on
  1054
  the aeroplane on the way back that he would find it perfectly possible to work with any sensible Government, including, apparently, a Labour Government. Whether the Prime Minister thinks that the fare of that member of the party was justified is another matter entirely.
  As I said, the success of the peace process will depend on the extent to which there is economic development. I cannot conceive of a region in which we have greater political interest at the moment than the middle east.
  Having raised that case and indulged in what one might fairly call special pleading in relation to it, I am immediately conscious of the argument by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that those with interests in the third world, and especially non-governmental organisations there, have a legitimate anxiety that expansion or possible expansion into eastern Europe will be at the expense of Africa.
  Do the additional borrowing powers that the Bill now affords to the CDC suggest an intention that profits from impoverished parts of Africa will be used to finance new investments in eastern and central Europe? If that were to be the case, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would consider that an inappropriate way for the CDC to proceed.
  Many hon. Members recognise the CDC's potential role in central and eastern Europe, but as has already been said, surely that should be done through the provision of additional funds—new money. It should not be done at the expense of other areas, particularly Africa, where the CDC has been traditionally active. The Minister properly referred to that when he listed a number of admirable CDC projects.
  I have no criticism of clauses 1 and 2, which are perfectly sensible. Clause 3 relates to remuneration, pensions and allowances. I am pleased to note that they are to be determined by the Secretary of State and not by a committee of the Confederation of British Industry.
  We will want to know from the Minister what Secretary of State expects to be the outcome of the new flexibility. Does he expect the total cost to go up or down? The word "flexibility" is often used to justify some change in policy. Those of us who have regard to public transport know that "flexibility" almost always means a reduction in service. When one talks about wages or the income of manual workers, "flexibility" almost always means a reduction in those wages or income. When used in the context of executives and board members, "flexibility" almost always means an increase.
  Somewhere within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, someone must have done a calculation of the financial consequences of passing clause 3 into law. I should like to know precisely what estimate the Secretary of State has made of the consequences of doing that.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that, by the end of 1993, the corporation was involved in more than 340 businesses, which provided, on a calculation, several hundred thousand jobs. The nature of those projects means that they often extend over 10 or even 20 years. They are therefore long-term investments in the economies in which they are placed.

  1055
  We must ask ourselves whether some constraints have been placed on the activities of that success story to which it would have perhaps been preferable that the Bill had turned its attention. In particular, can the Minister tell me why the CDC continues to be liable to United Kingdom corporation tax, when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs endorsed the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that it should no longer be subject to that tax?
  The Committee pointed out that, were it not subject to that tax, two things would flow from that. First, additional funds would be available by virtue of the remission of corporation tax. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the CDC's ability to negotiate favourable tax status in host countries would be enhanced. That would have a multiplier effect on the investments by the CDC.
  The other element of finance that certainly requires consideration and explanation is the application of nil net funding and the least-cost rule. What consequences will they have on the CDC's ability to fulfil its responsibilities? To turn the matter round and put it in a more practical way, what additional amounts could be raised for the activities of that success story if neither nil net funding nor the least-cost rule were to be applied to the corporation?
  The Bill is narrow in scope, but it leaves a number of important questions unanswered. I hope that we will have an early chance to return to them, because one thing is certain: as the debate has demonstrated so far, the corporation commands the attention and support of the House. If its success is such as has been justified in the debate, surely it is entitled to a greater freedom and an enhanced role.
  5.4 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I should like to concentrate on one specific matter, which I hope that the Minister will be able to address.
  The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—regretfully, he is not in his place now—intervened on the Minister and asked for categorical assurances that any investment entered into by the CDC would be subject to the most rigorous financial safeguards. In essence, he believed that, when considering an investment, the CDC should act like a private company, which has responsibilities to its shareholders. The Minister gave that categorical assurance.
  We all agree that the resources given to the CDC are less than those that, ideally, we would like to give it. The only strictures governing the CDC that seem to matter relate to finance. Why do we not also issue strictures about the gross abuse of human rights that takes place around the world, and particularly in countries that are in desperate need of development and inward investment?
  There is something illogical in judging the value of the individual nation state exclusively on the lowest possible wages that it is prepared to accept and the longest possible hours that it will demand its workers
  1056
  to work. That may balance the books according to accountants, but it neglects the greatest resource of any nation state—its people.
  Developing nations are increasingly guilty of abusing human rights associated with work and the development of industry. Any kind of democratically based argument against impositions from central Government may preclude the introduction of human rights, but brings in its train human rights abuses. The nation state Government argue that such criticism of their action goes to the basis of the economic development of their country.
  The abuse of human rights has meant that trade union leaders have been murdered and abused, many of them women. Newspapers have been closed down, and journalists have disappeared. Writers who speak out against the governing regime are forced into hiding in their own countries, or even flee their own countries to find sanctuary abroad.
  One of my constituents has been the victim of the current gross abuse of human rights in a Commonwealth country, Nigeria. I refer to the daughter of Chief Abiola, who, as we know—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will relate that example to something to do with the CDC. If not, she is not in order.
  Ms Jackson: I began my argument by saying that the Government have issued certain strictures which relate exclusively to the funding and financial structure of the CDC.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened most attentively to the hon. Lady, and she was about to refer to an individual case. That case must relate to something to do with the CDC; otherwise, those comments are not in order.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I might continue my argument a little further, I believe that it is equally important that implementation of the necessary CDC projects are governed just as much by respect for human rights in the third world as they are by financial considerations. I must admit that I had intended to cite another individual's case—that of Ken Saro Wiwa, another Nigerian who has suffered gross human rights abuses from his Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a debate between the Chair and the hon. Lady. There are two Commonwealth debates today, and it would be entirely appropriate for the hon. Lady to raise individual cases affecting the Commonwealth in the second debate. We are on the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. I hope that she will bear that in mind.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but rather disappointed that it is impossible for you and me to have a debate on this matter. I shall certainly consider what you have said, and perhaps redraft my arguments.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: One of the principal arguments in the development movement over the years is that, before British support is provided, whether

  1057
  through the CDC or via the Overseas Development Administration directly to overseas countries or corporations, there should be greater consideration of human rights. There is an argument that one should not allocate money to countries in which there are abuses of human rights. In the context of the individual cases about which my hon. Friend obviously wishes to speak, she might care to reflect on whether there should be CDC support for the countries in which those cases have occurred.
  Ms Jackson: That was to be the main thrust of the argument that I was beginning to develop. We have established that there is limited funding for the CDC and for other development agencies. I do not think that any country can claim to have an absolutely clean slate on abuses of human rights, but it should be a prerequisite that no sizeable funding, and certainly no pump priming, should be provided to countries in which there are such abuses.
  In Nigeria, pump priming has led to increased development of the oil industry.
  Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend's example of Nigeria is particularly appropriate. I understand that the CDC is no longer putting new investment into Nigeria, because of the human rights abuses of people such as Ken Saro Wiwa and Chief Abiola. Such abuses have convinced the CDC that Nigeria is not an appropriate place in which to invest money. That is to the enormous detriment of the largest black African country, which is being denied CDC resources because of its Government.
  Ms Jackson: That is the essential point: it is the people in such countries who are suffering most grievously. As my hon. Friend has said, the Nigerian Government have been found repugnant by the CDC and by others, because of the way that they have totally ignored every kind of democratic principle, and have overthrown a duly elected President.
  They have imposed a military regime which has been responsible for murder and rape and the illegal imprisonment of intellectuals such as Ken Saro 'Wiwa, who was held without trial from May 1994 until February of this year. He was subjected to torture in prison, and he was manacled and kept in the dark and without food for more than 60 days. The Government of Chief Abiola, who was the democratically elected President of that country, were totally overturned by a general, who was himself overthrown by a military coup.
  Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was discussing pump priming. There should be a proviso that pump priming does not lead to the destruction of land, as is happening in Nigeria as a result of oil development. The land of the Ovoni people, whose leader is Ken Saro Wiwa, has been destroyed by what they claim are the grossly anti-environmental practices of Shell Oil in that region.
  It is alleged that that is being done at the behest of the central Government, who are desperate for as much foreign revenue as they can suck in. It is also alleged that the money is not being spent in the best interests of that developing nation, but is being used for corrupt practices by an illegal regime.
  1058
  Human rights should be central to the CDC's considerations when apportioning money to schemes. Such apportionment may begin with the best of intentions, but it gives little or no satisfaction to hon. Members or to the country to see desperately needed funds for developing countries being given to regimes which may occasionally provide bread and clean water and the beginnings of a health service and education, but which are mainly concerned with abusing human rights and human dignity.
  I end where I began. Any consideration by the CDC of investment in schemes should not relate exclusively to economic realities and balances.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend makes an important point—that, in deciding investment priorities, the CDC should look not only at whether a sound commercial case has been made for an investment which will work and contribute to a country's development, but also at the wider social circumstances in that country.
  Although there has been no investment in Nigeria for the past year, for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) spelled out, some countries with human rights records which give rise to concern have had investments in recent years. One of those is Indonesia, which has occupied, against our Government's wishes, East Timor. I accept that Nigeria is extremely important, but would my hon. Friend like to press the Minister on the wider question of human rights abuses in some of the countries in which the CDC is currently investing?
  Ms Jackson: I shall certainly put that to the Minister again. I would not expect a categorical assurance at the end of the debate, but in winding up perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government are thinking of taking on board the concerns that are being expressed not only by hon. Members and by non-governmental agencies and organisations but by people all over the world.
  We wish to assist in the development of third-world countries and to ensure sustainable development for the world as an entity, and the issue of human rights should be central to funding and even to selecting projects. By pump-priming major schemes, we want to develop individual abilities and enhance human dignity. We do not want simply to make a few people very rich and a very large number even more abjectly poor.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has raised an interesting aspect of the debate. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke about Indonesia. Perhaps he is not aware that, according to the annual report of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC has an office in Indonesia—the country that stands charged before the United Nations with abusing civil rights in many ways.
  I am sure that the CDC will want to pursue that issue and perhaps write to those of us who are present for the debate. Perhaps it will explain why it feels that,

  1059
  in the context of current abuses, which are the subject of repeated representations in the House, it is in order for it to invest some of its money in that country.
  Mr. Bayley: I should like to make a brief intervention about Indonesia. According to the latest annual report by the CDC, in the most recent year an additional £13 million was invested in three new projects in Indonesia. A further two are due to come on stream in the next financial year. It is not just a question of continued investment in Indonesia: by comparison with many other CDC eligible countries, it is a high level of investment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The mind boggles as we getfurther into this discussion. One wonders what more would come out if we had time to consider the documents that some of us have received only in the past few moments.
  The debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992 took place on 4 March in the 1st Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. Baroness Chalker, the then Minister, is now in the other place. I argued that the name of the Commonwealth Development Corporation needed to be changed.
  One recommendation in the quinquennial review states:
  "Further consideration should be given in the context of a possible CDC Bill to the case for and against changing CDC's name".
  I presume that much discussion had taken place in the Department. I argued that the name should be changed to either the British Development Corporation or to the International Development Corporation.
  To some extent, my case is supported by recommendation 11 in the review, which states:
  "There should not in future be a target for the proportion of investments in the commonwealth".
  That suggests—I am not arguing against this; there might be sensible reasons for it—that the Government and the Commonwealth Development Corporation foresee playing a lesser role in Commonwealth countries as against other countries that might have equally important calls on resources.
  I and many of my hon. Friends have visited countries where the CDC has done excellent work—I think, in particular, of Malaysia. I have visited projects there on two occasions, and I have seen the formidable work that has taken place, and the major contribution that has been made to the local economy. When I visit some countries, however, I sense a slight uneasiness when I mention matters to do with the British Commonwealth, especially in the context of the debate that is taking place on the World Service about the CDC's activities, which seem to promote principles of privatisation.
  I am not expressing a reservation about the need to promote arguments about privatisation in certain parts of the world—they might be sensible arguments. The question is whether those arguments should be advanced in the context of an organisation that is referred to as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is as if we were exporting our culture through an organisation
  1060
  that, historically, has bound people in a family of nations. There is almost a patronising intonation when one is promoting such principles of privatisation.
  If there is to be a reduced role in the Commonwealth, why do not we change the name? Why does it not become the British or International Development Corporation? Why do we have to hang on to a name that, in some people's minds, relates beyond the Commonwealth to the colonial past? To some extent, we should perhaps withdraw from using terminology that some people might interpret as neo-colonial. I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth is a colonial organisation today, but some people in underdeveloped countries might view it as such.
  I understand that some work has been done in Vietnam. Why should the organisation be known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation in Vietnam? The Vietnamese may not want to be reminded of their experience under colonialism by an organisation that was previously named the Colonial Development Corporation. This is only a fine point, and perhaps I am labouring it, but it was sufficiently important for the quinquennial review to suggest that the matter should be discussed in the context of legislation to be brought before the House of Commons.
  The review states:
  "Over the next Quinquennium, at least 70 per cent. of board approvals each financial year should be for poor (IDA eligible) countries".
  But in the debate, Baroness Chalker said:
  "In 1987, we further agreed with CDC that at least 60 per cent. of new investment should be made in low-income countries".—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 4 March 1992; c. 3.]
  I presume that a commitment was made in the review to increase the proportion of money that is spent in International Development Association, low-income countries. Was that recommendation accepted? Reading the Library brief, one is led to believe that it was. I should like it placed on the record that that principle has been accepted by Ministers.
  I understand my hon. Friends' concerns about how precious moneys could be diverted from underdeveloped countries to the former Soviet Union and to eastern and central Europe. However, the CDC has a critically important role to play in that part of world. Not many organisations have the international expertise that it has.
  Some years ago, when I had responsibility for these matters on the Labour Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I had lunch with the CDC, when the issue was raised of the extent to which we should be involved in eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
  I understand that Ministers have conceded that some developments may occur in that regard. I argue that we should substantially uplift our commitment—through organisations such as the CDC—to invest in eastern and central Europe by taking the route endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). She said that we should allow the CDC to borrow more freely from commercial markets, and to be free from constraints. The Minister may correct me, but it may be that Treasury rules are restricting the CDC from deploying its experince.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I apologise to the two Front-Bench spokesmen for not being here earlier. I was with the Foreign Minister from Cambodia. One reason why the Bill is going through is that it will enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to borrow more money so that it can do its valuable work in Cambodia as well as Vietnam. It seems apposite to welcome the Bill and to say how much one supports it and, in particular, how much one supports the CDC.
  Some years ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs carefully considered the CDC. All of us who have travelled and seen the CDC's work in so many countries, especially the most difficult countries, where inward and private investment is hard to attract, know that its achievements are remarkable.
  One wants to support everything that anyone has said that is helpful to the CDC. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be passed as quickly as possible. With its long experience in so many countries, the CDC brings tremendous benefit back to this country in terms of what we are able to achieve, but more particularly, it benefits the countries in which it operates.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Bill. Will the Minister give the House a definition of what the Government mean by "poor"? He said that a proportion of the funding—70 per cent. I believe—will go to "poor" countries. After the Pergau fiasco, the Government decided that aid and trade provision would no longer be given to countries with a per capita GNP of more than $700. Will the same level apply to the CDC loans in future?
  Given that the Government will not in future be making contributions to the CDC's loan stock, and that moneys it lends will in future be coming from repayments from developing countries, I would be extremely uneasy if poor developing countries were paying back their loans to create a loan stock for relatively richer countries in eastern Europe.
  What assurance can the Minister give the House that, if there is a policy change which allows an expansion of the CDC's operations in eastern Europe—which I broadly welcome—the loans made there will not be financed from repayments made by poorer countries?
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Baldry: I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made.
  Sometimes, there seemed to be an internal debate about whether people want the CDC to invest in eastern Europe. What has come out of the debate is broad agreement and support for the work that the CDC does. I am proud to trumpet its success, and I am sure that colleagues from both sides of the House will trumpet its successes around the world and in the United Kingdom.
  The Government's responsibility under the CDC Acts is to set out a strategic policy framework in which the CDC operates: it is not to second-guess it. Decisions on individual investments are the responsibility of the CDC board. There may well be occasions on which we would request the CDC to delay investments in
  1062
  countries where aid programme activities have been suspended on human rights grounds. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised some tension about the fact that one can sometimes withdraw support from a country and make things more difficult.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) mentioned Nigeria. The hon. Lady may wish to stay for the next debate and make a further contribution. We would all support the comments made today by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. He said that developments in Nigeria
  "underscore the point that, unless and until the military Government speedily returns the country to democratic rule, Nigeria's current ills, including instability and potential for disastrous conflict, will continue to worsen."
  I am sure that we all agree with that.
  Many hon. Members asked about the coverage of the CDC. It is pretty comprehensive. It is now doing significant business in India and Pakistan, and more recent additions include South Africa and Vietnam.
  The CDC asks for the Government's permission if it wishes to operate in a new country. Obviously, we look to the CDC to take a view on where it is best placed to deploy its skills. It is important not to spread financial and management resources too thinly.
  In fact, the CDC has not asked for permission to invest in eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. If it did so, we would have to consider that request carefully, because a number of other bodies, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, already exist with a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We would have to consider carefully whether the CDC had any comparative advantages over other organisations. As I have said, the CDC has not yet made such a request.
  The CDC has not made any request about the west bank or Gaza. If it did, again we would give it careful consideration.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister say what criteria the Government would take into account if such an application were made?
  Mr. Baldry: Clearly, as has been evidenced by my comments about eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, it would depend to a certain extent on what other instruments there were to support those countries, whether we thought that the CDC could make a contribution, and the arguments that the CDC put to us.
  For example, the CDC has been given permission to extend its work into central America—Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala—and has done so because that complemented the work it was doing with the Commonwealth Caribbean. That made a lot of sense. However, it has not made a request to extend its work into South America or China. We would consider such requests on their merits.
  Some comments were made about the possibility of any changes in clause 3 leading to an expansion in the pay and remuneration of the board of the CDC. It is fair to put on record the fact that the board is currently made up entirely of non-executives. The annual report for 1993 shows that six of those non-executives drew a remuneration of less than £5,000, and only one drew

  1063
  a remuneration of up to £10,000. It is an incredibly cost-effective organisation in terms of the public service it provides.
  There are a number of Scottish connections with the board. For a long time, Lord Reith—
  Mr. Worthington: He is dead.
  Mr. Baldry: I know that.
  I was saying that Lord Reith was on the board in the 1960s and there is Sir William Ryrie now. There are some vacancies on the board. There is one woman on the board, but I will reflect on the comments made during the debate. It is important that the CDC reflects wide interests, but it is an organisation that needs to make important investment decisions. As hon. Members recognise, it needs to have the expertise necessary to make those decisions.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate meant to be critical of any of the CDC's projects, but I do not think that any project has ever drawn criticism from an overseas Government, from a non-governmental organisation or from anyone in the House. If there has ever been such criticism, I hope that hon. Members will draw attention to it subsequently. The projects that it has carried out have commanded broad support.
  As to what the CDC has been called—
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady will be able to make her points in the next debate if she so wishes.
  Ms Jackson: I cannot.
  Mr. Baldry: Allow me to finish my point, and I will give way.
  What the CDC has been called has been subject of considerable debate over the years. Clearly, an Act of Parliament started the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and it has been part of our contribution to the Commonwealth. It is now generally accepted that it is called the CDC.
  If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) looks at the annual report, he will find it hard to see the Commonwealth Development Corporation spelt out in full. It is known as the CDC. Bearing in mind what some of my hon. Friends have said about promoting the CDC, I do not think that changing its name again would help. Everyone knows it as the CDC. It is recognised around the world as the CDC, and it does a good job.
  Ms Jackson: I did not intend any of my contributions to be critical of the CDC, or any of its past projects or projects in which it will engage in the future. I was concerned that, in an increasingly dangerous, highly competitive and ruthless world, it should be given assistance by the Government and this House by being allowed to take on board and, if necessary, having written into its strictures and structures, that an element of consideration for abuses of human rights should be part and parcel of its thinking.
  Mr. Baldry: As I said, the CDC is already very sensitive to those issues.
  1064
  One or two technical points have been mentioned. Several hon. Members referred to market rate borrowing. It is a long-standing principle that public sector bodies should not generally borrow on their own credit at a higher cost than that at which the Government can borrow. The matter has been considered thoroughly a number of times, and rejected on value-for-money grounds.
  One or two hon. Members asked whether we were confident that the CDC felt it had sufficient powers. It is clear from the examples cited today that the CDC is involved in a wide range of activities throughout the world. I understand that it is considering some further activities, which it is not as yet confident are within its powers. Clearly, we are working closely with the CDC to resolve any problems and avoid any unnecessary constraints on its work.
  Mr. Worthington: When the Minister reads his comments in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that they mean nothing to anyone. He said, in effect, that things were being considered and that decisions would be made in the future. As we have asked about constraints on the CDC's work, it would be useful to know precisely to what issues the Minister was referring.
  Mr. Baldry: There are a number of activities in which the CDC thinks it would like to invest, but it is not entirely confident that its present statutory powers cover them. That is a matter of discussion between us and the CDC.
  Clearly, we do not want there to be any unnecessary constraints on its work. It is in the nature of things that, as financial markets change and as the possibilities of involvement in various operations change, the opportunities available to the CDC are increasing all the time. The original legislative framework for the CDC was set up some time ago, but we want to ensure that the CDC can do what it would like to do.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned taxation. He asked whether we would be prepared to treat the CDC differently from other trading corporations in the public sector which are taxed on the same basis as private companies, but I do not think that there are good grounds for doing so. The nature of the CDC's activities is not sufficient reason for special tax treatment, and it would be very difficult to distinguish the CDC from other bodies doing worthwhile work in the developing world.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that I should be happy to have a long debate about the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. It would be an interesting subject for a Wednesday morning debate if he cared to bid for one, but, in fairness to the hon. Members who wish to speak in the next debate about the Commonwealth, this is perhaps not an appropriate time to undertake such a debate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have spoken to people in various parts of the world about the important issue of the CDC's name. In the event that the CDC developed a role in China, a country of 1,000 million people with immense

  1065
  tradition, would the Minister think it right for the CDC to go into such a market calling itself the Commonwealth Development Corporation? That is a simple question.
  Mr. Baldry: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. If he reads Hansard, he will see that I said clearly that the CDC is an organisation that is known and promotes itself as the CDC. I have no doubt that if it went into China, it would do so as the CDC.
  Last year, 80 per cent. of approvals were in the poorest countries, well above the targets agreed with Ministers. I shall gladly write to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) about the interesting matter of definitions—what constitutes a "poor" country or one of the "poorest" countries. Different organisations have different definitions, and it may be useful to reach an agreement on what the terms mean. However, there is no doubt that a large proportion of CDC's investments do go and will go to the poorest countries. At the moment, the figure is about 80 per cent.
  Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister for his comments. If, at some future date, the CDC starts investing in eastern and central Europe, those countries are likely to be among the remaining 20 per cent., or the "non-poor" countries. Will the Minister guarantee that the bulk of the fund—80 per cent. of CDC's investments—will remain in the poorest countries, however that is defined and whether their GNP is $700 or $1,500 per capita? The eastern European countries are richer than that.
  Mr. Baldry: As I said, the CDC has not yet even applied to invest in eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. If it were to do so, one of the things that we would have to consider is the fact that other organisations are already able to invest there, so the hon. Gentleman raises an entirely hypothetical point.
  There is wide support for the CDC and the Bill, and I hope that the House will grant it a Second Reading with acclaim.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [14 March].

  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) any increase in payments out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from provisions of the Act—

  (a) increasing to £1,100 million and £1, 500 million respectively the sums of £750 million and £850 million specified in section 9A(2) of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"); and

  (b) removing the limit in section 10(1) of the 1978 Act on the amounts which may be advanced to the Commonwealth Development Corporation ("the Corporation") under that section;

  and any increase in payments into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund resulting from such provisions;
  (2) the making of interest-free advances to the Corporation under section 10(1) of the 1978 Act; and
  (3) the remission of the payment by the Corporation under section 12(1) of the 1978 Act of interest on advances under section 10(1) of that Act.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [14 March.]
  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
    Clause 1

      ALTERATION OF LIMITS ON BORROWING ETC.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      5.47 pm
      Miss Joan Lestor: I seek some clarification. No one is suggesting that there should be no investment in eastern Europe. The Minister has been helpful but the research document, which I am sure that we have all been reading with great interest, clearly states:
      "It is not impossible that the profits from past investments in the impoverished parts of Africa could be used to finance new investments in Eastern and Central Europe."
      Our concern is that the profits made in Africa would be used somewhere else and that money that might have been invested there ould be transferred elsewhere. Will the pot be large enough to prevent that from happening? Will the Minister give us some assurances on that point?
      Mr. Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the CDC should claim additional funds only if it decided that it wanted to apply to operate in a completely different area such as eastern and central Europe? I hope that there is no suggestion that it should recycle funds from its existing portfolio so as to take on an area with such demands as central and eastern Europe.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): Hon. Members may have inadvertently been misled by the research document. It seems to have led them to believe that the CDC wants to invest in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. It does not currently do so, has not asked permission to do so and, as far as I am aware, has no intention of asking to do so in the foreseeable future. As I have already said on several occasions, other bodies, such as the European bank for reconstruction and development, with a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, already exist. We would have to take all those factors carefully into consideration if we were to consider giving the CDC permission to invest in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall refresh the Minister's memory of what was said by Baroness Chalker in 1992. When he makes statements, he might try to reflect on that. She said:
      "there is a need for other expansion. I assure the Committee and the House that we are prepared, if necessary, to introduce primary legislation to expand the CDC's role. Subject to borrowing limits … there is nothing to stop CDC work in eastern Europe provided that there is sensible risk."
      The now Baroness was thinking positively in 1992. She continued:
      1068
      "We hear less about the other republics, but we are doing our best to find out more so that we ensure that help within the general aid programme is sent where it is needed. More information will enable us to find out how the expertise of the CDC can open opportunities … The British private sector, backed by Government funds, has gone in to help to create a private sector and new systems in Russia and Poland and, although conditions are slightly easier there, in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, too, CDC has much of the sort of expertise that could be well deployed."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 4 March 1992; c. 11-13.]
      That fairly positive statement was made almost three years ago to the day in Standing Committee. Yet, this evening, the Minister seems to be far more negative. Has there been a policy change in the Government's position? Has someone changed his mind since 1992?
      I think we are all united in our view that there should be investment in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. Some of us, however, are concerned about how the investment will be funded and to what extent we can draw on capital markets in the west, borrowing and lending at commercial rates to enterprises in eastern and central Europe and in the former Soviet Union.
      When the Minister replies, I hope that he will take into account the commitments that were given in a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Standing Committee, about three years ago, by the present Baroness Chalker.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: I understand from the Library brief that one of the proposals set out in the 1993 review was that there should be statutory change to allow the CDC to undertake consultancies not related to project investment. I am concerned that the Overseas Development Administration spends large sums on management consultants—generally United Kingdom consultancies—to advise on development strategies in the disbursement of the ODA's bilateral aid budget.
      Surely it would make sense for a body with the expertise of the CDC to be able, in appropriate cases where it has relevant expertise, to offer to provide consultancy in respect of projects with which it is not concerned. In commercial—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The clause relates to borrowing limits.
      Mr. Bayley: I am asking the Minister, Mr. Morris, why the consideration to which I have referred did not form part of the clause. It is—
      The Chairman: Order. It is not for an hon. Member to ask why something is not in a clause. At present, we are concerned with what is in clause 1. The hon. Member may wish to raise certain issues on Third Reading or on other clauses in Committee that we have yet to debate, but for the moment we are dealing with borrowing limits.
      Mr. Bayley: I am guided by you, Mr. Morris. I shall resume my place.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I am left wondering whether the Bill is premature. There remain unresolved issues. At the same time, as I said earlier, some of us on the Opposition Benches feel

      1069
      disappointed that the Bill has not gone far enough. The Minister has referred to issues that have not yet been resolved, and it seems that there is doubt about whether they are within the competence of the CDC. That seems odd when we are considering a recently introduced Bill. I am convinced that the issues of competence relate to the CDC's competence to borrow from the commercial sector, for example.
      I ask the Minister to try to explain the real issues that are now before the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in determining the role of the CDC where there is doubt about its competence. Such an explanation would be valuable. It seems—
      The Chairman: Order. Such an explanation might be valuable but our rules are clear: we must deal strictly with clause 1, which relates to borrowing limits. As I have said, the Bill can be debated on Third Reading. Some of the issues that are now being raised could most appropriately be introduced at that stage. For the moment, the Minister, along with Back-Bench Members, must restrict himself to borrowing limits.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      REMUNERATION ETC. OF MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The research paper provided by the Library states:
      "This Clause enables the Secretary of State to determine the remuneration, allowances and pensions of members of the Corporation".
      Why was it necessary to propose the change that the clause would introduce, or is it a change? What was the motive in seeking to bring about the change and then removing the requirement for Treasury consent
      "in relation to such matters"?
      Perhaps I can understand the proposal to some extent because my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I were previously advancing related arguments on a more general basis. Why should determination of the remuneration, allowances and pensions of members of the corporation be changed in the way that is proposed?
      Mr. Baldry: The members of the board of the CDC at present are all non-executive directors. Unlike all other bodies, the chief executive is not a member of the board. Therefore, there is no control over the level of remuneration of the chief executive. Under the proposals set out in the Bill, the chief executive will become a member of the board. As a result, and consistent with other public bodies, there will be some control over the remuneration of the chief executive.
      We do not envisage any increase in overall spending on the CDC as a consequence of those measures. We get extremely good value from the CDC in terms of the contributions that non-executive members make to
      1070
      the board. The clause is designed to ensure that arrangements are brought into line and are consistent with those that prevail in all other public bodies.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do I understand that the exercise of control in national health service trusts, for example, is no different from that in the CDC when it comes to the chairman's remuneration? In an odd way, an NHS trust is carrying out a similar function.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: Are we on clause 3, Mr. Morris?
      The Chairman: Yes, we are.
      Mr. Forman: I am interested in subsection (5). I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why it might be necessary to insert the "following paragraph", which is 5A. What special circumstances does he envisage in which it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to approve compensation for someone who is ceasing to be a member of the corporation? Surely it is honour enough to be a member of the corporation. I am a great respecter of the CDC. Why should someone require or deserve compensation when ceasing to be a member of it?
      Mr. Bayley: I have been searching through the latest copy of the CDC's report and accounts to discover information about the remuneration of directors—
      Mr. Baldry: It is on page 72.
      Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister.
      Mr. Baldry: I believe that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
      With regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), clause 3 ensures that the CDC is entirely consistent with regard to board structures, board remuneration and Treasury controls in respect of every other similar public body. There may well be circumstances when a person ceases to be a member of the board, and if the Secretary of State deems that there are special circumstances, in which it would be right that that person should receive compensation, that is a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. We do not envisage any immediate or likely circumstance when that will arise, but that brings the position into line with provisions in similar Bills.
      6 pm
      Mr. Forman: I hope that there is no question of having rolling two or three-year contracts for those people. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that in the private sector generally, under the influence of the Cadbury committee and so on, there is a strong move away from that kind of thing.
      Mr. Baldry: It is pity that my hon. Friend is a late arrival to this debate. The tragedy is that we are in danger of not paying full tribute to the members of the CDC board who give very valuable service for very little remuneration. If my hon. Friend considers the

      1071
      annual report, he will see that all the existing directors of the CDC are non-executive directors. They make a considerable contribution and considerable public effort for a token remuneration. We are simply ensuring that the CDC is on a par with any other similar organisation within the public sector.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  The Commonwealth
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  6.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This is a welcome and timely debate. This week, the whole Commonwealth observed Commonwealth day. Here, at Westminster Abbey, Her Majesty the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth, attended a multi-faith service at which, for the first time since 1961, the South African flag was paraded with those of the 50 other Commonwealth members, and the flags of the Commonwealth fly today in Parliament square.
  This weekend, the Queen returns to South Africa for a state visit. It will be her first visit since 1947, when she dedicated herself to the Commonwealth. South Africa's return to the Commonwealth family of nations marks a turning point, which I am glad the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has noted and remarked by undertaking its own inquiry into "The future role of the Commonwealth". Such work will help to focus our minds on what the Commonwealth can and cannot do.
  In New Zealand in November, Heads of Government from the Commonwealth will meet once again for their two-yearly conference, the first at which South Africa will have been present for over 30 years: 30 difficult years for the Commonwealth, now happily behind us.
  The Commonwealth's origins lie in the supple relations that evolved between London and the dominions up to 1947. It is now a very different body that encompasses nations that are linked to the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, but which have rightly chosen to make their own way in the world. The Commonwealth has helped them to do so. The Commonwealth was set up not to withstand change, but to reflect and to respond to it. The Commonwealth has no formal constitutional structure: it relies on conventions and procedures that evolved by consent.
  The Commonwealth has no voting rights or international legal authority, but that very looseness is a great advantage compared to other international institutions, which were often set up with a single purpose in mind and which are now having to adapt to a vastly different post-cold war world. The inherent flexibility of the Commonwealth gives it a freedom to respond to the times, and to help take forward the best interests of a quarter of the world's people.
  The Commonwealth is as much an association of peoples as it is of Governments. The Commonwealth's organisations and peoples benefit from shared practices and beliefs, and not infrequently from the widespread use of English. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, well described the Commonwealth's central attribute as its ability
  "to bridge racial, ideological and economic divides and inequalities, assisted by its common language and common heritage".
  We agree that the Commonwealth acts as a bridge in those ways.
  Commonwealth countries comprise over a quarter of the world's peoples, from the tundra of Hudson bay to the lush rain forests of Guyana; from the deserts of

  1073
  Australia and northern Nigeria to the olive groves of Cyprus. Every religion is represented, reflected in the Muslim, Jain, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian divines who spoke at Westminster Abbey on Monday, all subscribing to five Commonwealth affirmations, ending with a prayer for peace led by Mr. Gordon Wilson of Enniskillen, and a final affirmation:
  "We affirm our common faith in the need to establish justice for every individual, and through common effort to secure peace and reconciliation between nations".
  Our challenge is to translate those values into specific and beneficial actions.
  Let me cite three down-to-earth Commonwealth organisations that daily put those values into practice in a concrete way. The first is the Commonwealth Foundation, which, on a budget of only £2 million, helps to keep alive and thriving a host of Commonwealth professional and other non-governmental organisations. It will hold its second NGO conference in New Zealand in June. We have helped to finance that meeting and believe it can do good work.
  Well-known groups like the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Medical Association—[Interruption.] I knew that the Commonwealth Games Federation would bring a cheer from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Those two bodies and others bring together peoples from across the Commonwealth, such as Commonwealth architects and Common wealth dentists, to share professional expertise, idea; and experience.
  The second organisation is the Common wealth Parliamentary Association. We all know well the contribution that the CPA and parliamentarians make in promoting the cause of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The CPA reaches beyond the Commonwealth to countries looking to join or rejoin.
  The CPA provides invaluable assistance, guidance and training. Its involvement begins long before elections are ever planned; it continues through the pre-election and election processes, and it stays on to ensure that advice is available on the spot after elections. The UK branch alone provides vital training and support in parliamentary practice and procedure to some 50 Commonwealth parliamentarians each year through seminars in the UK. There is an unrivalled wealth of experience among its members from all the Commonwealth, which provides a vital link with overseas parliamentary systems through the overseas visits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—the chairman of the CPA executive committee—reminded the House of the value of parliamentary workshops during the debate on the South Africa Bill last week. I share my hon. Friend's views on the usefulness and importance of such experience sharing, and my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker and I will give his proposal for further support for CPA initiatives constructive consideration. If my hon. Friend and the CPA would like to talk to us about that, we would be interested to consider the CPA's ideas.
  Thirdly, there is the Commonwealth Institute here in London. I am aware of the support that it enjoys in the House, but unfortunately its exhibitions have stayed still and visitor numbers have fallen off. Indeed, it looked
  1074
  at one time as if the Commonwealth Institute might have to close. That would have been a great sadness, but the building itself, which is remarkable in its way, needed major repairs, especially to its huge canopy copper roof.
  I am delighted to say that the institute's supporters have devised a new exhibition concept, "Wonders of the World", which highlights some of the great natural wonders in Commonwealth countries. The Government have offered to make £2.4 million available provided the institute can raise £5 million in sponsorship commitments by July this year.
  The institute has provided generations of schoolchildren and visitors to London with a window on the world of the Commonwealth. We hope that that can continue, and if the sponsorship target is met that will be a clear indication of the support that the Commonwealth enjoys in this country.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Many of us were very worried when the Commonwealth Institute was threatened with closure. I welcome what the Minister says, and I know from my contacts that there is now hope that it will continue. Many schools now try to arrange exchanges with Commonwealth countries. I know a school near Stroud that is arranging for a group of children to go to India. Far more such activities could be arranged, and they would fit in with the work of the Commonwealth Institute, but the Government must put in more money. Will the Minister consider helping schools to arrange exchanges with other Commonwealth countries?
  Mr. Baldry: One of the advantages of the Commonwealth is that much can be done on a voluntary basis. Many exchanges take place around the Commonwealth, but one would have to have regard to where the money was coming from and how the exchanges were organised and attributed. Such schemes look attractive at first sight, but they could have substantial financial implications. Again, that is one of the topics that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee could consider when it studies the future of the Commonwealth. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member who has ideas about how we could take forward Commonwealth initiatives should not put them to the Select Committee.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am glad to hear the Minister say such warm and appreciative words about the Commonwealth Institute. I too have visited it and have been impressed by the determination of Mr. Cox and his staff to take things forward, albeit on the basis of diminishing public financial support, which I believe will be phased out completely by 1999.
  In developing his policy on the Commonwealth, will my hon. Friend take full account of the larger role that the Commonwealth Institute could play in acquainting people, especially young people, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, with the great potential of the Commonwealth? Britain, as the mother country of the Commonwealth, should have a more

  1075
  attractive window on the Commonwealth for all young people. Will my hon. Friend bear that aim in mind when deciding what support to give the institute?
  Mr. Baldry: I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. That is why we have made it clear that we are prepared to support the Commonwealth Institute, but for the institute to move forward it must be viable and capable of demonstrating that it is viable. Sadly, in the recent past visitor numbers have fallen and exhibitions have remained fairly static. All that is now changing, and the institute has suggested advanced and bold initiatives for making itself more attractive. We hope that they will succeed, so as to enable future generations of children from here and elsewhere in the Commonwealth to benefit from the institute's work and from the educational opportunities that it can offer.
  Few would dispute the value of the various forms of professional and non-governmental co-operation between the peoples of different Commonwealth countries, but when we ask what the co-operation between Commonwealth Governments means in practice the answer is more complicated. Charges of double standards, of vague and generalised communiqués and of exclusive concentration on particular issues at the expense of other matters equally important have in the past had a certain ring of truth. But even if we were to admit those falls from grace, two strands in the shared political activity between Commonwealth countries have proved their worth and will continue to do so.
  First, the Commonwealth provides a conduit for a host of links for practical co-operation between Governments—links that otherwise would almost certainly not exist. Secondly and importantly, the Commonwealth as an association has a role in promoting good government and human rights.
  On practical co-operation, let me cite just two instances, not of Britain supporting the Commonwealth but of other Commonwealth countries supporting each other. First, there is the interest that the Canadians take in the professional and economic well-being of Caribbean Commonwealth countries. That is not necessarily a logical connection, but the shared values in law, in education and in sport combine to ensure that those Caribbean states, which are small and sometimes vulnerable, can turn to a genuine friend for support.
  Another example is provided by the programme that the Indian Government provide for African and other Commonwealth military personnel to receive training of the highest quality at the Indian staff colleges. Again, that is not an obvious connection, but the Commonwealth link has made it possible and fostered it. We should not forget, either, the immense network of educational co-operation throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth teachers exchange programme enables more than 400 teachers and their families to swap schools for an academic year.
  The Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship programme enables more than 500 students from Commonwealth countries to further their studies in other Commonwealth countries. The Association of Commonwealth Universities, a superb organisation that is little known outside its field, enables Commonwealth
  1076
  universities to exchange teachers, administrators and ideals. For example, it allows vice-chancellors from the Pacific to share problems with vice-chancellors from the West Indies or Asia. To attend one of the association's conferences is to see the Commonwealth as most imagine it should be.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend accept that the newest Commonwealth organisation, the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, which has existed for only one year, represents a new step forward in the way in which we can foster good governance not only at central Government level hut at the level of government that matters most to people—local government? Just today the Barbadian delegate to the Commonwealth Assembly asked for assistance in establishing local government in Barbados, which the Government are now seeking to bring about.
  Mr. Baldry: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, it was he who took through the House a private Member's Bill enabling local authorities in this country to give technical support to local government overseas. Only the other day, the deputy Minister responsible for local government in South Africa was in London attending a conference with a significant number of local councillors and others from this country. He talked about the local government elections that will take place in South Africa in October, and the support that can be given by this country in many different ways—for example, in terms of technical expertise and monitoring. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to another way in which the Commonwealth can be of assistance. When I visit Barbados later this year, I shall certainly pursue the issue of local government support for Barbados.
  A second strand of Commonwealth intergovernmental co-operation, and perhaps the most important, is the contribution that the Commonwealth can and does make to good government and human rights. Of course, there have in the past been some very bleak spots. Idi Amin's Uganda was perhaps the most notorious, but the Commonwealth was able to help put Uganda back on its feet when Amin was overthrown.
  Sadly, there are still some bleak spots today. In the Gambia, where the democratic government of Sir Dawda Jawara was shamelessly overthrown in July last year in a military putsch, the timetable for democratic elections, even if implemented, means that they will be delayed by at least two years.
  Sadly, in Nigeria, which, rightly, was mentioned in the debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, the military Government's commitment to return to civilian democratic rule carries as yet little conviction. The pattern of ministerial dismissals, arbitrary arrests and bans on political activity undermines confidence in what the military Government profess to want to do.
  In Sierra Leone, the Government of Captain Strasser have a programme for elections, but are hard pressed by rebel activity to put it into practice. Those problems actively concern Commonwealth Governments, and we welcome the lead that the Commonwealth

  1077
  Secretary-General has taken in addressing them. The Secretary-General—himself a distinguished Nigerian—has observed:
  "Nigeria cannot seriously aspire to wield any appreciable influence abroad or play a leading role in realising Africans' hopes unless it can put its own house in order".
  Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland will wish to establish how they can help to reverse those setbacks.
  We should recognise that relations between Commonwealth countries, too, have not always been harmonious. The tension between India and Pakistan causes concern to us, and to all other members of the Commonwealth—friends of both countries. Nevertheless, while the problems between India and Pakistan can best be resolved bilaterally, it is reasonable to think that they might have become more difficult if the Commonwealth link had not existed.
  It would be idle to imagine that such problems will disappear; the question is, how is the Commonwealth equipped to respond? The picture is encouraging. After the long period during which South Africa preoccupied Heads of Government conferences, a fresh start was made in Harare in 1991 with the adoption of the Harare declaration, a detailed and clear commitment by all Commonwealth Governments to high standards in accountable, just government and the protection of human rights. The Commonwealth now has an objective benchmark against which to assess its own members' records.
  In 1991, the Commonwealth Secretary-General launched a major programme to help Commonwealth states to organise multi-party elections in Zambia, the Seychelles, Guyana, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, South Africa and Malawi. Commonwealth election observer groups have been preceded by technical missions to help in the organisation of elections, and by Commonwealth teams that have subsequently arrived—supplemented by teams from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and elsewhere—to assist in putting parliamentary democracy on a firm footing.
  However hesitant and faltering those efforts may seem, they represent a collective act of will by 51 diverse Governments, with the moral authority that that commands. In a post-imperial world, that role for the Commonwealth should not be underestimated: we attach the highest importance to it. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attends the Heads of Government conference in Auckland in November, the Commonwealth's role in sustaining democracy will be at the forefront of his priorities.
  Nor should it be forgotten that Commonwealth countries play a full part in United Nations peacekeeping. Five of the top 10 contributors to UN peacekeeping are Commonwealth countries: ourselves, Pakistan, Canada, Bangladesh and Ghana. Commonwealth troops are currently in Kuwait, the former republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Rwanda, Western Sahara, Tajikistan, Liberia, Haiti, Angola, the Golan Heights and El Salvador. Commonwealth troops are making a major contribution to UN peacekeeping around the world.
  An aspect that has tended to be overlooked in recent years is the importance of Commonwealth counties as trade and investment partners. The Commonwealth includes five of the world's 10 fastest-growing
  1078
  economies since 1985: Singapore, Mauritius, Botswana, Belize and Hong Kong. Commonwealth countries generally are now pursuing policies of political and economic liberalisation; exports to the Commonwealth, far from declining since our entry into the European Community, have grown by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1983.
  The dynamic emerging economies of Asia—Malaysia and Singapore, for instance—have contributed to our economic growth in recent years. In the past five years, our exports to Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia have increased by 100 per cent. India, too, shows signs of becoming an increasingly important trading partner as the benefits of economic reform take effect. The Indo-British partnership initiative has been a great success, and South Africa and Pakistan clearly also have export potential. More than 60 per cent. of our exports to the Commonwealth are now to the "new" Commonwealth.
  But it is not all one way. In 1993, Britain was a major importer from 35 of the 39 Commonwealth countries for which we have up-to-date statistics. Our balance of trade with the Commonwealth is healthier than our balance of trade with the European Community or the rest of the world. Commonwealth countries are an important recipient of British investment: some £36.8 billion, nearly a quarter of our investment stock, is held in those countries, over 40 per cent. of it in the new Commonwealth.
  Britain's entry into the EC has been seen by many Commonwealth countries as a benefit, not only for their exports to the UK but because it opens up new European markets. The absolute level of trade with Commonwealth countries has held up well since Britain joined the EC. We argued for the creation of the European Union banana regime in the face of virulent opposition from some of our European partners which have no special links with traditional banana-producing countries.
  We hope that the regime has given the Commonwealth countries a breathing space during which they will restructure their industries and make their economies more competitive—a process with which we are willing to assist them. There will be further threats to the regime, both from within Europe and from further afield, but we remain committed to defending the fundamentals of the regime to protect the interests of our Commonwealth friends.
  Rum is one of the industrial successes of the Caribbean Commonwealth. We have argued strongly for the ending of the anomalous arrangements under the Lomé convention, which restrict rum exports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the European market. EC quotas on "light rum"—90 per cent. of ACP production—have now been abolished; as a result of determined UK pressure, the quota for "traditional rum" has been set at three times the level originally proposed by the Commission. With further increases of 3,000 hectolitres each year before total abolition in the year 2000, we believe that that offers the Caribbean rum industry the opportunity and incentive that it needs to continue its successful development.
  Those are two instances of the way in which our membership of both the Commonwealth and the European Union has enabled us to play a constructive

  1079
  part. A third and more recent contribution was made in the recent fisheries dispute. I think that I can best summarise that contribution by reading a communiqué given to diplomatic editors today by the Canadian high commissioner in London. It states:
  "The Canadian High Commissioner, the Hon. Royce Frith today (Thursday, March 16) phoned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to thank the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his very helpful role in bringing the parties to the negotiating table, as the British and Canadian governments had sought to achieve from the beginning."
  That is another instance of the way in which our membership of both the Commonwealth and the European Union enables us to play a constructive part.
  Commonwealth countries are close trading partners. Many are countries whose further development we seek to encourage through our aid budget. It is our policy to maintain a large and effective bilateral aid programme; because of our historical links, it is right that the largest share of British aid should go to Commonwealth countries. Of the top 10 recipients of bilateral aid in 1993-94, six—India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Uganda—are Commonwealth members. Bilaterally, we also have large "good government" programmes in a number of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth as an institution has also provided us with a useful opportunity to emphasise the need for good government, and the importance of economic and political reform.
  In 1993-94, £625 million, well over half our gross bilateral public spending on aid, went to Commonwealth countries. In the context of multilateral aid, our objective is to ensure that Commonwealth aid programmes meet real needs in developing countries by providing assistance—such as aid to small island states—that lies within their areas of comparative advantage over other aid agencies.
  In that context, it may be helpful if I reiterate our position on the European development fund and Lomé. We have announced our intention to contribute a substantial sum to EDF VIII. It will be a significant reduction in cash terms on our contribution to EDF VII. We are not taking a position on the overall size of EDF VIII; nor are we making a judgment on the quality of the EDF. The reduction has been made because we are trying to achieve a better balance between multilateral and bilateral aid.
  We expect multilateral aid to reach around 60 per cent. of total British aid in several years' time; EC aid alone will be more than 40 per cent. of the total UK aid programme. We also need to contribute to a substantial replenishment of the International Development Association both this year and in three years' time. Multilateral commitments are growing all the time.
  Against that background, our objective is to maintain a substantial bilateral programme. We intend to continue to be a major contributor bilaterally to the development process in ACP countries, particularly in Africa. Our commitment to Africa remains strong. We are giving £850 million of bilateral aid to the special programme of assistance for Africa, which is a multi-donor effort
  1080
  co-ordinated by the World bank. A strong bilateral programme ensures that we have the ability to make the decisions to support countries in the Commonwealth.
  Dr. Robert Spink: My hon. Friend shows great mastery of his brief. Does he agree that Commonwealth countries might take great comfort from our taking between £8 million and £11 million from our Overseas Development Administration bilateral aid budget and using it to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation so that we could further promote education, science and culture?
  Mr. Baldry: We will need to consider whether to join UNESCO on its merits. As my hon. Friend knows, we left it because we did not think that it was serving its purpose well. In due course, we will have to consider whether to rejoin UNESCO. We have to take each organisation on its merits and consider whether it serves well the interests of those whom it has been set up to serve.
  Our bilateral aid is very much valued and appreciated throughout the Commonwealth. It might be of interest to the House if I read what the Ugandan Minister of Finance wrote only a matter of days ago to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
  "I would like to express to you and to Her Majesty's Government the most sincere gratitude of my own and that of the Government and people of Uganda for the vital concern which Great Britain has shown consistently about the crushing burden of debt which Uganda and other Sub-Saharan African countries are shouldering.
  As you know, the first fruits of your most commendable efforts came with the write-off of the greater portion of our Paris Club debts this month. For my part, I can only promise you and Her Majesty's Government that the generosity of the Paris Club members to Uganda will not be frittered away. We shall stay the course of economic reform and liberalization upon which the growth of our economy so critically depends.
  We trust that with an expanding economy, Uganda will progressively fend for herself and eventually meet her international obligations.
  Once again, thank you so much."
  Uganda and many Commonwealth countries which we support with development aid recognise that Britain has taken a leading role in tackling the problems of debt. They recognise that our bilateral programme of aid is of great benefit to them.
  We also support the Commonwealth secretariat. We contribute up to 30 per cent.—just less than £3 million—of the secretariat's programme and running costs, which in 1994-95 will amount to £9 million.
  Those links are reinforced by regular ministerial contact between members and fellow countries in the Commonwealth. During the past three years, there have been ministerial visits to 41 Commonwealth countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been to Canada, Cyprus, India, Malaysia and South Africa, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Ministers across Government remain in close contact with Commonwealth colleagues on matters of common concern. We have frequent visits from Commonwealth Heads of Government to the United Kingdom.

  1081
  All Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Zealand will have an interest in the implementation of the Harare declaration. It would be neither credible nor worthy to ignore those countries whose Governments fail to match principle and practice. The Commonwealth would be false to its vocation if it failed to respond meaningfully, convincingly and effectively to the challenges posed by military Governments. Other members will have their own priorities for the meeting in Auckland. Some will have an interest in helping Fiji to return to the Commonwealth. Fiji has begun the process of reviewing its constitution.
  The summit will also have to deal with Cameroon's application to join the Commonwealth. Two years ago at Limassol, Heads of Government said that they would be ready to welcome Cameroon at Auckland, provided that by then its efforts to establish a democratic system, consistent with the Harare declaration, had been completed. We think that Cameroon may still have some way to go to meet that requirement, but it is of interest that there are countries that wish to join the Commonwealth.
  We cannot anticipate the agenda at Auckland, but at the meeting in Limassol two years ago, for example, the Prime Minister, with Mr. Keating, the Australian Prime Minister, was able to persuade the conference to adopt a short declaration on the GATT Uruguay round, to launch a Commonwealth mission to press for its conclusion and to allow that Commonwealth mission to speak on behalf of Commonwealth countries as a group. That was a useful initiative, which demonstrated the ability of the Commonwealth to respond to concerns of the day.
  Provided the Commonwealth adheres to realities and achievable goals, and eschews the temptation of grandiose or hollow declarations, it can and will remain a force for good. It is in that spirit that we approach the next Heads of Government conference in New Zealand in November. The conference will be the first to be attended by South Africa since 1961. That will give the Auckland meeting a special character. Given the attention that the Commonwealth has paid in the past 30 years to South Africa, it would be entirely proper for the Commonwealth and its members to continue its special efforts to meet South Africa's post-election needs, as it has done for other countries after independence.
  If South Africa remains stable and prosperous, the whole of southern Africa—Commonwealth countries in large part—will benefit. If South Africa fails to realise its potential, the prospects for Africa as a whole, much of it Commonwealth Africa, will be diminished. The Commonwealth as an association remains engaged in South Africa at a moment when practical support may make a decisive difference.
  Between now and November, new issues may well arise on which the Auckland conference can usefully comment. We certainly see scope for the Commonwealth working together, doing more to combat drugs, drug trafficking, money laundering and organised international crime as a whole. At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Canada last year, that issue attracted the support of parliamentarians right across the Commonwealth. We will be talking to our
  1082
  Commonwealth partners about our ideas on how we can work together better to handle drugs and international crime between now and next November.
  The Commonwealth has no big battalions on its own account. It cannot enforce, it cannot direct and it operates by consensus. In a world of strains and conflicts, the Commonwealth helps to promote a sense of shared values, shared responsibilities, shared histories and shared experience. There is much that the Commonwealth can do together and should do together to promote shared values.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I join the Minister in welcoming the debate and in thanking the Leader of the House for the allocation of time for it. It is the first debate that we have had on the important topic of the Commonwealth since 1987, and a great deal has happened since then.
  There will be a great deal of bipartisanship in the debate. The Minister, knowing me, would be disappointed—
  Mr. Baldry: Devastated.
  Mr. Foulkes:—devastated, indeed, if the debate was completely bipartisan. He will certainly not be disappointed. The temptation in a debate on the Commonwealth is to make a tour d'horizon—if my French is acceptable—of the 51 states and give some commentary on each one. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I intend to resist that temptation.
  As I was not able to attend the debate on the South Africa Bill last week, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome South Africa back into the Commonwealth fold after an unfortunate isolation of more than 30 years. The elections in South Africa last year and the resulting end of a universally despised apartheid regime were welcomed by all, particularly by those in the Commonwealth and by those in this House who made it their especial task year after year, Question Time after Question Time, debate after debate, to highlight the divisions and the racial injustices in a society which offended human and democratic values. It has been a long and painful journey for the people of South Africa, and it is by no means yet complete. We have a great deal more to do to help the people of South Africa.
  I am glad that South Africa's re-entry into the Commonwealth family has been precipitated at a very early opportunity. It will enable the Commonwealth to further its common values in a country which was devoid of such principles during its long isolation. A stable South Africa will benefit other nations of the Commonwealth especially, as the Minister rightly said, in Africa, which is dominated by Commonwealth countries.
  The evolution of the Commonwealth is progressing at a pace which is quicker than ever. The changing nature of an institution born of British imperialist tendencies is marked and the opportunities for Britain and for our Commonwealth partners, economically, politically and culturally, are there to be grasped. The Commonwealth is no more a crude remnant of colonialisation or, as Disraeli once described it,

  1083
  "a millstone around our necks".
  Mr. Nigel Forman: That was before the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course—I just could not bring myself to say the word "empire", as I am sure he will appreciate.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; I shall be saying it later.
  Mr. Foulkes: In 40 years the Commonwealth has grown from a few dominions to 51 wholly independent members with populations ranging from a few thousand people to several hundred million. With a total population of around 1.5 billion people, the Commonwealth is the largest multilateral organisation in the world, other than the United Nations, and covers a quarter of the world's land area. I agreed with the point made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) about the need for us to rejoin UNESCO, and I was disappointed that the Minister did not give a more positive reply; it is good that some of his Back Benchers keep reminding him.
  The Commonwealth spans a quarter of the world's land area and its peoples derive from all five continents and from every major regional bloc and economic zone. It makes up 25 per cent. of the United Nations General Assembly, uniting large and small, developed and developing nations. There are still remnants of the empire, of course, in the shape of the dependent territories. I do not intend to deal with all of them, but from what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said just now, it seems that he intends to spend some time talking about them if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Sadly, as we all know, one dependent territory—Hong Kong—is to leave the Commonwealth in 1997. I hope that the Minister recognises the concerns of hon. Members of all parties for the maintenance of democracy and human rights in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997. China has agreed to one country and two systems. The system in Hong Kong is a matter not just of capitalism as opposed to communism but of democracy, which is an essential part of that system and must not be tampered with. I hope that the British Government will make that clear to the Government of China.
  I shall not dwell on the Falklands, a group of islands on which I have had enormous pleasure on occasions, but I shall briefly mention the Caribbean dependent territories. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should spend more time looking at the future of those territories. Labour Members accept that those territories should not be pushed unwillingly to independence, but there should be maximum internal autonomy. I have been concerned over the past few years by the actions of governors in relation to the elected Governments of those dependent territories. It is a delicate relationship, and middle-rank Foreign Office diplomats do not always possess the necessary sensitivity to deal with it.
  Some people describe the Commonwealth as lacking a modern role and as needing revitalisation and energy. I understand their concerns, but a role is being fulfilled. There have been whispers of the demise of the
  1084
  Commonwealth based on the old view of it. There is a feeling—I hope that it is not shared by anyone in this House—that since South Africa has sorted out its immediate problems, our work is complete. Neither of those assumptions is true. Indeed, as the Minister rightly said, more countries are seeking to join the Commonwealth. He mentioned Cameroon, but Mozambique, Eritrea and Angola also want to join. Namibia, of course, has already joined.
  The Commonwealth has committed members around the globe, particularly in Africa, who are also involved in their own regional organisations. The Minister rightly mentioned the role that the United Kingdom can play as a bridge between the Commonwealth and the European Union. I welcome what was said by the Canadian high commissioner. I certainly do not criticise our Government over what was done.
  Equally, all other Commonwealth countries have their own regional networks to plug into. There is the North American free trade agreement, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the Pacific rim, the preferential trade area for eastern and southern Africa, and many more. The Commonwealth transcends those groupings and provides opportunities—multilaterally and bilaterally—in areas of economic aid, of trade and of global security.
  Many advantages of membership are evident. The Commonwealth's very diversity can often be its strength. The Minister mentioned the multi-faith service. The development of understanding between, for example, Islamic Pakistan, the Christian Caribbean, Buddhist Sri Lanka, and the commitment to opposing racial prejudice has been significant in the Commonwealth's approach.
  The ideals of the Commonwealth are also those of democracy and the democratic process, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government, fundamental human rights, equality for women, universal access to education, sustainable development, the alleviation of poverty in member countries, protection of the environment, and the promotion of international consensus on major issues. It sounds a bit like our new clause IV—>[Interruption.]
  Mr. Donald Dewar: It is very tempting.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is indeed.
  All those ideals, however, are not prevalent throughout all the Commonwealth countries. Indeed, they are not all prevalent in the United Kingdom. I could spend some time addressing that topic, but I shall not do so. Instead, I will refer to events such as the military coup in the Gambia and the human rights abuses in Nigeria. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) raised the latter point in the previous debate.
  I was also pleased at the way in which the Minister spoke about Nigeria as there is great concern about the situation there. Lord Avebury, as chairman of the parliamentary human rights group, has written to the Nigerian high commissioner expressing concern about the arrest of General Obasanjo and the health of Chief Abiola. I hope that the Minister will follow up his very welcome expressions of concern by making direct representations to the Government of Nigeria through its high commissioner.

  1085
  The Commonwealth ideal is not yet universal even within the Commonwealth countries, although much has been achieved over the past few years and many groups have worked hard to further the core Commonwealth ideal of democracy. As the Minister said, in the Seychelles and Ghana, we have seen a return to multi-party democracy after one-party rule. In Lesotho, military rule gave way to a democratically elected Government. In Guyana, where I was present during the elections as an observer, and in Pakistan, many election observers witnessed peaceful changes of Government by democratic means: all progress in the Commonwealth.
  The Commonwealth secretariat, which was set up during the first Wilson Government in 1965, has advanced the democratisation of countries and, as the Minister said, it plays a substantial role in combating drug trafficking and abuse, in attempting to help the wave of refugees, in problems of third-world debt, in technical and medical co-operation, in environmental strategies and much more. Many hon. Members, especially those who have turned up for this debate, will have witnessed the work that the Commonwealth secretariat and other Commonwealth organisations are doing at first hand and will wish to refer to that aspect.
  The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an organisation of which I have a special knowledge and for which I have special affection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, I am the joint honorary treasurer; the other is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the House will appreciate that I do all the work.
  I see the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in his place; he is chairman of the United Kingdom branch and I know that he welcomes the fact that a Scotsman is joint honorary treasurer. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is willing to talk about supporting delegations, seminars and further activities because, throughout the Commonwealth, those help to strengthen political, cultural and economic links among all countries and help us to encourage the development of democratic ideals.
  The CPA provides a permanent parliamentary focus for the most diverse group of nations within the United Nations and is the sole means of regular consultation among members of Commonwealth Parliaments. The membership continues to thrive here in Westminster, highlighting the extent to which hon. Members and peers value its work. We have more than 565 members in the Commons alone and I hope that hon. Members who are not yet members will soon join.
  Mr. Dewar: How much does it cost?
  Mr. Foulkes: It is not very expensive, and it can be seen as an investment. The commitment of Commonwealth Members of Parliament is also well known.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly mentioned that the democratic process has to move further down to the grass roots within the Commonwealth. The need for local and regional government has long been recognised in this country. Sometimes we have wandered—the previous Prime Minister started to abolish some of our local government, but it has been generally recognised as an area in which the Commonwealth can further its ideals.
  1086
  Although in its infancy in some developing countries, the democratic process can be given the wealth of experience that is present in other Commonwealth states. Local democracy is a key element of the democratic process. As a former councillor, I know that. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, recognised that fact when, in addressing the 40th CPA conference in Banff, Canada, he referred to the "effective devolution of power" and said:
  "a rigorous and strong system of local government should contribute to, and strengthen parliamentary democracy".
  The establishment of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum in 1994 as a new Commonwealth body to promote local democracy and community development is greatly to be welcomed and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. We now have 77 organisations with Commonwealth in their title and the number is growing at the rate of three per year. As the Minister said, they are responsible for the Commonwealth games, the Commonwealth human rights initiative and others. The Commonwealth Local Government Forum will significantly strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to encourage the development of local government, and Opposition Members welcome it.
  The forum works closely with local government in the United Kingdom and will allow effective utilisation of the provisions of the hon. Member for Broxtowe's Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993, under which local authorities can become actively involved in overseas activities. We shall have to be careful which authorities they are. To take a random example, Lady Porter's would not be an obvious choice, and I am sure that Conservative Members have other suggestions. To date, the CLGF has undertaken initiatives in countries such as Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa, where the focus is on induction programmes for newly elected councillors.
  I have concentrated on democracy at national and local level, but, however important, it cannot alone answer all the problems of our developing partners in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth recognises the essential link between democracy and socio-econornic development. The Commonwealth and the heads of each of its Governments should accept that there are developing countries which have maintained impeccable democratic credentials, but which are still struggling with crippling developmental problems.
  Our calls for increasing and improved democracy must be accompanied by effective co-operation in tackling those major socio-economic problems. Poverty and hardship can breed social unrest, disillusionment with the democratic process and rejection of the principles that we value so highly. The culmination can often be extremism of the left or the right, or military takeovers—the rise to power of the sort of Governments that the Commonwealth has sought to eradicate. That is a very real problem as people are overwhelmed by the weight of poverty that ensues.
  Whatever the Minister said—with all his fine words—the only answer is one that has seemed to elude Conservative Governments in the past 16 years. Since 1945, the Conservative party has been perceived as resisting the tide of decolonisation and staying true to the ideals of imperialist Britain and the 19th century Conservative objective of
  "upholding the Empire of England."
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Not at all.
  Mr. Foulkes: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of Baroness Thatcher's struggle to avert pressure on white South Africa, which epitomised that trend. If she had had her way, we would not have put pressure on white South Africa to end apartheid. Her understanding of the Commonwealth principles of democracy was shown in her message to the Commonwealth conference in 1987, when she said:
  "Anyone who thinks that the ANC is going to run the Government in South Africa is living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land".
  The right hon. Baroness is the one who is living in cloud cuckoo land. Some Conservative Members, including most of those here today, have had a more enlightened attitude, but she was the Prime Minister and the Head of Government.
  The manner in which the Heath Government entered the European Community caused some resentment among our Commonwealth friends, but equally—I know the background of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), the parliamentary private secretary, and his family history—the view taken by some Conservative Members that we can return to a position in which the Commonwealth is seen as a substitute for Europe is not realistic. The Commonwealth recognises that it has changed its role. It is of growing political influence, but not an economic grouping for its members' self-interest. The question of Europe or the Commonwealth was rightly described by Chief Anyaoku, who said:
  "Europe and the Commonwealth cannot be adversaries, but partners in a common cause."
  The Government are not heeding the message that democracy on its own is not enough for our developing Commonwealth neighbours, despite the Minister's fine words. Overseas Development Administration bilateral aid to Commonwealth developing states has dropped nearly 30 per cent. I have the statistics here, so the Minister cannot deny that. Aid to Commonwealth multilateral bodies has also declined. The Commonwealth's multilateral aid arm, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, is also suffering from the restricted budget.
  The Commonwealth gets some large sums of money from the aid and trade provision budget, however. For example, £234 million was wasted on the Pergau debacle and £2.9 million was wasted in Botswana on a flight information project—money that should have been spent on basic human needs such as health, education, safe water and sanitation, things that the countries of Africa desperately need. I have one simple statistic—the £234 million wasted on Pergau is close to the £215 million that was cut from the Commonwealth aid programme to Africa in 1992-93, which shows the Government's priorities.
  When we look at the social and economic statistics for some of the developing countries in the Commonwealth, we can understand why those prestige projects are viewed with such contempt. Many countries, including Bangladesh, Malawi, Swaziland and Tanzania, still have an infant mortality rate of more than one in 10; five countries have a life expectancy of less than 50 years; and the number with access to safe drinking water is less than 20 per cent. in some of the rural populations of Africa.
  1088
  The Minister mentioned debt. The debts which many Commonwealth countries owe to developed countries run to billions of pounds, with a handful owing more than 100 per cent. of their gross national product. There was outrage at the European development fund discussions in Brussels when Baroness Chalker embarrassed our European counterparts, disgraced the United Kingdom and showed contempt for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries present. She collapsed the talks when she proposed a cut of 30 per cent. from the European development fund. That shows the Government's lack of concern for many of our fellow Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman says that we should do more to help countries such as Bangladesh, but does he not find it curious that, under the existing Lomé system, more European development fund money goes to countries like Mauritius than to Bangladesh? We have many concerns about how the EDF operates, and it must be right for Britain to have a strong bilateral aid programme.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have heard the arguments from the Minister and Baroness Chalker about why we should cut the European development fund to put more money, allegedly, into the bilateral programme, but that is not the answer; both programmes need to be maintained. The problem is that the whole fund for overseas aid has been continuously decreasing over the past 16 years, which is why the Government have to make that cut—they cannot maintain the bilateral aid programme on a reducing budget. The Minister must know that many excellent opportunities exist to use the Lomé convention and European Community mechanisms to aid the developing world. The EC-ACP Lomé relationship is separate from our direct relations with the Commonwealth, but equally valuable.
  As the Minister said, the Commonwealth's future is to be examined by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That is to be welcomed on both sides of the House. I certainly welcome the debate that will ensue as a result of that study, as it will show the advantages and benefits which exist for all members and it will analyse the Commonwealth's changing role and global importance. In all its activities, the Commonwealth benefits from shared practices and beliefs, and from the shared language of English which for most of us, though not all, is our native language. The modern association consists of three layers—Government; Commonwealth secretariat and other inter-governmental bodies; and the 77 Commonwealth non-governmental organisations.
  The Minister mentioned the Commonwealth Foundation and I endorse what he said about it. I could say much more about the work that it does for young people and its range of activities. I had the privilege today of talking with a member of staff from the Commonwealth Foundation who, unlike the Prime Minister, was in Copenhagen at the social summit—
  Miss Joan Lestor: I was there, too.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend was also there and she, too, will testify to the value of the social summit,

  1089
  the networking which took place there and the links that it provides between Governments and non-governmental organisations. It is a great pity that the British Government were not properly represented there.
  The Minister mentioned another Commonwealth institution—the Commonwealth Institute—and tried to take credit for the fact that the Commonwealth Institute will, it is hoped, survive. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) should perhaps take some credit for that, as he argued against a cut of £2.7 million in Government funding, but the Government ignored him, so it is no thanks to the Minister or the Government if the Commonwealth Institute continues. The Labour party hopes that, despite the elimination of the grant to the Commonwealth Institute over the next few years, the institute will nevertheless survive. It is another example of the Commonwealth's commitment to the work of young people and education.
  I make no apology for quoting for a third time the excellent Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Anyaoku. He described the Commonwealth's central attribute as
  "its ability to bridge racial, ideological and economic divides and inequalities, assisted by its common language and common heritage."
  Coupled with a commitment to democracy, the "Commonwealth way", as it has become known, is respected throughout the world. A commitment from the Minister to the Commonwealth's future role and a substantial aid budget to our partners in the Commonwealth would be welcomed by both sides of the House today.
  We certainly look forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November, to which the Minister referred when he listed the range of topics on the agenda. We would look forward to it even more if there were an election in October and a Labour Government representing this country in Auckland to look after the true interests of the people of the Commonwealth.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He and I have worked long on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association matters, as he is joint treasurer and I am the recently retired chairman of the United Kingdom branch. One of the charms of that organisation is that, because all its members are parliamentarians, they are all honourable friends, so it is sometimes difficult not to address hon. Members across the Chamber as "my hon. Friends". The fact that we work together is a characteristic of that organisation.
  I join other hon. Members in thanking the Leader of the House for providing time for this debate. Curiously enough, one of the benefits of the Jopling system is that it has made time available to get round to debates that we have wanted to have for many years but have been unable to have.
  I also thank the Minister for his positive approach to the debate. Some of us were worried about the Government's underlying commitment to and feel for the Commonwealth, especially in the light of the
  1090
  European debate. To have a positive approach demonstrated tonight is reassuring and I am certain that that reassurance will be felt beyond the Chamber.
  I also thank him for his earlier reference to a remark that I made exactly a week ago when I raised the question of parliamentary workshops in southern Africa. Work is well advanced on preliminary budgets and, even now, feelers are being put out for an early meeting. I should like to be in a position to report to the half-yearly meeting of the international executive committee my thoughts on that matter, and the thoughts of my hon. Friends in the Government on it will be extremely helpful.
  The benefits that those workshops can bring are enormous and it is well understood throughout the Commonwealth, although not yet, alas, throughout the world, that the CPA is unique in providing professional development of parliamentarians. We are just at the end of the 44th parliamentary seminar here in Westminster, which is aimed at that development of parliamentary expertise.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: It finishes tomorrow.
  Mr. Shepherd: As my hon. and learned Friend, the current chairman of the association's UK branch, says, it finishes tomorrow.
  The debate is timely for us as we try to formulate thoughts in advance of the Auckland Heads of Government meeting in November. It is also timely in making it obligatory for us to go back and look at the Harare communiqué of 1991, which, as the Minister said, was a remarkable document as it was a reassurance and a restatement of Commonwealth principles. Paragraph 9 of the communiqué contains a declaration that is often quoted. I shall not quote it again as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley already set it out, but it is every bit as valid today as it was then. It is a good foundation. In paragraph 12, there is an explicit invitation to the CPA to play a full part in promoting the objectives of the Harare declaration.
  As was acknowledged—because that was very much part of the theme, the CPA as parliamentary wing of the Commonwealth—the CPA has responded with vigour to that invitation. Mention has been made of the election monitoring and observing missions that have been undertaken in conjunction with the Commonwealth secretariat. We have the ability to draw on a vast resource of members in all parts of the world, who are capable of understanding what they are witnessing in the different areas in which the elections that they are invited to observe take place.
  The specific realm of excellence and expertise of the CPA is that of post-election seminars. Several places have benefited from them and several will benefit during the year, not necessarily on the basis that I spoke about earlier, but in ways specific to the countries concerned. I believe that we have been helpful, in many cases, in shortening the learning curve of new Houses, so that they have not gone off the rails.
  There is further scope to explore the use of the reservoir of parliamentary talent, and indeed former ministerial talent, which exists throughout the Commonwealth and the world, in conflict prevention and also possibly exploration and resolution. I do not

  1091
  know that we have the ability to act as arbiters, but we have the ability to go in as disinterested neutrals, hear both sides and suggest ideas that might be explored. The parliamentary experience that we have available to us is important in that. I have always worried that, when parliamentarians retire, we discard them from our reservoir of talent. They are there to be drawn on while they are healthy and available, which is often the case. We should not ignore that.
  In our plenary conferences and regional conferences, we have aimed to choose topics so as to draw out issues that are referred to specifically in the Harare declaration, and to enable Members of so many different Parliaments coming together to share their experiences and knowledge and to devise and derive tactics that they might deploy in their home states to solve various problems that we identify under those circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Minister headed the delegation to the parliamentary conference in Canada in October. He experienced at first hand the enthusiastic exchange of information. I am delighted that he is able to lead the delegation to the 1995 conference in Sri Lanka, when we shall take further the issue of the way in which we develop democracy in our Commonwealth.
  The Minister told us some of the ideas for the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland in November, and I shall tell him about two specific aspects that I believe need to be discussed, among many. The first is what I call the profile of the Commonwealth. The profile of the Commonwealth has been low. From time to time, it has been raised as a result of the temperature in South Africa or, before that, Rhodesia, there has been a fight and the media have been interested in us because there has been a fight. However, for the most part, because we tend to work together and not to fight, we do not excite media interest. That is a disadvantage. It is an advantage for our work, but a disadvantage in terms of obtaining public understanding.
  In that context, I welcome the visit made to Brussels on 2 March 1995 by Chief Anyaoku, when he spoke to the European Parliament and met members of the European Commission. That was valuable, especially given the fact that the 35 Commonwealth countries make up slightly less than half of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Lomé convention. It is terribly important that there is greater awareness in the European Union of the nature of the Commonwealth.
  We need to continue to increase the awareness of the Commonwealth in the world, of all that it stands for and of what it does. I mentioned the European Union. The United States of America is another part of the world that one might say is temporarily absent from the Commonwealth, or whatever one says, but in the USA there is not only an almost total lack of knowledge about the Commonwealth, but a lack of awareness that it even exists. Over the years in the House, I have had attached to me from time to time some of the young interns from universities. I always ask whether they have any awareness of the Commonwealth and, with one exception, the answer has been, "What is the Commonwealth?" It brings it home to me the fact that there is no knowledge.
  1092
  Last summer, I was invited along with a CPA team to do a presentation at the National Conference of State Legislatures annual convention. That was a fascinating experience because the convention was very well attended. There is a ground swell of feeling in the United States at the moment that its system of checks and balances is so checked and balanced that nothing can be done; there is gridlock. All types of curious solutions are being suggested. My object, along with others, in being present was to demonstrate that there is another way.
  Among the 200 state legislators who were present at that meeting, there was a total blankness and amazement that there was another way of running a Parliament or a legislature. They were fascinated, and want us to send another team to try to demonstrate at their next conference the way in which our system works.
  I believe that that is good, in that those people can understand that there is a world outside; that there is another way of doing things. They find it mind-boggling that there should be no fewer than 120 legislatures around the world—almost three times as many as in the United States—working on that system, more or less, with variations and bits and bobs.
  Further, I believe, given the spread of the Commonwealth to so many parts of the world, that that very large part of the world that I refer to as the Hispanic world should have a greater awareness of the nature of the Commonwealth. We just breathe on it through Belize and Guyana, but there should be far greater awareness, and we could avoid certain difficulties before they happen if there were that awareness. That is one big task that Heads of Government must tackle—to decide how to raise the profile of the Commonwealth without fighting to obtain reportage.
  The second aspect that I wish Heads of Government to consider relates very much to fundamental political values that are referred to so often in various communiqués. The key to that lies in remarks made by Chief Anyaoku in his speech to the CPA plenary conference in Canada, when he floated the concept of linking democratic governance with active membership of the Commonwealth. His remarks were as follows:
  "I have had occasion to say in the past that military intervention in politics is a political aberration and a derogation from the democratic development of a country. I believe that as we progressively pursue the objectives of the Harare Declaration, the day will not be far away when representatives of military regimes will find no welcome in the councils of the Commonwealth."
  That was a brave and sensible statement. I believe that it should be acted on.
  The CPA already practises that concept, because among the criteria for active membership of our association is full democratic governance based upon universal suffrage. A member who slips from grace democratically is placed in abeyance. In CPA terms, that is fairly draconian, but it is our only sanction. It is not terminal, because a country is allowed back in the CPA as soon as that state of grace is restored.
  One must be sensitive about what one advocates. I do not want to expel countries from the Commonwealth. Countries want to join it and the more countries we embrace, the better the chance we have of influencing change. By "we", I mean not the United Kingdom, but

  1093
  Commonwealth members. There should be a penalty, however, against any group in a particular country that contemplates overthrowing or seeks to overthrow the democratically elected Government of that country. That group must consider the downsides to its action, and there should be some.
  Each member country should know exactly where it stands and that the Commonwealth adopts a consistent approach. During the course of the year I passed through Fiji, to which my hon. Friend the Minister also referred. There is a distinct sense of injustice in that country, not because of the military coup and the subsequent peregrinations about how to restore a democratic Government, while recognising the various problems and interests, but because it is felt that Fiji was treated differently from other Commonwealth countries. People said to me, "Why were we expelled when Nigeria, the Gambia and Sierra Leone have not been expelled? Why were we treated differently?" They have a case.
  There is a way of dealing with such a problem. It has been set out rather neatly in the communiqué from Islamabad, issued by senior officials, which addresses the question of non-payment of subscriptions to the Commonwealth secretariat. It made it clear that when a country had not paid for six years, it should be given special status. That special status would debar it from attending Heads of Government meetings. If that country had paid its subscriptions to the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation—CFTC—it would be able to continue to draw on that reservoir of aid.
  To apply that arrangement sideways, when a country slips from democratic grace through a coup or whatever, it should not be accorded the privilege—that is the right word—of attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. That country should be placed in a special relationship to the Commonwealth. Should it continue to pay its subscription to the CFTC and to the Commonwealth as a whole, it should be able to use that particular avenue to guarantee developmental aid and non-governmental organisation involvement. In that sense, the citizenry is not disadvantaged, but we should not give a platform to those who achieve their power by non-democratic means. I would like such an arrangement to be on the agenda at Auckland.
  While I have been chairman of the international executive committee of the CPA, I have endeavoured to use my vacation time—I emphasise that, for obvious reasons—to visit as many CPA branches as possible. Whenever I have had an overseas commitment, I have been able to bolt on a number of rapid visits round the branches. I try to do a "Heineken" by getting to those branches, especially the smaller ones, which other chairmen and officers have been unable to reach. It is something of a rarity to travel to the smaller branches.
  It is also nice to talk to people outside the Parliaments. It is a humbling experience, because their awareness of and regard for the Commonwealth is awe-inspiring. That is not only humbling, but unnerving, because in the United Kingdom I do not find that same awareness, respect, understanding, regard or even knowledge of the ideals of the Commonwealth.
  That lack of knowledge brings me to the Commonwealth Institute. I should declare that, as a governor of it since 1989, I have a non-pecuniary interest in the institute. It took me a little time to
  1094
  understand what I was seeing. I acknowledge the downbeat nature of some of the remarks made last week and tonight about it. The lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding, respect or regard for the Commonwealth is a great reflection of the failure of the institute for many years. My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred to the falling numbers who attend the institute—800,000 people a year used to visit it; now that number is down to 250,000. That is a failure in itself, because the institute is failing to attract people.
  I experienced trepidation when Lord Armstrong set out on a quinquennial review of the organisation. I was uplifted by his positive report. It was marvellous that the Commonwealth Institute was recognised for what it is. Along with the other governors, however, I was knocked down by the opinion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and rather startled when funding was withdrawn. In fact, I was shattered. On reflection, and painful though it has been, I endorse what the Government have done to the Commonwealth Institute. I do not think that change could have been made without that kick. I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough yet.
  One of Lord Armstrong's recommendations was that doing nothing was not an option. Throwing money at the institute had, palpably, achieved nothing. It was clear that there had to be a change in thought. I welcome the arrival of Lord Armstrong, as a vice-chairman, on the board of governors. That in itself is a powerful statement of confidence by him in the future of the institute.
  I also pay tribute to the powerful chairmanship of David Thompson, who has guided the changes made during the past few months. I should like to reflect on the imaginative thinking of Stephen Cox, the director general of the institute. The fact that so many of our colleagues are aware of what is happening to the institute, when previously they were not even aware of it, is a reflection of his lobbying capabilities. There is nothing wrong with that.
  The House must understand that feeling at the Commonwealth Institute is upbeat. It is excited by and committed to what it is trying to do. The developments are exciting. Now that the thought processes have been let loose, we are grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its further support as the institute moves into a period of transition. The timetable must be very tight if we are not to lose momentum as new developments are made. The Government need to move fast when the business plan is submitted, which will be well within the deadline.
  There is a narrow window of opportunity for construction work to take place while the conference season is in abeyance. If we run over that and lose the conference season, the cash flow outcome will be different and dangerous. Incidentally, anyone seeking an excellent conference venue in London should know that the Commonwealth Institute's conference centre is right up among the leaders. It is very good indeed and extremely competitive.
  I should like the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury to match the lateral thinking that has been let loose within the Commonwealth Institute. There must be a team effort to take that to completion and there is a great penalty for doing nothing. If we get it wrong, if the thinking does not emerge and if there is

  1095
  collapse, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be left with a mess. That would be a rotten message to the Commonwealth and the world, as well as there being a continuing bill of £590,000 a year, because that is the sum that is required to do nothing to the building. That cannot be avoided, at least not without primary legislation. The pitching of the Commonwealth Institute into a new orbit is welcome, and traumatic, and it is becoming a value-for-money operation as well.
  One message is not enough. Politics is also about perception and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to project a continuing interest in the Commonwealth Institute. I am not saying that it needs to continue with the grant, but a rose by any other name smells as sweet and a subscription showing commitment would be helpful in terms of outside attitudes and perceptions. As I said, we must bear it in mind that doing nothing and allowing collapse would mean a subscription of £590,000 a year, and we are not necessarily looking for that.
  The Department for Education has to play its part as well, because the institute is an educational establishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke about its educational purpose, which is to create and develop awareness among the young as well as the old in this country, whatever their ethnic background, about the nature of the Commonwealth. The institute is the United Kingdom's only provider of education about the Commonwealth; the national curriculum includes a study of commonwealth. The educational activities are closely linked to the whole operation.
  There is a Department for Education representative on the executive committee. I have been on that committee since 1989 and have listened to the DFE saying, "Yes, we agree." But as soon as there is a question of any money or help it says, "No, that is not our department, that is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We could not possibly get involved in that." As the institute has a positive educational role, I should like to see a positive educational input in financial terms from the DFE.
  I support the institute's bid for a one-off grant to help it in its transition. It is a modest grant for the funding of phase 1 of its new education centre and I am certain that it would be a good investment. I should also like to see the DFE making a continuing subscription to the institute because of its palpable education mission.
  There is great excitement in the institute about the new vision, which I call the Commonwealth vision—vit is the vision of the Commonwealth that the institute portrays. It will rapidly become one of Britain's major draws for visitors. I want to see that happen and the time scale cannot be allowed to slip. It must be sustained and all the help that the Government can give in that direction will be enormously appreciated.
  Our Commonwealth could not be invented if we started from scratch. It is a remarkable institution that others have tried to replicate, but so far they have failed. We might be able to help them in another way. The Commonwealth is international and multiracial and it works on personal relationships. Those have to be the best relationships for people, whether they are part
  1096
  of the Government or the governed. All Commonwealth countries need friends around the globe, and countries from outside the Commonwealth are seeking to engage our Commonwealth friends in friendship. The United Kingdom needs to look towards its friends in the Commonwealth so as to maintain that friendship, because we never know when we might need it. The Commonwealth is a forward-looking and pragmatic group of friends who have demonstrated their ability to work well together. We contribute a tremendous amount to the peoples of the world and we must continue to do that.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The House is better informed about the Commonwealth Institute and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as a result of the speeches by the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd).
  I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Hereford about the fact that American interns had not heard the word "Commonwealth". The word is part of their own constitutional tradition, because the state of Virginia is properly described as the Commonwealth of Virginia. Other states are described in the same way. It is a pity that the interns did not understand that, at least for people in this country, a Commonwealth embraces much more than a single state.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made an enthusiastic speech, and revealed the answer to a mystery that has troubled me for some time. When, in February and November, many of us are pallid and sickly, I could never understand why the hon. Gentleman had such extraordinary reserves of energy and sported such a well-developed tan. All can now be revealed. As treasurer of the CPA, the hon. Gentleman, in an orgy of self-denial, has taken himself to places that are far from the bosom of his family and the mother of Parliaments, so as to advance the interests of the Commonwealth and the CPA.
  It seems to have done him no harm, and that may encourage others among the 536 CPA members in the House to take a more active role.[Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman's humorous response to these shafts at his expense does him great credit.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made a number of significant points, dwelling to some extent upon the issue of the readmission of South Africa. When one considers the extent to which South Africa dominated Commonwealth affairs from 31 May 1961, when Mr. Verwoerd took it out, until 1 June 1994, when Mr. Mandela brought it back in, it is right to look at the Commonwealth to some extent through the eyes of South Africa as a rejoined member. That is especially relevant when one considers that Her Majesty the Queen is about to embark on what is justifiably described as an historic visit to South Africa, although it is her second visit.
  What will South Africa be looking for as she returns to the Commonwealth? There is an obvious answer, and Mr. Mandela has been totally frank about it. The South African Government will be looking for the advantages of trade, commercial opportunity and aid. Some telling points have already been made in the debate about

  1097
  the importance of aid and the extent to which, in the Commonwealth at large, there is, to put it as gently as I can, disappointment that some of the aspirations on aid have not been met by the Government to the extent that hon. Members in all parts of the House would have preferred.
  South Africa will also be looking for the diplomatic influence that the Commonwealth can bring to bear on so much of world affairs, and for the opportunity of cultural exchange about which we have heard in the debate. South Africa is rightly described as sports-mad, and will be looking for the additional sporting opportunities that will now be available to it.
  At Murrayfield stadium in November, as the South African rugby team was eviscerating my native and beloved Scotland, for a moment I disloyally wished that the Gleneagles agreement was still in force. A nation for which sport has always been extremely important is at last being allowed to take its rightful place in those sports in which it is truly world-class. So there we have it—the economic, diplomatic, cultural and sporting factors. Those are the benefits that South Africa undoubtedly looks for on its return to the Commonwealth.
  I want to consider the interests of the Commonwealth's African members. One remembers the extent to which Africa was a central battleground, sometimes in literal terms, during the cold war. That war has come to an end. As a consequence, the super-powers' interest in Africa has waned. The Commonwealth is extremely important for its African members, because it allows them the opportunity for a collective voice.
  For obvious reasons, the United Kingdom has rediscovered emphasis on the European Union, although the extent to which that will be carried through is something on which, at this stage at least, no final conclusion has been reached. The opening up of eastern Europe has necessarily focused people's attention away from Africa. The possibility of peace in the middle east has had a similar diversionary effect. The emphasis on the Pacific rim and the enormous economic opportunities that are available have also diverted attention. One could even say that the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement has drawn Canada, for so long a prominent member of the Commonwealth, into a relationship with the United States of America and Mexico.
  For its African members, therefore, the Commonwealth has become yet more important as the eyes of the world have been diverted in other directions because of those political developments.
  That collective voice has an influence on the UK—and through the UK on, I hope, the European Union—and on Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are developed countries. Therefore, that opportunity for a collective voice persuades some countries that have never been members of the Commonwealth to show an interest in joining. They include Mozambique, Cameroon, Angola and Eritrea. One can say, without being patronising, that new democracies in Africa have much to learn from the Commonwealth and from the traditions of parliamentary government, about which we heard in the eloquent speech that was made earlier.
  1098
  Some regimes are more in need than others of the lessons of parliamentary government. I thought that the hon. Member for Hereford embarked on an interesting debate when he said that the Commonwealth should not treat it as an entirely internal matter if a country that had conducted itself with proper parliamentary democratic traditions should change into a military rulership or something of that sort.
  The Commonwealth's strength and credibility will be maintained only if it robustly condemns the replacement of properly constituted civilian rule by military rule, and large-scale human rights violations. Exclusion, special status and other such measures may be difficult to achieve—one can imagine all sorts of efforts being made at self-protection against sanctions of that sort.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, however, such measures could do nothing but enhance the credibility of the Commonwealth as an institution embodying certain principles. Membership of the Commonwealth should be continued and allowed only if those principles remained at the heart of the institutions of each member.
  I shall slightly divert from the comments of the hon. Gentleman for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). One might say that I take a slightly less visionary view of the Commonwealth. There must be some realism about what we are capable of achieving. I believe, as to some extent my remarks have underlined, that the Commonwealth's greatest contribution probably lies in the promotion of democracy and in the protection of human rights. That involves the extent to which the Harare declaration can be turned from a set of principles into practical proposals that are fully implemented.
  Leaving aside the question of special status, suspension and other such measures, in a sense the Commonwealth's only effective sanctions are moral pressure and the ability to communicate, which a common language and common traditions undoubtedly confer. It would be idealistic, but wholly unrealistic, to expect that the Commonwealth as presently constituted could resolve the difficulties that exist between India and Pakistan.
  One can argue with some force, however, that, if those difficulties were to reach their most acute state, and if, for example, an outbreak of hostilities took place—there have been, and no doubt will be, occasions when that seems likely—the Commonwealth would at least be available at the beginning to offer the opportunity for mediation, and to endeavour to persuade the adversaries to find a way of resolving their difficulty.
  In relation in India and Pakistan, the Commonwealth would have a unique capability—no other institution would have that. I take a more realistic view than the hon. Gentleman—I believe that I am right to describe it like that—but I acknowledge that moral pressure, the capacity to communicate, and the existence of common traditions could be effective weapons in endeavouring to solve either hostilities or some substantial political disagreement that might arise between Commonwealth members.
  One matter is a puzzle. I have frequently asked myself this question. What would have happened to the Commonwealth if apartheid had not been carried out in South Africa, and if that country had not left the

  1099
  Commonwealth? What would have happened to all that moral indignation that characterised the meetings of Commonwealth Heads of State for such a long time? As with all speculations, it is impossible to give a realistic answer, but we are entitled to say that those meetings will no longer be as acrimonious as they were—we hope——and that the important task is to ensure that they become more fruitful and that the Commonwealth is more effective, now that it has solved its most significant internal political problem.
  Last year, I had occasion to visit a cemetery near one of the battlefields in Europe. One only has to do that to realise just how strong the tradition is to which I have referred. The number of people from Commonwealth countries who died in western Europe fighting against Nazism is staggering to behold. To hon. Members who have not taken that opportunity, I recommend it as an extraordinary indication of the fact that the battle in Europe was fought by the Commonwealth as much as by the UK.
  That common history and tradition clearly informs our attitudes today. It gives me hope in two respects. First, there is a practical thing we can do. Many of our discussions in the United Nations are given over to effective peacekeeping or peacemaking. We need not get into that debate this evening, but if ever an opportunity existed for the Commonwealth to take an active role, it surely lies in peacekeeping. We share those common traditions and a common language. Many senior officers have had common training as well.
  I hope that, in the development of the Commonwealth's role, some consideration will be given to the extent to which Commonwealth battalions, or battalions from Commonwealth countries, may be allowed to take part more in relation to the likely increased requirements and obligations of the UN to provide peacekeeping forces.
  I want to finish with the comment that has punctuated my speech, which is that it is in the promotion of democratic values and the recognition of human rights that the Commonwealth's relevance is to be found. A debate such as this gives us the opportunity to underline the possibility that a commitment of that sort would create.
  7.50 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: In this week in which 51 flags fly in Parliament square representing the Commonwealth, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for responding so promptly and with such enthusiasm to my request at business questions two weeks ago for a debate devoted entirely to the Commonwealth during the week following Commonwealth day, which was Monday 13 March. I wish the other representations that I make ceaselessly to the Government were taken up with such enthusiasm.
  As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has reminded us, this is the first Commonwealth debate held in the House since 1987. It is a disgrace that an institution that is so important to us in Britain has somehow managed to slip the attentions of all of us as legislators, and has not been the subject of a special debate. It has been subsumed
  1100
  in every other debate on foreign affairs. Perhaps the fact that we are having this debate is a manifestation of the remarkable and exciting resurgence of interest and activity in this great international institution in which Britain plays such an essential part.
  If Dean Acheson had still been with us, he would be saying today that Britain, having lost an empire, has now found several roles. After all, there is hardly any major international organisation today, whether it be the United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries or the European Union, in which Britain does not sit at the top table, influencing important future policy. Of all the great institutions, the one in which we experience the greatest warmth and feel so much a part is the Commonwealth.
  It is a great voluntary, charterless union of nations. It is the inheritor of the days of empire. It now numbers 51 nations, ruling over 1.5 billion people. South Africa and Pakistan have at last come back to join, as has Namibia, which was never a part of the British empire. Mozambique, Cameroon, Angola and Eritrea have shown an interest in joining, despite having no direct cultural links with our union in the past. An article in The Independent on Sunday recently said that Ireland was considering coming closer to the Commonwealth, and someone told me that Japan was showing some interest, if only as part of a joint venture.
  During my early political lifetime of a generation and more, the question was often asked, "What is the use of the Commonwealth? It is no more than a talking shop. It does nothing and stands for very little." That is said no longer. The Commonwealth is now expanding and showing a new vitality. Why? I think that it is because its existing members, its former members and its aspiring members see a relevance and importance for it in the new world order.
  In the past few years, the old order of the super-powers facing each other off in a cold war has disintegrated. Africa, once a focus of super-power interest, has become potentially weaker without strong allies. The old imperatives of communist power and compulsion have dissolved, and its vassal states are in danger of losing the guidance and control which for so long masqueraded as stability.
  There is now a new freedom in the world. There are the beacons of democracy, free enterprise and the rule of law, but there is also a need for a new community which will foster and develop those beacons. There is a need for the newly independent nation states in the new order all over the world to attain new goals.
  First, they need to maintain their independence by achieving economic self-reliance. That means joining a community with a common economic interest and opportunities for trade and industrial development. The Commonwealth could help to provide that with the investment of the major parties in countries such as South Africa and with the links that Britain has with the European Union.
  Secondly, those countries need to be a part of a community with common security interests, in which their concerns can be expressed and their voices listened to in a way that has been no longer possible now that the old orders have dissolved.

  1101
  Thirdly, there is a need to be closer to the beacons of democracy, free enterprise and the rule of law that are guiding those nations away from the rocks of totalitarianism in which those countries have engaged hitherto.
  Fourthly, at a time of resurgent nationalism and racial conflict, the community that they join must be genuinely multiracial and concerned for human rights and civil liberties. The 1991 Harare declaration states that the Commonwealth would work, inter alia, for fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, colour, creed and political belief.
  Fifthly, such nations will inevitably feel more comfortable in a community where there is a common language and a common history and culture. Although not all the aspirants to membership meet that requirement, broadly, the Commonwealth provides all that, and, in addition, the head of the Commonwealth—the Queen—embodies in her office and her person some of the best of the traditional features of our communal history.
  Because of our shared history and traditions, particularly our regard for other races, there is a warmth of feeling among Commonwealth members that one does not feel so strongly in the other institutions in which Britain plays a part. The Commonwealth is and feels like a family—a family of nations.
  As we have heard, over the past two weeks the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I currently have the privilege to be chairman, has been hosting one of its regular seminars for Common wealth parliamentarians. As Briton eats, drinks and discusses with Kenyan, as Canadian discusses with Indian, New Zealander with Pakistani and Australian with South African and Falkland Islander, we all feel as if we are talking to our cousins—members of our family. It is quite extraordinary. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for his kind remarks about the sort of work that the CPA does in that family environment.
  Many organisations actively promote the Commonwealth ideal—they have been mentioned in several of the excellent speeches this evening. Since Parliaments are so central to the Commonwealth, it is not surprising that the CPA, with its international office as well as its United Kingdom branch here in Westminster, plays a such a prominent role. We represent the interests of over 10,000 Commonwealth parliamentarians in 123 legislatures in 47 Commonwealth countries.
  The United Kingdom branch has 962 members, which includes 565 Members of Parliament—nearly all of us. I have approached some of our friends the Liberal Democrats, but they are committed to so many activities in the House, having to keep pace with the various Departments of State, that I accept that it may be a little difficult. However, I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) would encourage one or two of his hon. Friends to consider joining. I do not accuse them for one moment of not being interested in the Commonwealth, but they are so few in number that they have to spread themselves thinly to cover all their commitments.
  1102
  Three hundred and fifty members of our branch are former Members of Parliament. It is one of the largest branches of the CPA worldwide. Because of the high reputation enjoyed by our organisation, we had no fewer than 235 full applications from men of great distinction in the military and public services in answer to our advertisement for a new branch secretary to follow the redoubtable Captain Peter Cobb RN, who has served us for 15 years and, sadly, is having to retire.
  Our model of parliamentary democracy—the Westminster model—has been exported worldwide. With the aid of workshops, seminars, visits and conferences, we continue to maintain that model and influence countries that seek to embrace it. In this context, I need not repeat many of the points made today, but we maintain that model in close liaison with the international CPA, which is chaired with great distinction by my predecessor at the United Kingdom branch of the CPA, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend's team of officials is led by the distinguished former Speaker of the Ontario Parliament, Mr. Arthur Donahoe QC.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I must put the record straight; the gentleman is the former Speaker of the Nova Scotia provincial assembly.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Our family is so wide, and we have so many cousins, that I sometimes forget what their allegiances are. Canada is and always has been a great part of the Commonwealth; whether Arthur Donahoe comes from Nova Scotia or Ontario is of little importance to us, although no doubt of great importance to him.
  The metamorphosis from an empire with obligatory membership to a Commonwealth where membership is freely entered into, and even sought after, is astonishing. It is a sign of how long-established ties can evolve to become relevant even in a hugely changed world. However, to compliment the Commonwealth must not be the end of the story. We must continue to ensure that it remains relevant to its members and that we in Britain—in the mother of Parliaments—play a central role in developing and strengthening a very great institution. How can we do that?
  First, we must develop our own economic links with Commonwealth countries. Our recent preoccupation with Europe may at times have blinded us to the fact that, whereas that institution commands less than half our total overseas earnings, the Commonwealth commands well over half. To the great markets of Asia, especially India, Hong Kong and Malaysia, we hope to add additional investment, and therefore earnings, in the great sleeping economic giant of South Africa.
  In order to justify our involvement in these great economies, we have to be willing to stimulate the development of those countries with help in the form of training and aid and the development of their human resources, police, military establishments, public administration and their management skills, especially in the private sector. There is a tremendous reservoir for mutual economic development in the Commonwealth, and we must take these markets very seriously in the years ahead.
  Secondly, we must keep bright the beacons of parliamentary democracy, the rule of the law and free enterprise capitalism—beacons lighted, let it be said, in

  1103
  the Thatcher years. Without those beacons, the emerging nations may lose heart and revert—so delicate may some of the new states be—not to totalitarianism of the left but perhaps to totalitarianism of the right. With naked nationalism always comes racism, and that is the reverse of the multicultural, multi-ethnic society for which the Commonwealth stands. We must so resource ourselves that no invitation to advise, no request for guidance based on our wide experience and no invitation to visit or be visited, can be refused.
  I know that the Government value the work of the CPA and will ensure that it remains properly financed. It is a very small price to pay for the great good it does to the very infrastructure of the international society. I remember especially the pleasurable help that many of us were able to give in the South African elections almost a year ago.
  Thirdly, we must be aware that the new world order is throwing up enormous and potentially cataclysmic problems, and that the small emerging nations are especially vulnerable to the horrors of drugs, with which comes organised crime. Money laundering and economic crime is now becoming so widespread, with consequences so frightening, as to make our concerns about strengthening democracy seem almost as irrelevant as shifting the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.
  Three cases of serious fraud in the United Kingdom alone currently allege deficiencies exceeding by several hundred million pounds the total annual figure for burglaries in England and Wales. When one considers that most fraud is never investigated or its perpetrators caught, let alone brought to trial and convicted, one gains some idea of how grave the situation is in this country—and, of course, other countries.
  Millions of pounds can be moved from one country to another in the twinkling of an eye without any police force being aware of how, where, why or when it happened until long after anything can be done about it. The smaller developing nation states of the Commonwealth are especially vulnerable to exploitation in this respect, and we must share our knowledge, intelligence and police with them.
  The value of the worldwide cocaine trade alone has been put by those who know at several hundred thousand US dollars—as much as the entire gross national product of a country such as Britain. With such money, land is bought and developed, factories bought and constructed, and businesses, including banks, set up. They process the laundered money and invest it in legitimate businesses, where it grows and inevitably forms a significant part of national economies. Some Commonwealth countries are very vulnerable, and need all the help we can give them.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I agree that a number of small Commonwealth countries that have active offshore financial industries are vulnerable in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman outlines. I am sure that he shares my pleasure in the fact that Britain gives help in the form of technical advice on banking regulation and policing, but does he share my concern that some
  1104
  of the offshore economies have that help paid for in part out of the Overseas Development Administration budget?
  Does he believe that the relatively small sums of money involved—tens of thousands, or, at most, hundreds of thousands of pounds—could be met by increasingly slightly the fees for offshore businesses that register in states such as Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable intervention, but it would better be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister who will be summing up. I would rather not discuss fees and their scale, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We must pull out all the stops and share our knowledge, expertise and influence, and also the information that the Commonwealth countries, including the smaller ones, can provide for us.
  Cocaine is not the only problem. Pakistan and India have enormous problems with heroin, as does Hong Kong. Cannabis is a problem in the Caribbean islands such as Jamaica. There are millions and millions of addicts, and billions and billions of dollars are being made by drug-trafficking operators looking for financial systems to infiltrate, Governments to buy and economies to undermine.
  How long will pure, uncorrupted democracies last, even if we help to make them more representative and responsible by the influence that we can exert through our Commonwealth parliamentary associations? What will happen if we do not, as parliamentarians of the Commonwealth, take the lead in fighting the terrifying evils of drug and financial crime by genuine international co-operation?
  The members of the Commonwealth can work together in an effort to wipe out drug crops by providing farmers in Commonwealth countries and others with alternative livelihoods. We can act by encouraging stronger laws and stronger policing to trace, seize and freeze the assets of drug traffickers. We should help to ensure that Commonwealth countries sign the United Nations conventions against drugs, implement the 40 recommendations of the G7 summit financial action task force, which set out best practice, and implement also the 21 recommendations of the Caribbean financial action task force under the chairmanship of Trinidad and Tobago.
  Many activities are taking place. We must use all the force and persuasion we can within the Commonwealth to try to ensure that the maximum advantage is taken of the work that is being done. We hope that, in future, our CPA seminars will target world problems of the sort to which I have drawn attention, rather than holding general seminars on general matters of interest. If we home in on some of the problems, we may be able to achieve more mileage in dealing with needs and opportunities.
  Fourthly, I so agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford that we must build up the knowledge and understanding of our children about the Commonwealth. They must learn in our schools what the Commonwealth stands for, and why it is such an important part of world society. They must understand why it is something in which we in Britain can take so much pride. In a sense, it is almost a national organisation. Britain has been so

  1105
  much at the centre of the Commonwealth. We continue to play our part, but no longer as the head of the empire. We are sillt one of the important players.
  We have all rightly sung the praises of the Commonwealth this evening. Its vital role in the world—I hope that this encapsulates my theme—must not be underrated. It cannot be denied that the Commonwealth is a great force for good in the world, and a vital part of Britain's inheritance.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: I shall resist the temptation to join battle with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the contribution made to the well-being of the 1.5 billion people of the Commonwealth—the vast majority of them extremely poor—by free-market capitalism, let alone by the Thatcher years.
  I add my congratulations to those already directed to the Leader of the House for organising the debate. It has been a fine debate and we must hope that seven years will not pass until the next one. Such debates should be annual parliamentary events. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have made that point, or similar points, will be listened to by the Leader of the House.
  Britain can be justifiably proud of the way in which it has made the adjustment from being primus inter pares as the head of an empire to being a member of the family of the Commonwealth. Having lost our empire, we have, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, found not one but many roles in the world.
  We have a Commonwealth upon which the sun never sets. I was once upbraided by an old man in a poor village in central Africa. He said, with what I thought was great prescience, that the sun never set on the British empire because God would never trust an Englishman in the dark. I do not know quite what he meant. It is true, however, that we have adjusted to a new role with some distinction.
  It is true also that the Commonwealth is held in much greater affection elsewhere within it than it is here in the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why we should have an annual debate. It is also one of the reasons why, as has been said, we need to be more innovative and more generous in our support for institutions such as the Commonwealth Institute. Generally, we should seek to put more power at the elbow of the Commonwealth.
  Bearing in mind the good nature of the debate, I say with some trepidation that it has been slightly too self-congratulatory and has pictured the Commonwealth in just a little too rosy a way. I declare an interest because I have recently returned from a visit to Pakistan over the new year holiday as a guest of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is a country with which I have close links. I hold its highest civil award, and I take a close interest in its affairs, as do other hon. Members.
  Having just returned to the Commonwealth fold, Pakistan is extremely sore about the apparent lack of interest of the Commonwealth, and of the United Kingdom as a leading player within it, in the dreadful problems that are afflicting its fragile democratic Government. The burden of my remarks will be on that
  1106
  subject, on relations between Pakistan and India and on ways in which the Commonwealth could play a constructive part in resolving some of the problems.
  During an interview with the International Herald Tribune, Benazir Bhutto said:
  "Pakistan today is the frontline state against the forces of extremism and fanaticism. It is a wall of modernity against all those values that undermine global stability. Pakistan has a constitutional and democratic government. It ought to be strengthened and supported".
  I agree with her. Pakistan is in the front line. It is under tremendous onslaught from the forces of darkness. It is incumbent upon the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to do everything possible to buttress the democratic system in Pakistan and to help it to deal with the many problems that it faces.
  The problem of drugs has been alluded to by several hon. Members. No other country in the world, with the possible exception of Colombia, is more afflicted by the big-time, big-business, organised drug trade. There are drug barons who are vastly wealthy with huge, feudal armies at their disposal. They are extremely heavily armed. That is something to which I shall return.
  Pakistan is afflicted by the awful sectarian disaster of Karachi. In 1994, more than 1,000 people died as a result of political violence. In the first three months of this year, many hundreds more have perished, including, over the past week or so, two diplomats from the American mission in Karachi, with 15 people dying in a mosque here and a dozen at a mosque there. People are being gunned down from passing cars and up alleyways in political violence that is showing every sign of spiralling out of control.
  The Prime Minister of Pakistan was right to say in Karachi the other day that to some extent violence is being encouraged and, in part, financed by foreign powers. Iran is involved, for sure, in the new Shi'ite-Sunni conflict in Karachi. Involved also is India, which has recently had its consulate closed in Karachi because of the role being played by Indian secret intelligence agents in fomenting communal violence.
  The Prime Minister of Pakistan was right to say that the west had flooded Pakistan and Afghanistan with high-tech armaments for the holy warriors, the mujaheddin, who were fighting the holy war against communism and the Soviet Union, and that has led to a situation where, in Karachi alone, there are 100,000 illegally held automatic arms capable of absolute devastation in the crowded marketplaces and mosques in which they are increasingly being used.
  There are millions of weapons in the wrong hands in Pakistan and they are now spreading throughout the country. They are in the hands of those noble warriors who used to be lauded by Sandy Gall and others on "News at Ten" when they were doing the bidding—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has returned to the Chamber. They were fighting for a world safe for free-market capitalism, in which it could flourish. However, those people are now using their weapons to undermine the very existence of the democratic state in Pakistan. They are murdering people on a daily basis and they pose an armed threat to the existence of democracy itself.

  1107
  Then there is Kashmir. It just will not do for Britain to walk away from the question of Kashmir. It will not do for the Commonwealth to say, "It has nothing to do with us." Kashmir is a legacy of the end of empire. It is a legacy of the failure of the British Government at the time—yes, a Labour Government—properly to manage the partition and all that flowed from it.
  A reign of terror exists in Kashmir. Six hundred and fifty thousand Indian soldiers occupy illegally, in breach of United Nations resolutions, the tiny state of Jammu and Kashmir. Atrocities of a horrifying kind are an everyday occurrence there. That is happening in the Commonwealth—a point that has not been touched upon in the debate so far, except tangentially.
  On my last visit there, I interviewed women who had been raped by Indian security forces. A woman of 18 had been raped by more than 100 soldiers in a little village on the outskirts of Srinigar. I took photographs of men whose feet had been severed by the swords of Indian soldiers in the Commonwealth, in the past 12 months, during this reign of terror in the valley of Jammu and Kashmir.
  Atrocities are taking place and we are doing nothing about them. I must tell the Minister that, although he battled bravely to try to recover some of the damage done, the recent visit to India and Pakistan by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was a disaster for the people of Kashmir and Pakistan. His very definite tilt in respect of British policy, moving it from one of sitting on the fence to one of climbing down on the Indian side of the fence because of the free-market capitalist opportunities which are opening up in the new post-Soviet India, was an absolute disgrace.
  The Secretary of State said that the UN resolutions on Kashmir were increasingly irrelevant. Leaving aside the issue of when a UN resolution becomes irrelevant and of sending the message to aggressors that, if they can hang on to their spoils long enough, the UN resolutions condemning them will one day become irrelevant, the facts are that we have an obligation as the head of the Commonwealth and as the former imperial power to try to control the tragedy and disaster in Kashmir.
  I shall explain how we can do that. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, we are in a unique position. The Commonwealth is in a unique position—because it contains both India and Pakistan and, therefore, Kashmir—to kick-start some kind of negotiating process which long ago ran into the snow in Kashmir. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that the Simla agreement somehow supersedes the UN resolutions. The Simla agreement calls on the matter to be resolved between India and Pakistan, but India will not even discuss the question of Kashmir with Pakistan, claiming that it is an internal matter, when all hon. Members know that it is not.
  We are in a position to say, "Well, all right. If it is some kind of internal matter, let's deal with it in-house, inside the Commonwealth family." We can set up an eminent persons group of the kind that worked so well and so effectively over the South African problem. There are plenty of distinguished, superannuated statespeople at large in the Commonwealth family, such
  1108
  as Bob Hawke of Australia and Kaunda of Zambia. Even the heroine of the hon. and learned Member for Burton, Lady Thatcher, could play a role in this, with her stature in many parts of the world. I am not sure whether it is deserved, but it exists. It is possible to put together an eminent persons group which could play the kind of shuttlecock role between India and Pakistan that could kick-start the process.
  I must tell the Minister that the cost of not doing that is not only the continuation of the disaster of massive repression in Kashmir and the inevitable corruption of democratic life and civil liberties and the rule of law in India which that represents. Kashmir is a dagger at the heart of the Government of Pakistan and of democracy itself in Pakistan. The banner that is flown by the fanatics of the Islamic right in Pakistan is that democracy will never resolve the question of Kashmir: only a Pakistan bristling, armed to the teeth and, if possible, nuclear armed, will ever force India to disgorge that which it holds illegally in the form of Jammu and Kashmir.
  That is a running sore; ultimately, it will engulf democratic politics in Pakistan unless the issue is grasped by somebody. I argue that it would be better that that somebody was the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom than anybody else, because we are so uniquely placed to fill that role.
  The Government of Pakistan deserve the support of all people of good will in this House. The Prime Minister bravely confronted the zealots in the past few weeks over the outrage of the sentencing to death of two Christians for painting slogans on a mosque. The Prime Minister of Pakistan immediately declared that that was completely unacceptable, that she was shocked and horrified by it, and that the verdict must not stand. The higher court in Pakistan, having considered the matter, quashed the sentences.
  I hope that the Minister will believe me when I say that great anger and rage was caused among the extremists in Pakistan by the stand that she took, but she took it. They feel great anger when she takes a stand against the drug barons, too, but there is also great anger and frustration in Pakistan when democratic politics yields nothing in the context of the Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
  For several reasons, therefore—for India's sake, for Kashmir's sake and for the sake of Pakistan and of the Commonwealth—we should do something about that situation before it is too late. I hope that the Minister has heard what I have said.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I speak as someone who today celebrates his 19th anniversary in this place when I say that one of the excellent benefits of attending a debate such as this in the House of Commons is that if one listens carefully to the thoughtful and sometimes passionate speeches, one can learn a great deal that helps to advance one's own thinking. I hope that it will not be Back Benchers alone who derive a useful few hours of adult education from the debate, but that those on the Front Benches, especially Ministers, and their civil service advisers, will derive some benefit too. They would do well to listen to some of the knowledgeable and occasionally

  1109
  passionate speeches about different aspects of the Commonwealth, such as many of those that have already been made.
  I do not have much that is original or even passionate to say, but I want to add my brief contribution because I too attach great importance to the Commonwealth as an institution. I must declare a sentimental interest: I was born in Simla, nearly 52 years ago, at the tail end of the British Raj, and I have watched from afar as India has developed from being the jewel in the crown of the British empire to being a leading and vital member of the Commonwealth of nations, on a par with any other of its members.
  I was especially interested, therefore, in what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said about the tragic and needless continuing conflict in Kashmir and Jammu. I shall say a few amateur words of my own about that later.
  I could not possibly match the encomium of the Commonwealth as a whole delivered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who also spoke powerfully and interestingly about combating international crime, especially drug-related crime. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Government will do everything possible to follow up my hon. and learned Friend's advice, because it seemed to me that he spoke with great knowledge of the law and order issues involved.
  From what little I know about such matters, I realise that Britain has a great deal of expertise in this matter, which could be applied to such problems. For example, MI6 seems to be able to spend a large sum on its new headquarters just across the river, and the press tell us that it is seeking a new role in the world now that the Soviet Union has collapsed. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to speak about this publicly, but one new role for MI6 might be playing a constructive part in what must be global efforts to counter the international drugs trade and all the racketeering that goes with it.
  I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) a strong interest in ensuring that the Commonwealth Institute survives, transforms itself and prospers in its new public-private partnership, especially as by 1999 it is scheduled to be devoid of all direct public support. Like my hon. Friend, I have seen the exhibitions mounted by the admirable Stephen Cox and his colleagues showing what they intend to do with the site. I too have visited the site and seen its great potential, which remains despite the fact that, alas, the building was constructed at a time and in a way that makes it fiendishly expensive and difficult to maintain.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a contribution towards that necessary transitional expense by my former Department, the Department for Education, which obviously has a clear interest in ensuring that the Commonwealth Institute performs its tasks well in future. I hope that there will be no needless and sterile talk of fighting over departtnental boundaries, because it is both in the Government's interest and in the national interest that the institute should make the transition.
  One has only to ask oneself the rhetorical question: how would the French handle the situation if a question arose concerning a comparable institution with a potentially important role to play in supporting and
  1110
  popularising the francophone community? They would grasp the opportunity with both hands, and they would be right to do so. This country should not be afraid to emulate such an example.
  I have said to the managerial people at the Commonwealth Institute that in the fund-raising efforts that I believe that they are to make, they should make a serious effort to look for "high net worth" individuals, of which there are many more now than there were in 1979, courtesy of the policies of the Government as well as other factors. Those people should he sought not only within Britain but throughout some of the more dynamic and prosperous Commonwealth countries. The institute should approach them and appeal to their sense of altruism and their wider sense of civic responsibility, so as to secure an injection of private money into what is obviously a worthwhile institution.
  I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister concerning the Commonwealth in general. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may be able to say something about each of them in his winding-up speech. I agree with all the hon. Members who have either explicitly or implicitly underlined the fact that the Commonwealth, rather like the Pope, does not have all that many divisions directly in its own name. It has a history and considerable moral authority in all parts of the world, and it should use those to exert a constructive influence, especially with regard to the problems that have led to intractable difficulties such as those in Kashmir described by the hon. Member for Hillhead.
  The first question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend, and about which I should like to hear a little more, is: what precisely have the Government sought to do within the context of our Commonwealth role to assist in conflict resolution in Kashmir, the example that the hon. Gentleman gave? Just as important, in my view, is the example of the internal difficulties in Sri Lanka.
  From time to time, I talk to sixth formers in my constituency, as I suspect that other hon. Members do. At a recent meeting, I exchanged views with lower sixth form girls at Wallington high school for girls in my constituency, and I was struck by the fact that three or four questions were asked from different quarters about the situation in Sri Lanka. I was asked why the Government appear relatively impotent in taking effective action to influence that situation, and those young idealistic girls specifically asked me whether we could not do more through the Commonwealth connection to help to resolve the dispute.
  That is especially relevant because, as the House will know, the situation is not, strictly speaking, an internal matter for Sri Lanka, as the Indian Government have played a considerable role in supporting the Tamils. The House would like to know that the Government take issues such as Kashmir and Sri Lanka seriously and are using their best endeavours to exploit all the opportunities and all the contacts and networks of the Commonwealth to bring about a peaceful solution to those tragic problems.
  My second question is about another problem that has concerned me for years—the non-proliferation regime. Of course, that has a connection with the India-Pakistan dispute. A review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is to take place shortly. I

  1111
  understand that Her Majesty's Government strongly support the indefinite renewal of the treaty, and that is all to the good; but it is important for us to give an earnest of our intentions. We must subscribe to the spirit of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which in the minds of many is linked with progress on non-proliferation. We must set an example to "threshold" states—and even states such as India and Pakistan, which are way beyond the threshold. Those states have demonstrated their capacity to cause nuclear explosions, and, for all I know, have the ballistic capacity to deliver nuclear warheads. We cannot assume that, just because the cold war is over, the threat to the people and environment of the globe has diminished.
  If anything, the dangers are greater rather than less in the new multi-polar, fragile world, because the condominium between the United States and what was the Soviet Union no longer exists. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something reassuring—something that would reassure my young constituents who want to believe that they can grow up and, in their adult lives, make their contribution in a time of peace and prosperity.
  I am glad that the Commonwealth now provides such a wide and rapidly growing range of trade and investment opportunities, not only for this country but for the countries in which we invest and with which we trade. Over dinner the other day, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, paying one of his rare visits to this country—obviously, he performs his duties abroad on behalf of Britain, and rightly so—reminded me that Britain is now the second largest exporter to India.
  Everyone thinks of China as the world's monster market, but we should consider India's natural resources, as I have done from afar. We should consider its human capital—its skills, its links with Britain, its academic achievements, its scientific expertise and the commitment to free markets that has followed from the new Indian policy. All those assets bring great benefits not only to this country, in terms of trade and payments, but to the Indian people.
  They desperately need the lubrication of growing prosperity to counter extremism, develop their country and, hopefully, limit the dangers of fundamentalism—Hindu fundamentalism or any other kind. Limiting fundamentalism will not only lessen the risk to the future of India—India's very existence is a miracle, given the problems of the Punjab and so forth—but help, at least at the margin, to reduce the dangers of a polarised attitude to critical questions such as the future of Kashmir, on which I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead.
  I bring no special expertise to the debate, but I have enormous sympathy with our friends and fellow family members in the Commonwealth nations. I believe that the Commonwealth has a great future—indeed, probably a greater future in the 21st century than it had in the second half of the 20th. It is up to us, as the mother nation of a great institution, to help to take it forward on a basis of equality, mutual respect and adherence to altruistic policies of the sort that I have described. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us all.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Let me begin by paying tribute to Sir Charles Kerruish, president of the Tynwald, who will shortly celebrate 50 years of continuous service to his island legislature. He is the father of that House, and almost indisputably the father of Commonwealth parliamentarians. When I met him and other fellow parliamentarians on the Isle of Man on Commonwealth day, I realised the importance that members of both large and small jurisdictions attach to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It was with great pride that the Tynwald Members commemorated their island's membership of the Commonwealth. As others have pointed out, the United Kingdom is probably unique in not celebrating Commonwealth day to any great extent, or at least to the extent that it is celebrated in other parts of the world.
  On that day, I was able to renew my acquaintance with friends from the Isle of Man Parliament whom I had met at the CPA conference in October. It was a privilege to be part of the United Kingdom delegation on that occasion, and I shall always remember the re-entry of the South African delegation to the plenary session, which was very moving. I reflected, however, on the fact that there is still one great void in the membership of the Commonwealth. I refer to the Republic of Ireland.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) mentioned Ireland, but he may have overlooked the fact that Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth until 1949. I think that it is time that it returned to the Commonwealth. About a year ago, in parliamentary questions, I suggested that the Government—along with Heads of other Commonwealth Governments—should take the initiative in extending an invitation to the Irish Republic to rejoin the Commonwealth. I was disappointed to receive the reply, "Invitations are not extended; people or countries apply." I thought that a rather disingenuous and churlish approach; strictly speaking, that may be the position, but surely indications should be given that the time is now appropriate for Ireland to rejoin.
  Irish men and women live in every corner of the Commonwealth, and they—or their children and grandchildren—play a full part in the Administrations and lives of Commonwealth countries. An Irish team would enrich the Commonwealth Games, for instance. Let me also remind those in the Irish Republic—if they read our deliberations—that it is no longer the "British" Commonwealth but the Commonwealth. That may reassure those who are beginning to contemplate Ireland's return.
  In his discussions with Lloyd George, Eamon De Valera tried to persuade him that an Irish Republic could exist in what was then the British Empire, and by what he termed "external association". The head of that external association, he argued, could be George V, but Ireland would participate as a republic. Lloyd George threw up his hands in horror, and said that it could not possibly be done: it was alien to the whole concept of the British Empire. It was a great lost opportunity.

  1113
  In that regard, De Valera was ahead of his time: exactly the same formula was used by Pandit Nehru in 1949. India remained in the British Commonwealth as a republic and, indeed, the majority of states in the Commonwealth are now republics. It is a great irony that, as India joined the Commonwealth with republic status, Ireland was taken out by the Costello Government. As things have bedded down, as there is a majority of republics in the Commonwealth and as the Commonwealth is demonstrably a powerful player for good in the world, it is time that Ireland came home to this family of nations.
  Ireland has a proud record of working in international organisations, brokering peace in the world and contributing to peacekeeping forces. Its readmission would complement the work of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and many other countries.
  It is significant that the External Affairs Minister of the Irish Free State, Kevin O'Higgins, played an important part in the discussions that led up to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931. Unfortunately, he was assassinated before enactment. I mention him because the Under-Secretary gave a limited history of the development of the Commonwealth in his opening remarks. He overlooked that major and important constitutional milestone, the Statute of Westminster, which settled our relationships with the Commonwealth as it then existed—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Broadly, it stated that those were countries of equal status with the United Kingdom. It has been a significant statute. It has given good service to the evolution of the Commonwealth.
  I have, however, sought to make the point in the House for some time that the Statute of Westminster is now old. It needs to be reviewed with a view to the development of a new constitutional relationship between those countries in the Commonwealth mainly but perhaps inappropriately described as the "old Commonwealth" and those which still have as head of state Her Majesty the Queen. I raise the point because, sooner or later, we—when I say "we" I mean the 16 countries in the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state—will have to deal with the matter. It is better to do so now than at a moment of constitutional crisis.
  I shall explain why I believe that we need to re-examine the Statute of Westminster. Three constitutional issues could arise which would create major problems for the Governments and Parliaments of the countries of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head of state. One is the issue of the primogeniture rule, under which the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch.
  It is conceivable that in 20 years' time or more the first child of the heir to the throne or the monarch will he a girl and the second child a boy. Under our existing rules, the boy would become the heir to the throne. It is my understanding that this would create dissatisfaction, if not be unacceptable, to some of the countries in the Commonwealth that share the United Kingdom monarchy. That is one scenario that could create an immediate conflict. I venture to suggest that, if Canada and New Zealand are still monarchies at that time, they will find it unacceptable that a girl who was
  1114
  the first-born of the monarch or the heir to the throne should be passed over in favour of the second child, who was a boy.
  Secondly, it is conceivable that there could be a need for regency legislation at some stage—for example, if the monarch or the heir to the throne was incapacitated. That would require simultaneous and parallel legislation in 16 independent Commonwealth legislatures.
  The third scenario is the divorce of the Prince of Wales. Legislation is not necessary for a divorce, but special legislation would be needed as a consequence of that divorce. If there was a subsequent marriage and if there was issue from that marriage, what position would those children have in the line to the throne?
  Those three scenarios could arise and they need to be considered now, before there is a crisis. The first test of the Statute of Westminster Act was in 1936 when Edward VIII wished to abdicate. The Prime Ministers of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa used their powers under the Statute of Westminster to ask the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for the abdication. It would now be impossible for the Canadian Prime Minister or Parliament to ask the United Kingdom Parliament to enact the necessary legislation consequent on any of the three scenarios to which I referred; they are constitutionally unable to do so. In addition, it is arguable that they would have to alter their constitutions in any of those scenarios; it would not be simple for them to do so.
  The Parliaments and Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and St. Kitts and Nevis have equal status in relation to the monarchy. In some parliamentary questions, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the mechanism by which Her Majesty the Queen can be given collective advice by the Prime Ministers of the 16 countries of which she is head of state. He said that there was not one. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, constitutionally the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the Queen in the United Kingdom.
  I assume that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is the adviser to the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, but there is a gap. There is no collective mechanism by which the Prime Ministers of the 16 countries of which the Queen is head of state can give collective advice. Her Majesty's Government must deal with that point. They must take the initiative with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries to hold a conference so that those joint issues can be raised. There should be some mechanism whereby collective advice can be tendered to Her Majesty the Queen.
  I wish to refer again to Ireland in the context of the scenarios that I have outlined. In 1936 the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa agreed that Westminster should enact His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 on their behalf, but the Prime Minister of one dominion declined. The Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, said, "Hang on a moment. Westminster is not going to enact the head of state legislation for me." He used that occasion to abolish the post of governor general by legislation in the Dail and created the post of president. Effectively, and

  1115
  legitimately from his point of view, he moved the Irish Free State one more ratchet towards his objective of a republic.
  I have to issue a warning. If the points that I have raised regarding the 16 monarchies and the collective advice is ignored, and if any of the three scenarios to which I have referred occur, there will be trouble in the Commonwealth. For instance, Prime Minister Keating may take a leaf out of the book of Eamon de Valera. He may say, "I am going to go to the House of Representatives in Canberra and legislate for our own head of state." That could create many problems and ricochet throughout the Commonwealth because it would have all been done hastily, rather than in a considered way. We need to work out some mechanism whereby the countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state reach a collective agreement about monarchical succession, so long as that system endures.
  One other point occurs to me, which is relatively minor but which flows from my previous point. I asked questions some time ago on what contribution the 15 other states of which the Queen is head of state make to the civil list and to the funding of the monarchy. I was told that they fund the monarchy's functions in their own jurisdictions, which I understand. When the Queen visits one of those countries, the Government of that country host her visit. I think that as a principle it would be good if, on a population basis, the other 15 states made some contribution to the running of Buckingham palace and the costs of the head of state.
  Such a principle is especially significant in the debate about a new royal yacht. Apart from once a year, when Her Majesty the Queen visits the islands in Scotland, the royal yacht is primarily a symbol of her Commonwealth function, and she uses it when she visits countries around the world. The cost of the royal yacht should be shared, certainly between the 16 states of which she is head. Arguably, other countries may want to contribute too.
  How about having a crew drawn from Commonwealth navies? I should have thought that that would be extremely attractive to the navies of the Commonwealth, especially those of countries of which the Queen is head of state. Since our armed forces are stretched, we should also develop further another practice that occurred in the past. Some of the ceremonial duties at Buckingham palace should be carried out more frequently by representatives of the armed forces of the other 15 states to which I referred.
  I intervened on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and said that I would mention the empire. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries are fully independent, but some 14 jurisdictions, containing a total of almost 200,000 people, are not independent but are colonies. They are headed by a governor who is appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We have an obligation to those 200,000 people to ensure that they are subject to good governance. Here at Westminster, we need to find a way in which we can monitor, probe, scrutinise and examine the administration and stewardship of the governors who are appointed by the Foreign Secretary.
  1116
  In the 1950s and 1960s, the issue of the colonies was much more important in this place, and I venture to suggest that, as a result, the colonies were more closely scrutinised. As the big colonies have gained independence, there is a real danger of our doing a disservice to the 14 other jurisdictions and forgetting about them. I have excluded Hong Kong because, regrettably, it will soon be leaving the Commonwealth. In those 14, apart from Hong Kong, there are about 200,000 people.
  Those jurisdictions are peppered around the globe and we should try hard to provide some machinery whereby we can study their Administrations and provide them with some representation. We ought to consider what happens in the United States, where comparable jurisdictions can send non-voting Congressmen to Washington. They have the opportunity to speak in debates and to put questions exclusively on matters that relate to their jurisdictions.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is canvassing a novel idea. Would not a simple solution to the dilemma be to encourage the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to establish a Sub-Committee, that could have some oversight over our remaining dependencies?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I thought about that. My suggestion is not instead of that, but complementary to the concept of the Select Committee having a scrutiny role. We are talking about a group of people who are dispersed around the globe and it is impossible for the Select Committee to ensure the scrutiny to which I referred, or to ensure that messages are brought to this place about any unhappiness, criticism or need for remedies that might exist in those colonies.
  Some limited form of representation at Westminster for those jurisdictions is required. What on earth could be wrong with that? I have felt somewhat frustrated. If the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and I were to take an interest in those jurisdictions, we would have no way of getting there. Great distances and enormous costs are involved. We might be included on delegations, but they are not the best vehicles for scrutiny.
  I take an interest in Gibraltar. The first time that I went there was at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar, who had noticed that I had taken an interest. It would have been much better if I had been able to go without an invitation. When one goes as a guest, there is always the potential for embarrassment. We need to provide some opportunities for spot visits—
  Mr. Don Dixon: During the recess.
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend has a point.
  Today I had lunch with a representative of the Australian Northern Territory. The Australian state Parliaments—let alone the federal Parliament—have a breathtaking travel budget. 1 am not advocating that, but there should be some opportunity for representatives of this place to visit the remaining colonies for which we have some responsibility without notice so that proper scrutiny can take place.
  Like other hon. Members, I have painted a broad canvas of interests with regard to the Commonwealth. I was recently in the company of one of my hon. Friends, discussing my thesis that Ireland should return

  1117
  to the Commonwealth. He said, "Why on earth would it want to do that?" I was shocked by that response and explained why I thought it would be to the mutual benefit of the Commonwealth and Ireland if it re-entered.
  He expressed the view that the Commonwealth was unimportant, which deeply depressed me, because I acknowledge that it has been a force for good in the world—albeit a very silent force. It has done a great deal in brokering some ceasefires and has intervened where there has been bloodshed. Some hon. Members have referred to its failures, but it is important for us to acknowledge that it has also played a great part in trying to achieve some stability. In some cases, it is a ratchet against military takeovers.
  Through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other agencies, we are able to aid and assist the fragile and emerging democracies in the Commonwealth. I should like the CPA to develop as a limited parliamentary arm that supervises the work of the Commonwealth secretariat and other agencies.
  At the conference that I attended with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in October, I welcomed the innovation whereby the Secretary-General agreed to present a report to the assembly and then answer questions. I believe that the hon. Member for Hereford had a hand in that welcome development of parliamentary scrutiny of the important Commonwealth secretariat's work.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth has been a fervent supporter of that development. I take no credit for it but hand the credit to him, because he has always gone out of his way to ensure that he is available to exchange views with us.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. That welcome development should be continued in subsequent conferences, because the Commonwealth agencies and secretariat are of considerable interest. It would be educative to a number of Commonwealth parliamentarians and show the democratic principles behind the Commonwealth if what Chief Anyaoku did in Canada were continued at future conferences.
  I add my name to the list of hon. Members who proclaim the Commonwealth as a proud and valued institution, and I wish it well in its further development.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Baldry: This has been a timely and welcome debate. The House has been broadly united in agreement about the Commonwealth's value, potential and achievements. The underlying feeling that emerged in the debate was that more needs to be done to bring home, both here and overseas, what the Commonwealth stands for and its potential. That was the broad canvas against which today's debate took place.
  A number of specific points were raised, some important and some of detail, and I shall try to respond to them, particularly to those on which I was specifically asked to respond. However, I do not want those points to detract from the strong overall agreement in the House.
  1118
  By and large, I agreed with what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had to say on this subject. There is no daylight between the Government and the Opposition on the subject of Hong Kong, and I am sure that the House of Commons is at one in its position on Hong Kong, which is a great strength and support to the governor and people of Hong Kong, as we approach 1997 and the period of change.
  The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised, however, that I fundamentally disagreed with him about our aid budget and the European development fund. We have every reason to be proud of our aid budget, which is the sixth largest in the world at a time when many countries, such as the United States and Canada, are reducing their aid budgets. I am sure that we shall debate that subject on many future occasions—I look forward to ODA questions on Monday—so I shall not dwell on the subject now.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rightly discussed the contribution that the Commonwealth can make towards tackling drugs and international crime. I fully support him on that. We already do a considerable amount, and a large chunk of our aid budget is devoted to supporting Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan in tackling its drugs problem. As I said in my opening comments, one of the subjects that we shall consider at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Auckland is what more the Commonwealth can do to tackle drugs, money laundering and international crime.
  There are already many excellent examples of co-operation. As recently as a few months ago, for example, the Government of Anguilla, working with others, achieved a first-class operation in setting up what was, in effect, a sham bank which sucked in large quantities of laundered money from the drugs trade and succeeded in achieving many arrests in South America, Spain and elsewhere and in having a significant impact on one of the Colombian cartels. That was a Commonwealth country working with the United States, ourselves and others to achieve that.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) specifically asked, in relation to some of the smaller dependent territories, whether, when they have offshore banking regulatory regimes, the costs should be met by greater licence fees. A number of those dependent territories, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, receive no development aid. Some dependent territories, such as Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, do receive development aid. Because they are small territories, they need it. We regard responsible offshore finance as a means by which territories can achieve sustainable economies.
  While I am on the topic of dependent territories, it may be helpful if I respond to the arguments of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I shall not leave out any issues raised by other hon. Members, but it might be convenient to discuss these points at this stage.
  Dependent territories are not colonies; we have no colonies left—they are dependent territories. They have legislative assemblies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock did not mean it in that way, but I am sure that the Chief Ministers of countries such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands,

  1119
  which have recently had democratic elections, would feel insulted if they thought that we in Westminster sought to interfere with their business.
  In so far as the dependent territories have governors, those governors have reserve powers under the constitution. They are finite, limited powers under the constitution. The hon. Member for Thurrock is perfectly free to question Foreign Office and other Ministers about the responsibilities of those governors, in terms of those reserve powers, to the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister is right. I was not referring to the Chief Ministers and colleagues in the local legislatures. Those matters which are devolved to them are their affair, and I very much welcome that. It is those powers that are reserved to the governor which need to be scrutinised. They include the very important function of policing. Policing is therefore exclusively the province of the governor and the Attorney-General is invariably appointed from Westminster. I think that such powers need greater scrutiny.
  Mr. Baldry: They are very much reserve powers. The governor would exercise powers over policing only if there had been some failure by the local legislative assembly to ensure that its territory was properly policed.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Policing is not its function.
  Mr. Baldry: Yes, it is. I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a greater interest in the subject. If he formed a team of his colleagues, we might start with St. Helena. If they would like to visit St. Helena in the next six weeks or so, I am sure that the Government Chief Whip might be prevailed on to find the requisite funds.
  As the hon. Member for Thurrock obviously wants to take an interest in the dependent territories, I should tell him that, if he visits the Foreign Office, officials will, I am sure, be happy to brief him on how limited the reserve powers of governors are nowadays. The dependent territories are, by and large, countries which determine their own decisions. Bermuda, which is a dependent territory, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has recently published a Green Paper and is debating whether it might consider moving towards independence.
  It is absolutely right that we should be especially worried about parts of the Commonwealth which are in difficulty, and that we should be especially worried when parts of the Commonwealth are in difficulty with one another. In my opening comments, I referred to the position of Pakistan and India, which is of great concern to every friend of both countries.
  It is tempting to think that either the United Kingdom or some other country or organisation could do something to take the process forward, but an imposed solution to Kashmir would be doomed to fail. Progress will only be made if India and Pakistan talk to each other and seek to resolve the situation in Kashmir themselves.
  It is worth remembering that the Simla agreement was reached through discussions between Prime Minister Bhutto, the father of the current Prime Minister
  1120
  of Pakistan, and Mrs. Ghandi when she was Prime Minister of India. They made considerable progress in those talks, and the evidence of history is that the greatest progress has been made when India and Pakistan talk to each other.
  We have made it clear that we feel that there needs to be a genuine political process in Kashmir—the status quo cannot continue for ever—with full recognition of human rights and a cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. Those are important prerequisites.
  On the broader issue of Pakistan, we were all delighted to welcome Prime Minister Bhutto to the United Kingdom last year. She came to a successful investment conference organised by the Confederation of British Industry and she obviously had the opportunity for discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and many others. She was a welcome visitor.
  Next week I will lead a trade mission to Pakistan of some 50 business men and women, who are keen to invest in that country. They recognise that there is potential for partnership with it. I am sure that the Government of Pakistan see in the United Kingdom a people and Government who are keen to work with Pakistan to ensure its stability and development. It is a crucial country in the Commonwealth as it stands at the gateway to central Asia. We often look to Pakistan for advice on developments in that region. There is no shortage of desire to ensure that there is stability in Pakistan and that its Government is supported in their efforts to achieve economic stability and economic progress.
  Mr. Galloway: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I wish him and the trade delegation well when they leave next week. Before he concludes his remarks on Kashmir, can he explain how it is that under international law, according to United Nations resolutions, there must be a plebiscite so that the people of Jammu and Kashmir can decide for themselves whether they wish to remain in India, join Pakistan or, for that matter, strike out as an independent country? The Simla agreement cannot supersede those UN resolutions, which have the force of international law.
  In as much as the Simla accord was useful, does the Minister agree that bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan have run into the sand, or the snow, as I acknowledged earlier? Now there are no substantial negotiations or talks between those countries. All that I asked for in my speech was for Britain and the Commonwealth to kick-start that process, perhaps through an eminent persons group. Will the Minister give that request some consideration?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we spend a considerable amount of time considering the difficulties of and concerns about Kashmir. Many parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House quite rightly and most helpfully keep Ministers briefed on their visits to Kashmir, their impressions of it and their contacts with politicians on all sides of the equation.
  We are firmly convinced, however, that progress will come about only when India and Pakistan decide that it is in their best interests to talk to each other. The Commonwealth can and will interfere only if Pakistan

  1121
  and India request it to intervene. Long-term sustainable progress will come about only when India and Pakistan talk to each other. As I have said, all the evidence of history is that the greatest progress is made when India and Pakistan talk to each other.
  In addition to speaking about Kashmir, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised the issue of Sri Lanka. He will be interested and pleased to know that the President of Sri Lanka was in London this week. She had discussions today with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and with me two days ago. Much of what we discussed with her dealt with what more we could do to help the peace process in Sri Lanka move forward.
  Since the election of the President of Sri Lanka, considerable strides have been made in the peace process, which seeks to resolve the difficulties with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the north. That process appears to be temporarily halted, and we were keen to understand what more we could do to help her in that regard. We are certainly willing to give what support we can to move the process forward. We all earnestly hope that, by the time the CPA conference takes place in Colombo later this year, the peace process in Sri Lanka will have made considerable progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington summed up well our attitude towards the non-proliferation treaty. It is a valuable instrument in trying to ensure that world peace is sustained, and in the post-cold war era it is all the more important that the non-proliferation regime is sustained.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for responding to the three issues that I touched on. Perhaps I could ask about the issue which concerns me and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). The Minister spoke rather disparagingly about Britain or the Commonwealth seeking to impose a solution in relation to Kashmir or of seeking to interfere between India and Pakistan. That was not the sense of what I and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) were seeking to say.
  We sought to say that we should take every opportunity, bilaterally and through the Commonwealth, to make our good offices available in different ways to facilitate some sort of coming together and a rational process. If that does not happen, the dispute has all the qualities necessary to turn the area into a serious flashpoint, possibly with wider implications for the world as a whole.
  Mr. Baldry: Progress will be made only if India and Pakistan decide to talk and move matters forward in their best interests and in the best interests of the people of Kashmir. If at any time India and Pakistan come to us together and say, "We would like the assistance of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth to facilitate progress on this issue," it is inconceivable that we would do anything other than seek to be supportive. But we cannot seek to be an umpire or to impose some solution on India and Pakistan. That is the straightforward position.
  Mr. Foulkes: I should like to press the Minister on this issue. It would be wrong for us to expect the
  1122
  Minister to respond immediately to the powerful case that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). It would be helpful to the House for the Minister to say that he will take this matter away and have a word with the Foreign Secretary to find out his reaction to these suggestions. In the light of the well argued case of my hon. Friend, that is the least that the Minister can do, and I hope that he will do it.
  Mr. Baldry: It is always tempting to take problems away, but it would be disingenuous of me to do that, because this issue has been raised frequently with us. We have given it careful consideration over a long time and, as I have said, our clear view is that progress in Kashmir will be made only if the Governments of India and Pakistan talk to each other, if a genuine political process is started in Kashmir, if there is full recognition of human rights there, and if there is a cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Max Madden: Does the Minister not understand that the Simla accord is more than 20 years old, that about seven bilateral sets of talks have taken place between India and Pakistan, and that India has shown a marked reluctance to discuss Kashmir in any meaningful way? As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) just said from a sedentary position, peace would never have come to South Africa if the Minister's attitude towards Kashmir had been displayed towards creating democracy in South Africa.
  We are asking for some fresh thinking. Like the Foreign Office in its policy on Kashmir in the past five years, the Minister seems to be whistling in the dark. No elections will take place in Kashmir. The overwhelming majority of people in Kashmir want the right to determine their own destiny. We are asking the Commonwealth to take an initiative to ensure that peace and the right to determine their affairs come to the people of Kashmir, as it has come to the people of South Africa.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is asking for the Commonwealth unilaterally to interfere—(Interruption.] Yes, he is. He is asking it unilaterally to interfere in the internal affairs of two Commonwealth countries. Its rules are clear: it can intervene only if both Pakistan and India request its involvement. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a large number of constituents who take a particular interest in the Kashmir issue—that is understandable—but I repeat that in my view, and in that of the Government and the vast majority of people, sustainable progress on the Kashmir issue will be made only if India and Pakistan talk to each other, with each country wishing to reach a solution without other parties' involvement, and without it looking as though we or others are seeking to act as umpires or to impose some solution on those two countries.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way any more on this, as I have comprehensively explained our position on Kashmir. It seems that the spokesmen from the two Opposition parties are being slightly disingenuous in the way in which they are approaching the issue. It is a

  1123
  difficult subject, which is of considerable concern to two of our Commonwealth colleagues. I have made our position clear. If either the Liberal or the Labour spokesmen is suggesting that progress should be made other than in the way I have suggested—which is by talks between India and Pakistan, by genuine political process in Kashmir, by a cessation of external support for violence, and by recognition of human rights in Kashmir—they owe a duty to the House to make that clear.
  Mr. Campbell: In the Minister's anxiety not to prejudice the position, he has closed his mind to another possibility, which some of the interventions have sought to embrace. It is right to say that progress will be made only when the two countries agree to talk to each other, but what is wrong with the Commonwealth encouraging them to talk to each other?
  Mr. Baldry: It is clear from everything that I have said that we and everyone should continue to encourage India and Pakistan to talk to each other. We do that whenever we have any discussions with members of the Indian or Pakistan Government. If I have the opportunity next week when I am in Islamabad and elsewhere, I am sure that I shall repeat what I have said to the House today. Of course we take every opportunity to urge India and Pakistan to talk to each other and to make progress on the issue, because we are aware that it is of considerable concern to many people, but real sustainable progress will be made only if India and Pakistan talk to each other. There is no disagreement about that.
  I should like to make two final points for completeness. In relation to Ireland, there is always a danger of it looking as though the UK is speaking for the Commonwealth. It is always tempting to think that we can speak for the Commonwealth, but we would appear presumptuous if it were thought that we were doing so. It is self-evident that countries are applying and do apply for membership of the Commonwealth, and the Government of Ireland must know that it is always open to them to do likewise if they choose to do so.
  The last time I studied the statute of Westminster was for my university law finals. Having heard all the horrific things which might occur as a consequence of that statute, I should like to take the matter away, reflect upon it, discuss it with the Law Officers and write to the hon. Member for Thurrock, who raised a cornucopia of problems.
  I hope that I have responded to all the specific points raised by hon. Members. I must mention the Commonwealth Institute, because it is important. I should make it clear that the Government emphatically do not want the institute to close: we want it to use the fine building in Kensington high street, provided by the Government, to promote the Commonwealth in a modern way and to be able to stand increasingly on its own feet. I certainly commend the work of the institute's board. The director-general and his staff have shown commendable drive and imagination in developing a re-launch strategy, and it was because of that that Ministers judged the strategy worthy of support.
  1124
  As I said in July last year, we offered an extra £2.4 million to help with the institute's own fund raising. We have set the institute the target of raising £5 million in the next 18 months. The Government hope that the public, businesses and all those who see the Commonwealth as a force for good will respond generously. When the institute raises that sum, as I hope it will, we shall be ready to respond speedily to ensure that the windows of opportunity that have been alluded to are taken advantage of and that no opportunity is missed. As I have said, we wish the Commonwealth Institute to continue.
  This has been a helpful and welcome debate. I hope that I have responded to all the points that have been raised and I hope that it will not be too long before we have another debate on the Commonwealth.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for facilitating the enforcement of overseas forfeiture and restraint orders.—[Mr. Baldry.]

  Power Line (Vale of York)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Baldly.]
  9.36 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for selecting for debate the proposal for a new 400 kV power line through the vale of York. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It is good to see him there. I understand that this is his first Adjournment debate. In wishing him many more, I am thinking only of the length of his ministerial career.
  This is the fifth time that the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is in his place, has raised the matter twice and I have raised it twice. That speaks for itself.
  From time to time, all hon. Members experience local controversy over planning matters. Over time, opposition generally wanes, perhaps following a detailed examination of the facts at a public inquiry. That is not the case with this issue, for reasons that I shall outline shortly.
  The debate arises out of decisions taken over four years ago on the construction of a gas-fired electricity generating plant—ENRON—at Wilton on Teesside and the subsequent requirements for the electricity generated to be connected to the national grid.
  In September 1990, before the then Secretary of State for Energy gave planning consent for ENRON, the Office of Electricity Regulation issued a derogation to the National Grid Company for ENRON's connection to the grid. Under the Electricity Act 1989, the NGC had a statutory duty to provide that.
  Shortly afterwards, the NGC entered into an agreement with Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to increase the interconnection and transmission capability between Scotland the north of England. It was a purely commercial decision by the NGC. As a direct consequence, the NGC concluded that it would need to strengthen the transmission capacity in Yorkshire and, in September 1991, it lodged an application with North Yorkshire county council for the construction of a 400 kV overhead line from Lakenby to Picton and from Picton to Shipton through the entire length of the vale of York.
  The proposed line would extend over some 56 km of open countryside. That was the first intimation to local authorities in Yorkshire that the construction of ENRON would have such profound implications for local communities. It highlights a fundamental weakness in the planning process for power stations. There is no requirement to consider the need for transmission into the national grid, or to assess whether the location of a power station makes sense in terms of national energy strategy.
  Without question, had the North Yorkshire local authorities been consulted when the ENRON application was considered, they would have registered the strongest opposition. At the very least, they would have sought to ensure that conditions be attached to any planning consent, restricting further power lines in the county.
  1126
  It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the communities affected by the Vale of York power line proposal feel let down by the planning system. The public inquiry held in 1992 was not seen as sufficiently independent. The inspectors, who were appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry, rather than by the Department of the Environment as happens in all other planning matters, constantly gave the impression that their job was to smooth the way for the power line to be built rather than to make an impartial and objective assessment of the NGC's claims.
  Throughout, the NGC relied on the argument that it was merely seeking to fulfil a legal duty. The inspectors agreed and seemed to think that they had no choice. The final paragraph of their report to the Secretary of State states:
  "we are satisfied that for NGC to comply with their statutory responsibilities and the terms and conditions of the transmission licence there is a need to reinfuice the transmission system."
  Surely, planning should never be about just "technical" issues. The views of people whose lives are affected must have weight, as they do in any other planning matters, yet the inspectors rejected their concerns. All that seems to matter is that the NGC fulfils its legal requirements regardless of all else.
  It seems that we should forget about agricultural interests, concerns about health and the fact that there has not been a proper environmental assessment—a point that I have already raised with Environment Ministers on the Floor of the House. It seems that we should forget that the better solution of undergrounding does not suit the NGC's balance sheet or that the area itself derives no benefit from the proposal—the NGC's interests are paramount. I suggest that that is not a sustainable position for the Government to take.
  It is little wonder that local people are up in arms. When the public inquiry was held in 1992, more than 8,000 objections were lodged. Since then, a petition organised by REVOLT—a group campaigning against the power line—collected more than 12,000 signatures and has been lodged with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Opposition to the proposed power line has strengthened as the weakness of the NGC case and the deficiencies in the structure of the electricity industry and energy industry generally post-privatisation have become more apparent. If there is one message that I want the Minister to take from the debate, it is that North Yorkshire says no to the power line proposal.
  Although we have begun the Adjournment debate slightly earlier than usual, time will not allow a full examination of all the facts. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister has spent many hours reading the various reports and papers. I have, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.
  The following issues are relevant. First, the NGC has failed to establish that the new line is needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will doubtless tell us that my hon. Friend and I have that wrong. We have not; he has. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that a 400 kV power line already exists throughout the length of the proposed route. Its capacity is 5,560 mVA —do not ask me to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what that means. The important fact is that that capacity is the highest of any part of the national grid. That is the stretch that it is proposed to strengthen.

  1127
  The route is significantly under-utilised. The derogation granted to the NGC to connect the ENRON power station to the grid has proved entirely adequate. The inspector's report following the 1992 inquiry went into considerable detail in considering whether the temporary derogation should become permanent. The arguments against extending the derogation are unconvincing and acknowledge disagreement within the electricity industry on transmission standards.
  At the 1992 inquiry, Dr. Ian Davis, on behalf of the NGC, conceded that the organisation
  "take a commonsense view of the application of transmission standards, taking into account the costs and the potential benefits in each case, so departure is often argued for in reasoned terms and can often be justified."
  In other words, the NGC interprets the standards to suit itself.
  I have mentioned the need to improve the link with Scotland, which was the NGC's commercial decision. That need has also been argued as a justification for the power line. But why construct a second high-voltage line on the east side of Yorkshire to cater for Scottish power, which is transmitted on the west coast of Scotland to Carlisle, when the extra load of the export of electricity of 750 MW could be carried south of Carlisle on existing lines, which in the NGC's seven-year statements show a surplus capacity of 2,400 MW?
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, two other gas-fired generating stations for the north-east coast, Flotilla and Neptune, are under consideration. The inspectors and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to argue that the transmission demands of ENRON and Scottish electricity exports are in themselves sufficient to justify strengthening the national grid, but no one is in any doubt that the accommodation of the additional capacity from Neptune and Flotilla is the real reason for the NGC seeking to strengthen the grid.
  Indeed, the NGC has already entered into agreements with Neptune and Flotilla for connection into the grid. Yet no formal applications for planning consent for either Neptune or Flotilla have even been lodged. Potentially, they are very much in the future. They may never be given planning consent. They do not justify bolstering the NGC's case for new transmission lines at this time.
  It is worth bearing it in mind that a connection agreement with no planning consent in Hampshire and an agreement in Lincolnshire with consent have recently been cancelled. The future of energy generation and pricing is under review. We read in the press this week that the future of the NGC sell-off is in doubt. At the very least, the current uncertainties dictate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should postpone any final decision on the NGC application.
  As I have already said, there is also continuing uncertainty about transmission standards. The NGC has merely adopted the standards established in the 1970s by the Central Electricity Generating Board with no regard to improved technology and despite the fact that faults on the NGC transmission system are currently less than one minute per customer per year. That is a security of supply of 99.999 per cent. The position
  1128
  with the regional electricity companies is rather less remarkable, amounting to an average for connected customers of 164 minutes' disruption a year. Why on earth do we wish to despoil the countryside of North Yorkshire for a potential loss of that one minute per customer per year?
  The higher the standard of transmission, the greater the eventual cost for the customer. The NGC also has a vested interest in shifting electricity round the country. That is how it earns its money. However, in the case of ENRON, it results in a power loss of up to 6 per cent. because of the distance over which the electricity is transmitted. With Scottish exports, the power loss may be up to 10 per cent.
  Mindful of the importance of those issues, shortly after the 1992 inquiry, Professor Littlechild ordered the NGC to conduct a review of four areas of transmission standards: operating standards, planning standards, connection standards and quality criteria. It took the NGC almost two years to respond. It consulted generators, RECs, interconnectors and customers, but not the environmental lobby. It seems that only North Yorkshire local authorities made representations on the environment, because other local authorities and environmental groups were unaware that the review was taking place.
  Bearing in mind the two years that it took the NGC to respond in its review of its own transmission standards, Professor Littlechild has now given until 31 March—just two weeks' time—for a wider input of views. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 places a duty on the regulator to take into account the effects of electricity transmission on the physical environment. It is part of the case of those who oppose the line through North Yorkshire that that duty has not been properly exercised.
  In a statement in February, Professor Littlechild made it clear that he was not satisfied with the retention of the existing standards, although provisionally—and I stress provisionally—he did not intend to make changes in the short term. He also confirmed that he intends to look with Ofgas at the relative pricing of electricity and gas transmission lines and that he will then return to the question of the pricing of transmission and its implications for price control by the NGC. In other words, the whole question of transmission standards, in addition to the NGC's future and what will happen to electricity generating policy, remains in a state of flux.
  The Minister will doubtless argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I have heard so many times in the past, that the Secretary of State will have to reach a final decision on the matter based on the transmission standards as they apply at the time he makes his decision. With respect, that is simply not good enough.
  As each day passes, it becomes ever clearer that the privatised energy utilities are capable of delivering greater efficiency and lower prices. That is what came out of our own regional electricity company, Northern Electric, in its spirited defence, which I supported, after the Trafalgar House bid. That is what has prompted the further review of prices announced by Professor Littlechild, about which we have heard so much during the past seven or eight days.

  1129
  In two or three years' time, as a consequence of all this, we could be looking at a completely different requirement for transmission. Why, then, should this proposed power line be foisted on the people of north Yorkshire when the argument in favour is at best doubtful, and at worst—particularly in the longer term—totally unnecessary?
  We must also ask who will pay for the new power line and for all the nonsense that has been going on. Who will pay all the costs of the inquiries? There is only one answer—the consumer. It will certainly not be the NGC or the power generator at ENRON.
  As the Minister is aware, a further public inquiry is now under way at Northallerton, examining alternative proposals for two sections of the proposed power line route. Many of the issues that I mentioned are being raised in further evidence to the inspectors.
  Local landowners have expressed total dissatisfaction with the handling of the inquiry and the unseemly haste with which proceedings are being carried forward. The attitude of the NGC and of the inspectors does nothing to enhance the credibility of the DTI. The current inquiry is also considering the question of wayleaves.
  Before finishing my speech, I stress in the strongest possible terms the fact that two thirds of the landowners affected by the proposal have not reached agreement with the NGC for the siting of pylons on their land. In some cases, cash offers in excess of £40,000 have been refused. It is not like Yorkshire farmers to refuse that sort of money without good reason.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, on this serious matter, to give an undertaking tonight that, so long as the majority of landowners fail to reach agreement with the NGC, the Secretary of State will not use his powers to impose agreements. Landowners and farmers are resisting the bullying tactics of the NGC, to demonstrate their outright opposition to the power line and their helief that any truly subjective independent appraisal of the NGC's application would result in the plan being shelved.
  In responding to the inspectors' report in May last year, the President of the Board of Trade said that he was "minded" to grant approval. I trust that my hon. Friend will confirm tonight that that does not mean that my right hon. Friend has already made up his mind, and that there is still time for him to be influenced and to come to a different decision.
  I hope that in this brief debate I have given my hon. Friend the facts that he needs to persuade the officials in his Department, and ultimately the President of the Board of Trade, to think again. For the reasons that I outlined, there is sufficient doubt about the direction of future energy policy not to proceed with the construction of a second 400 kV power line through the vale of York unless and until it is inescapably required.
  If people were convinced that the power line was inescapably required, the opposition to it would be nothing like as strong or as vehement. But the NGC has dismally failed to provide a justification. ENRON has been generating electricity for two years, since the winter of 1992-93, and the lights have not gone out yet. In spite of that, and in spite of all the other uncertainties about future transmission requirements, the NGC is ploughing ahead with new commitments,
  1130
  although the power line proposal has not yet been approved. Such action is insensitive, to say the least, bearing in mind the strong opposition to the proposal.
  In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reassure me, my constituents and the people in the Richmond constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. Even more people are affected in Richmond than in Ryedale, and we are finding it bad enough. Minister, please reassure us that the NGC has no authority from the Department to behave in such a cavalier fashion, and that in response to the most strongly felt public anger that I have ever known, the Department will reject the NGC proposal, or at the very least postpone indefinitely any final decision. Please listen to the voice of local people in north Yorkshire. Tonight that voice says emphatically, "No, no and no again," to the National Grid Company.
  9.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I know from experience how difficult it is to obtain time for debates of this kind. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on his success, and thank him for the kind words with which he opened the debate.
  There have been two previous Adjournment debates on this matter, the others having taken place in 1991 and 1992. It must be quite unusual for three Adjournment debates to be held on the subject of a single overhead line project: that demonstrates the level of concern. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the zeal and effectiveness with which he has pursued the interests of his constituents, not only this evening but over the long history of the project.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Page.]
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend's constituents can know that, whatever the outcome of the proposal, he has represented them in a most effective and forceful fashion. Having read the files that have accumulated over the years, I know that he has been a definitive and powerful force in expressing their concerns.
  It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have acted in a similar fashion on behalf of their constituents. Let me particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who raised the matter on the two previous occasions. Despite his ministerial duties, he has made time to be present tonight; he sits beside me, a brooding presence, waiting to express the anxieties of his constituents.
  I know that both my hon. Friends appreciate that I cannot discuss the merits or otherwise of the project. I can only view it as an ordinary Member of Parliament—as if such a project were proposed for my constituency. I understand my hon. Friends' natural concerns, but as a Minister I note that this would be one of the largest overhead line developments of recent years, and it is entirely appropriate for it to receive detailed scrutiny both throughout the planning process and in the House.

  1131
  All aspects of the project have been, or still are, the subject of statutory proceedings, reports of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will consider carefully when making his decisions. I must therefore limit my remarks to general matters, and not the specific issues that have been raised in the public inquiries and local hearings.
  It may be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the project and the current position. I know that my hon. Friends are vividly aware of the circumstances, but it is only right to put them on the record, because what is said tonight will command a wider audience.
  The NGC submitted five applications for consent under the Electricity Act 1989, in September 1991. The applications suggested alternatives—two possible routes for the proposed line between Lackenby on Teesside and Picton in North Yorkshire, and three possible routes between Picton and Shipton, also in north Yorkshire.
  Those applications were the subject of a long public inquiry in 1992, whose report my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade published on 12 May last year. At that time, he said that he was minded to accept the inspectors' recommendations but would make no final decisions on the five applications until the NGC had made progress in obtaining the appropriate rights over the land concerned. That is in line with his normal practice in cases where wayleaves have not been obtained.
  The inquiry inspectors recommended that consent be granted for the major part of an overhead line between Lackenby and Shipton, combining elements of the five application routes, but recommended refusal for three sections of the line. It suggested undergrounding for one section and possible rerouting overhead for the other two sections.
  Since that time, the NGC has pursued wayleave negotiations with the landowners involved. As few of the landowners were willing to grant wayleaves voluntarily—my hon. Friend referred to that forcibly this evening—the NGC applied to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for necessary wayleaves under the provisions in schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989.
  Local hearings on the applications were held in November and December 1994. The NGC has also submitted a compulsory purchase order relating to land required for the underground cable, including the sealing end compound, and new consent and wayleave applications in respect of alternative routes in the other two sections which my right hon. Friend suggested that he was minded to refuse consent. All those matters are the subject of a new public inquiry, which is currently in progress in Northallerton.
  At this point, I should like to take the opportunity to put the record straight about certain complaints against my Department on procedural matters. For example, I am aware, from correspondence that I have seen, that there has been public comment that there has been complicity between my Department and the NGC—the applicant—on procedural matters. I reject such accusations unreservedly.
  1132
  The House will appreciate that I have only recently acquired a direct interest in the project. I have found it somewhat ironic, given that the project was first applied for some three and a half years ago, that objectors to it have complained that my Department has been over-hasty in arranging inquiries and hearings.
  Minimum periods of notice are laid down in statutory regulations. Wherever possible, and indeed in almost all cases, my Department has given the parties concerned longer notice than required by regulations. It is also true that those concerned have generally been aware from a date much earlier than receipt of the notice that a particular inquiry or hearing would be held following objections by the relevant local planning authority or relevant individuals. Therefore, as the House will understand, I reject completely any suggestion that individual parties have not had sufficient time to prepare their case for a particular inquiry or hearing.
  I also understand that some objectors to the project have found it difficult to accept the appointment of Mr. Alan Walker as one of the inspectors at the public inquiry taking place at Northallerton. My hon. Friend did not refer to the matter, but it is right to put it on the record. The difficulty in acceptance of Mr. Walker is apparently because he was one of the inspectors who held wayleave hearings at the end of 1994.
  I do not accept that Mr. Walker's role as an inspector is in any way compromised by his involvement in those hearings, even in so far as those hearings and the current inquiry raise common issues. The wayleave hearings dealt with site-specific interests relating to the granting of rights across specific pieces of land, rather than to all the planning issues associated with consent applications. Mr. Walker made it clear at the wayleave hearings that he would not be making any recommendations to my right hon. Friend on the generic issues considered at the 1992 public inquiry.
  My hon. Friend touched on health issues only briefly—en passant, if Hansard can put "en passant". I do not know whether we are allowed to use little French phrases. I should like to make a comment on health. A large majority of those who have made representations to my right hon. Friend, either in correspondence or through the inquiries and hearings, have expressed anxiety about adverse health effects. In particular, an increased health risk has been perceived by the public as a result of studies published in other countries which suggest a possible association between electromagnetic fields and cancer.
  My right hon. Friend can take into account only the most current and authoritative evidence available to him when he makes a decision, including advice from the Department of Health and the National Radiological Protection Board. That applies in the case of any overhead line decision and such decisions are being taken every day. The NRPB's current advice is that it has considered all the available information and has concluded that it does not establish that exposure to electromagnetic fields is a cause of cancer, although it provides some evidence to suggest that the possibility exists, which justifies moving forward with research.
  The significance of an epidemiological study depends, among other things, on the strength of the association, the presence of dose-relationship, supporting experimental evidence and a credible biological explanation. Those tests for causality are not satisfied

  1133
  for a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer and the NRPB does not therefore recommend the adoption of quantitative restrictions on human exposure to electromagnetic fields. Should, of course, the NRPB's advice change before my right hon. Friend reaches any decision on this project, he will take that new advice into account.
  As I have said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has yet to receive and consider a number of reports by independent inspectors on different aspects of the project. He is also obliged to consider any new relevant evidence which he receives before he makes his decisions. If he takes into consideration any such new evidence or new matter of fact which disposes him to disagree with the
  1134
  recommendations made by any of the inspectors, he must, under the relevant procedure, give the parties involved an opportunity to ask for the reopening of that inquiry.
  I assure my hon. Friend and the House that no decisions on the various individual applications until my right hon. Friend will be taken before he is satisfied that he has all the information before him to enable him to take that decision. Furthermore, as the House will realise, my right hon. Friend cannot take a decision that will in any way restrict his discretion in relation to any other decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive British Coal's sixth report on the administration of the coal mining subsidence damage repair and compensation scheme.

  Mr. Page
  I have now received this report from British Coal and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Emergency Services (Caller Identification)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations he has given to introducing a statutory responsibility for British Telecom to extend caller line identification to the emergency services.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  BT operators already provide the emergency services with information about callers, including caller identification where technically possible. BT is also working to provide a direct CLI service in London, where it has been requested by an emergency authority.

  East Germany (Reconstruction)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the likely effect on United Kingdom trade in 1996, 1997 and 1998 of reconstruction in the former East Germany; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the extent to which the United Kingdom will become less competitive than Germany.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Germany is the United Kingdom's largest export market. Over 1,000 British firms have subsidiaries or joint ventures there, and this country is among the leading investors in the new Länder.

  Annual growth of 8 to 10 per cent. is expected in the new Länder over the next few years, and 2.5 to 3 per cent. in Germany as a whole. Britain's market share is on the increase, and there is no reason why this should not continue.

  The Government have been active in developing trade promotion initiatives in key sectors of the new Länder which will help British companies, in the United Kingdom and in Germany, to capitalise on trade openings in 1995 and beyond.

  Some of the newly established German plant in the new Länder is likely to be highly competitive but the prospects for UK firms are excellent. The gap in manufacturing productivity between this country and Germany has narrowed since 1979, and the Government remain committed to creating the right framework for improving industrial competitiveness. The United Kingdom's continuing ability to attract very significant inward
  648
  investment is a testament to the competitiveness policies that the Government are pursuing.

  Water and Sewerage Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Taylor
  Within DTI, information on expenditure on water and sewerage is not held centrally. Expenditure in relation to DTI's London headquarters buildings was as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1994–95

  144,055

  1993–94

  52,618

  1992–93

  65,595

  1991–92

  62,006

  1To end of January.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made with the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The project to implement jobseeker's allowance, subject to parliamentary approval of the Jobseekers Bill, is on schedule for implementation in April 1996. Planning guidance has now been issued to the Employment Service and Benefits Agency field organisations. An external review of the project is under way and will report in early April.

  World Conference on Women
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who will represent the United Kingdom at the fourth UN world conference on women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to announce that key members of the delegation to represent the Government at the fourth UN world conference on women vote held in Peking from 4 to 15 September, have now been agreed. Three Ministers will be in attendance during the period of the conference: myself, my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Government appointed co-chairman of the Women's National Commission.

  They will be joined by Kamlesh Bahl, chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Great Britain, Joan Smyth, chair and chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Northern Ireland, and Liz Bavidge, elected co-chair of the Women's National Commission. We also expect to include delegates from Hong Kong, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands, further representation from non-governmental organisations with expertise on women in development and officials from the

  649
  relevant Government Departments to support the work of the delegation.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he gives to regional differences when developing plans for employment initiatives; and what initiatives will be the subject of legislation in the near future.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's initiatives are targeted primarily on those who need it most, particularly those who have been unemployed for some time. Other than provisions in the Jobseekers Bill, no legislation on initiatives is planned for the near future.

  Productivity Increases
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's policy on increases in productivity being rewarded by increases in pay; and what evidence he has of the extent to which that principle has been followed in the(a) manufacturing and (b) service industries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The extent to which increases in productivity are rewarded by increases in pay is a matter for organisations to decide in the light of their particular circumstances. However, productivity is one of many factors which need to be taken into account when making such decisions. The Employment Department does not collect data on how far productivity influences such decisions, but whereas both productivity and pay stagnated from 1974–1979, both productivity and real pay at all levels have risen sharply since 1979.

  The Government, however, also believe that increases in pay need to be more than matched by improvements in productivity in order to free resources for investment, which in turn will feed through to greater competitiveness.

  South Thames TEC
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who is still owed money by the South Thames training and enterprise council; how much they are owed; and when they will be paid.

  Mr. Paice
  The total amount of money owing to individual contractors which submitted claims for payment for work carried out for South Thames training and enterprise council is a matter for the receiver.

  Unemployed Students
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the hours of guided learning undertaken by a student(a) in the evening and (b) on Saturdays will count towards the new 16-hour limit for guided learning allowed to unemployed students who are required to be available for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All hours that are classified as guided learning hours will count towards the threshold of 16 guided learning hours per week.

  The Further Education Funding Council has introduced the definition of guided learning hours in place of the distinction between part and full-time courses. This reflects the fact that courses are increasingly delivered flexibly, to meet the needs of individuals. The
  650
  Government's proposals for the rules under jobseeker's allowance are designed to accommodate this change, while ensuring that the same number of people will be able to benefit as do so now.

SCOTLAND

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Lang
  There is only one permanent secretary at the Scottish Office and he has been in post for over five years.

  Sheriffs
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to introduce in the procedures for appointing sheriffs.

  Mr. Lang
  These procedures are kept under constant review. A number of improvements were introduced in the procedures adopted in a recently completed round of temporary shrieval appointments. Consideration is now being given to the further development of these procedures and their application to the appointment of permanent sheriffs. it is proposed that applications will be sought, by annual advertisement, for these appointments and that suitable candidates will be interviewed by a panel, whose membership will include lay representation. Consultation on the proposals will take place shortly and I shall arrange for copies of the consultation paper to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Further Education
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he proposes to publish his report on the discharge of his duties for further education in Scotland as required under section 1 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to say that the report entitled "Further Education in Scotland 1994: Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland" has been published today and has been laid before each House of Parliament. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The report shows that good progress has been made in further education colleges in 1994. Members of the college boards of management and college staff continue to manage enthusiastically the changes and challenges arising from incorporation. The colleges have built on the success of the first year of incorporation and are working hard to continue to raise standards and increase efficiency.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G.J.W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i)

  651
  Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]Neither I nor any of the Ministers in my Department had meetings with representatives of any of these organisations.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects decisions to be announced regarding(a) the possible transfer to agency or private status of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office and (b) the possible merger of the fraud divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service with the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 8 July,Official Report, column 337. The steering group on agency status has not yet concluded its work.

  The consideration of merger group has reported its findings. The report is at present under consideration.

  Decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Leeds Central Infirmary
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Prime Minister what highly specialised form of treatment was available to Mr. Murray at Leeds Central infirmary.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked for an initial report on this matter from South Thames regional office in the near future. A report will he published as soon as possible thereafter, and any issues arising will be further investigated. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral Statement of 9 March,Official Report, columns 455–56, which companies provided the independent financial and legal advice to the Government on the question of whether to proceed with the sale of National Power and PowerGen; and when the advice was received.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 March 1995]The Treasury took advice on the evening of Friday 3 March from its financial advisers, Barclays de Zoete Wedd Limited and Kleinwort Benson Limited and its legal adviser, Slaughter and May.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  50th Anniversary
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what expenditure will be incurred in the current financial year on the commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost in 1994–95 of commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of world war II is expected to be £3,000,000. I announced on 17 January,Official Report, columns 424–25, that parliamentary approval for this new service would be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of National Heritage's film, tourism, sport and broadcasting vote, class XI, vote 5. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of up to £3,000,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for this year and each of the past three years how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible who have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration are re-employed in the same or similar position at a later date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]The information for the Department of National Heritage and its two agencies—the Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency—is as follows:

  Year

  DNH

  RPA

  HRPA

  51 weeks

  Less than 51 weeks

  51 weeks

  Less than 51 weeks

  51 weeks

  Less than 51 weeks

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  19

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  22

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  52

  1993

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  62

  1994

  Nil

  1

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  51

  1995

  Nil

  1

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  58

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration for this year and each of the past three years, in each case specifying what percentage of the respective total work force these employees constitute.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]The Department of National Heritage was created in April 1992. It has two agencies—the Royal Parks Agency created in April 1993 and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency created in October 1989. The information requested is shown in the following table.
  653

  (a) Less than 51 weeks

  Years

  DNH

  RPA

  HRPA

  Total

  Number of casuals

  Percentage of total staff

  Number of casuals

  Percentage of total staff

  Number of casuals

  Percentage of total staff

  Number of casuals

  Percentage of total staff

  9.4

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  19.4

  66

  (340)

  18

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  18

  66

  (365)

  19.4

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  19.4

  69

  (355)

  13.3

  1993

  1

  0.3

  —

  —

  127

  33

  128

  (961.5)

  11.9

  1994

  11

  3.4

  11

  4.4

  103.5

  22

  125.5

  (1,059)

  6

  1995

  3

  0.8

  13

  4.6

  48.5

  10.3

  65

  (1,084.5)

  b) 51 weeks Nil for all years

  Explanatory note: These figures are based on staff in post returns for 1 April each year, except for 1995 where they are based on the most recent staff in post return—1 January. Figures in ( ) represent total staff in post for each year.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, how many people he expects to employ in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which he is responsible on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration in the next three years, in each case specifying the number of employees who had previously been employed in a similar position on the same contract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]The information for the Department of National Heritage and its two agencies—the Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency—is as follows.

  The Department of National Heritage does not anticipate recruiting any staff on temporary contracts over the next three years.

  The Royal Parks Agency expects to recruit two full-time staff and one part-time member of staff on temporary contracts of less than 51 weeks duration. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency expects to employ 53 members of staff on contracts of less than 51 weeks duration during 1995, 21 in 1996 and 22 in 1997. It is not possible to say, for any of these anticipated vacancies, whether previous temporary staff will fill the posts.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what positions in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible are filled by employees who are employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]The latest available information shows for DNH and its two agencies—the Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency is as follows:

  Contracts of less than 51 weeks

  DNH

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Personal secretary

  Statistical officer

  RPA

  Administrative officer

  Grooms

  654

  Contracts of less than 51 weeks

  HRPA

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Warders

  Shop staff

  No positions in the Department of National Heritage or its two agencies are filled by employees who are employed on temporary contracts of 51 weeks.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will publish the full terms of employment as specified to employees in his Department and all executive agencies for which he is responsible who are employed on a temporary contract of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration;

  (2) what guidance has been issued in respect of the recruitment and appointment of non-permanent employees in (i) in his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]The Department and its agencies—the Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency—have their own independent personnel units which produce separate recruitment and appointment documentation. The terms of employment are set out in letters of appointment and I have placed copies of these for the Department and each of its agencies in the Library of the House.

  In the recruitment and appointment of casual employees the Department and its agencies are guided by the relevant civil service central policies. These policies are contained in the personnel management section of the civil service management code which sets down the principal recruitment rules for casual staff and is consistent with the provisions of the Civil Service Order in Council Regulations. I have placed copies of the relevant extracts of these documentations as annexes to the appointment letters in the Library of the House. My Department and its agencies also operate all recruitment within current employment legislation.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Information
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will specify what code of conduct applies
  655
  to information on Government business supplied by Ministers to staff employed by them as House of Commons secretaries and researchers; and if such staff are governed by a code of conduct analogous to the Official Secrets Act for civil servants with respect to such business.

  Mr. David Hunt
  House of Commons secretaries and researchers are not employed by the Government and are not therefore subject to rules of conduct applying to the civil service. Like other citizens, they are subject to relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent reports have been received concerning leakages of information concerning Government business from staff employed by Government Ministers as House of Commons secretaries and researchers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many requests for information have been made to Departments following the introduction of the open government code; how many of these requests have been(a) met and (b) refused; and in how many cases of requests, Departments have had to review refusals to release information;

  (2) if he will give the current figures of charges made by individual Departments and agencies for information requested under the open government code;

  (3) when the Government's review of the operation of the open government code will be published.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply today to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Copies of the Government's report on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information during 1994 are available in the Library of the House. Appendix 1 of the report gives figures for the numbers of code requests received by Departments in 1994, the numbers of requests refused in full or in part, and the numbers of internal reviews conducted by Departments. A schedule of departmental charging schemes for information requested under the code is included as appendix 4.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the operation of the code of practice on access to Government information during 1994.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today announced the publication of the Government's report on the operation of the code of practice during 1994, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Personal Records
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when legislation will be introduced to give effect to the commitment in the Open Government White Paper, Cm 2290 1993, to create a right of access to personal records and a right of access to health and safety information.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 6 March,Official Report, column 15.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Turkish Government regarding(a) the killing of civilians, (b) the destruction of homes and villages and (c) general abuses of human rights.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised our concerns about human rights in Turkey with the Turkish Foreign Minister in London on 2 February. My right hon. Friend subsequently met the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at the EU-Turkey Association Council on 6 March. They were left in no doubt of our human rights concerns and those or our European partners. We shall continue to take every opportunity, at ministerial and official level, to remind the Turks of the need for improvement in their human rights performance.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent representations to the Turkish Government he has made regarding the activities of Turkish special intelligence—MIT—in Britain.

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the numbers of Kurdish refugees from Turkey in northern Iraq; what contribution is being made towards UNHCR programmes in that area; if he will list the British non-governmental organisations which are involved in implementing the relief programmes; and what representations he has made to the Turkish authorities regarding their military activity against the civilian population in the border areas with northern Iraq.

  Mr. David Davis
  The following British registered non-governmental organisations are receiving assistance from ODA for helping with relief work among the Kurds: British Red Cross, Christian Aid, Kurdish Life Aid, Mines Advisory Group, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund.

  We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government, at ministerial and official level, our view that the conflict in the south-east of Turkey must be settled within the rule of law and with due respect for human rights.

  We are seeking the further information requested by the hon. Member. I shall write to him with this information as soon as it is obtained.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the involvement of the Turkish Government in crimes of violence in London; what representations he has made to the Turkish authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have made no representations to the Turkish Government relating to crimes of violence in London.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that Turkish military aircraft have penetrated northern Iraq and bombed refugee camps; and if he will make a statement.
  657
  Mr. David Davis
  We are not aware of any recent reports of Turkish military aircraft bombing refugee camps in northern Iraq. We have made clear to the Turkish Government our view that the conflict in the south-east of Turkey must be settled within the rule of law and with due respect for human rights.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 686, if he will provide details of the contract, firm, designate, costs and outcome of the arbitration case involving his Department and a consultancy.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Arbitration has not yet been completed. Because the arbitration process is confidential, it would he inappropriate for me to give details of the case at this stage.

  Mr. Zia Rahman Faroogi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at which British post overseas Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi, the leader of the Soldiers of God, based in Pakistan, was issued with a visa to visit the United Kingdom; if the application was referred to London; if the application was referred to the Foreign Secretary or ministerial colleagues in his Department or to the Home Office for a recommendation prior to the decision being taken on Mr. Farooqi's application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Mr. Farooqi was last issued with a United Kingdom visa by our high commission at Islamabad in July 1994. He already held multiple entry visas for the United States and Australia and had been issued with UK visas in 1991 and 1992. At the time he appeared to meet the requirements of the immigration rules, so his application was not referred to London.

  Kenya
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Kenya concerning the arrest and imprisonment of opposition Member of Parliament, Mr. Njenge Mungai.

  Mr. Baldry
  We remain deeply concerned about such arrests. Our high commission has raised this issue at the highest level with the Kenyan Government.

  North-West Atlantic Fisheries Dispute
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current fisheries dispute between the EU and Canada in the north-west Atlantic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The dispute is about allocating the total allowable catch from Greenland halibut among the contracting parties in the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation—in particular the EU and Canada. The goal of all involved must be to conserve fish stocks so as to allow fishermen from both the EU and Canada a viable future. This requires proper conservation measures, including an equitable division of the agreed total allowable catch. It also requires strict enforcement to 658
  ensure that the rules are obeyed by all. We are pleased to hear that the Spanish vessel detained last week has been released. All concerned can now concentrate on resolving the wider issues through negotiation, in a way acceptable to the members of NAFO.

  The UK has been using its position as a member of both the Commonwealth and the EU to promote solutions to the immediate difficulties and to contribute to an outcome in the longer term which is satisfactory to all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs yesterday spoke to his Canadian and Spanish opposite numbers as part of those efforts. The way ahead must be through negotiations undertaken in a calm and co-operative spirit and by avoiding actions which might make a solution more difficult.

EDUCATION

  School Toilet Facilities
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many and what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school have outside toilets;

  (2) how many and what percentage of schools fail to provide one toilet for every 20 pupils over five years old;

  (3) how many and what percentage of schools do not have hot and cold running water in all hand basins for their toilet areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have no suitable toilet facilities for disabled pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not yet available. Local Education Authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools are required to provide such data to the Secretary of State after 1 May and by 1 June 1995, and biennially thereafter.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools overspent their budget in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

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

  Non-statutory Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the extent to which local education authorities are expanding in relation over the last two years non-statutory services at the expense of statutory education services; and if she will list the increase in expenditure on non-statutory services in each local education authority in the last two years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information at LEA level on statutory and non-statutory spending is not available, as LEAs' returns of their expenditure do not distinguish between expenditure on pupils of statutory and non statutory school age.
  659
  Estimated outturn expenditure in 1994–95 by LEAs on under-fives, further education for adults, the youth service and discretionary awards total £1,964 million. Provisional outturn expenditure on these headings in 1993—94 was £1,858 million.

  School Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what recent representations she has received from parents and governors about the standards of reports published by school inspectors; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the publication of parent-friendly reports by school inspectors;

  (3) what action she intends to take to ensure that teachers in schools in West Yorkshire have full confidence in inspectors working for the Office of Standards in Education; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what recent representations she has received on the standards of reports issued by school inspectors; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has received two letters about the standards of individual school reports in the last six months. Such letters are normally referred to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector as the independent Office for Standards in Education is responsible for monitoring the quality of inspection reports. Ofsted is also responsible for the employment of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and for the training and monitoring of registered inspectors.

  The content of inspection reports is similarly a matter for HMCI. The Government's intention is that reports should be rigorous, clear and easily understood by parents. HMCI has recently issued guidance to registered inspectors on making inspection report summaries more user friendly. He is also consulting on a revision to the framework for inspection and this includes taking the views of parents, teachers and others.

  LEA Funding
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average standard spending assessment for primary school pupils for local education authorities in England; and what is the average for local education authorities excluding the Isles of Scilly and inner London boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average amount per five to 10-year-old which local education authorities in England will receive in the primary sub-block of their education standard spending assessments for 1995–96 is £1,981. The comparable figure for local education authorities excluding the Isles of Scilly and inner London boroughs is £1,941.

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the effect on children's education following the proposed reduction in funding for schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The local government finance settlement for England for 1995–96 allows a 1.1 per cent. cash increase over the equivalent figure for 1994–95. The effect of the settlement will depend on decisions made by local education authorities and schools.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the net standard spending assessment for(a) a
  660
  child of primary school age and (b) a child of secondary school age in Shropshire and in the London borough of Southwark for the financial year 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The standing spending assessment for a pupil of primary school age for the financial year 1995–96 in Shropshire is £1,862 and in Southwark £2,947. For a child of secondary school age, the figures are £2,482 for Shropshire, and £4,097 for Southwark. These differences arise from disparities in assessed education spending need and costs between different areas.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the standard spending assessment for Hereford and Worcester following the transfer of five schools to Birmingham from 1 April.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The standard spending assessment for Hereford and Worcester reflects the transfer of five schools to Birmingham from 1 April.

  London Borough of Havering
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what representations she has received following the announcement of the education settlement for 1995–96 for the London borough of Havering.

  Mr. Forth
  We have received representations from the hon. Member and others about Havering's education standard spending assessment for 1995–96. The reduction results from a number of factors, including a below average increase in pupil numbers and other reductions in indicators of spending need.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools had to close all or part of a school building because its condition posed a danger to staff and pupils in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions exist for education on the dangers and prevention of solvent abuse, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The national curriculum, which all maintained schools must provide, requires that pupils arc taught about the harmful effects of solvent abuse. My Department is providing £6 million of new grant to support teacher training and innovative projects concerned with the prevention of drug and solvent abuse. Following recent consultation, we will also issue shortly guidance on drug prevention and schools, together with guidance on teaching about drugs within the school curriculum and a digest of drug education teaching materials.

  Branch Employment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction how many people were employed in the(a) grant-maintained schools branch, (b) further education branch, (c) teacher training branch and (d) higher education branch of her Department for each year since 1992–93; how many arc forecast to work in each branch

  661
  in 1995–96; what was the pay bill for each branch in each year since 1992–93; and what is the forecast pay bill in 1995–96.

  Mr. Boswell
  The distribution of responsibilities among branches within the Department was reorganised in 1994. No one branch is or has been solely responsible for grant-maintained schools: presently both school organisation branch and schools funding branch have, among their other duties, responsibility for such schools. Certain duties also fall to the Funding Agency for

  1994–951

  1995–961

  Staff at 14 March 1995

  £million

  Staff

  £million

  School organisation branch

  283

  6.6

  304

  7.1

  Schools funding branch

  95

  2.3

  107

  2.7

  Further education branch

  66

  1.6

  74

  1.9

  Higher education branch

  79

  2.0

  78

  2.0

  Teachers branch

  72

  1.8

  65

  1.4

  1Forecast outturn.

  2Budget allocations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government of Northern Ireland Act 1920
  Mr. Heppel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he is proposing to the Government of Northern Ireland Act 1920.

  Mr. Ancram
  We have expressed a willingness, in the joint framework document, to amend or replace what little remains of the Government of Ireland Act as part of and contingent upon an agreed, comprehensive settlement, to emphasise the principle of consent. The precise detail of any changes would be a matter for discussion, negotiation and agreement with the political parties in future talks.

  Framework Document
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances a referendum will be held in Northern Ireland following the consideration of the framework document.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  We have undertaken to put to the electorate in Northern Ireland for approval in a referendum any agreed outcome of a three-stranded process of talks.

  Explosives and Arms, Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when was the last occasion, and in what year, Her Majesty's Government had reason to suppose that Libya-based sources supplied explosives and arms to organisations associated with the island of Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Substantial quantities of Libyan arms and explosives reached the Provisional IRA in the mid-1980s. Their recovery has been the objective of intensive searching by the Garda in the Republic of Ireland and by the police and Army in Northern Ireland. For operational reasons it would not be appropriate to give details of the amount of arms and explosives expended and recovered.
  662
  Schools. The further education branch and higher education branch also took their present form in 1994, each taking over some of the responsibilities of the former student affairs branch. Work on teacher training is part of the work of the teachers branch; significant responsibilities also rest with the teacher training agency. Figures are not therefore available in the form sought. The full-time equivalent staff employed in the five branches at 14 March 1995, forecast average staff numbers in 1995–96 and budgets for the two years are as follows:

  Political Training
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to provide political training, political, educational and exchange programmes for young people, politicians and community groups in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have no plans at present to introduce programmes on the scale and in the manner indicated by the question. The Government remain committed, however, to encouraging mutual understanding within the community wherever possible, and to assisting political and educational development among young people in Northern Ireland.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the future of the RUC since the cease-fire.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since the cease-fires, Ministers and officials have continued to hold meetings with interested bodies and individuals, including district councils, political parties, community organisations and police staff associations, on a variety of issues related to the police service. Several letters have also been received, mostly from members of the public. A wide range of views has been expressed; a key note to emerge has been the welcome for debate on policing matters, especially on strengthening links between the community and the police. The Government welcome this debate and are keen to hear constructive comments and proposals.

  Families against Intimidation and Terror
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Families against Intimidation and Terror.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with representatives of FAIT. I last met representatives from this group in September 1993. Since then there have been no further meetings with Ministers hut contact at official level has been maintained.

  Firearms and Explosives
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantities of firearms and explosives have recently been voluntarily surrendered by Republican terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No weaponry or equipment has been surrendered.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The year 1993–94 was Northern Ireland's most successful from an inward investment standpoint. The Industrial Development Board secured 13 new inward investment projects, together representing an investment potential of £259 million and 2,309 jobs.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the level of inward investment to Northern Ireland since the cease-fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The climate for investment in Northern Ireland from overseas has been greatly enhanced by a sustained absence of violence. Though it is too early to quantify the results in terms of new projects secured there are substantial indicators of heightened interest in Northern Ireland as an investment location—particularly in its primary target markets of the far east and the United States.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet business leaders to discuss inward investment.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Minister for the Economy, is already heavily involved in meetings with potential inward investors. Her programme last week alone included a meeting with seventy Korean businessmen and the president of a potential Japanese investor. Baroness Denton will also meet business leaders during her visits to North America and Japan. Additionally, my noble Friend meets regularly with the business organisations in Northern Ireland.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the practice with regard to the early release of prisoners.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is no general practice of early release for prisoners. Those convicted by the courts and given sentences of imprisonment will serve their sentences according to the law. Individual prisoners may he released early by exercise of the royal prerogative, but this power will be used only in exceptional circumstances such as when a prisoner is terminally ill or has given assistance to the prison authorities or the police.

  Trade and Economic Development
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to transfer responsibility for trade and economic development to a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  "Frameworks for the Future" explains that, should there be agreement on the creation of new institutions in Northern Ireland, as part of a664
  comprehensive political settlement, these will have legislative and executive responsibility over as wide a range of subject as in 1973, including those aspects of trade and economic development currently discharged by the Department of Economic Development.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), and for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Trade Unions (Dialogue)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what machinery exists for regular dialogue between Ministers and the trade unions representing workers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no formal machinery for dialogue between Ministers and the Northern Ireland trade unions. Ministers meet trade union leaders from time to time to discuss specific matters and are always ready to give favourable consideration to requests for such meetings.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on trade union rights for midwives in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  The joint council machinery, which is responsible for the implementation of Whitley council agreements in Northern Ireland, is to be abolished from 1 April 1995. As in Great Britain, the application of such agreements will be left to management and staff interests at local level.

  I have met staff representatives, including the professional officers of the Royal College of Midwives, and they have been given an assurance that their organisations will continue to be recognised by all employers as representing staff on joint council terms and conditions of service. This will include those staff transferring to health and social services trusts. Such staff have their joint council terms and conditions protected.

  HSS trusts are, of course, completely free to establish their own arrangements for deciding the pay and conditions of service for new staff.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on disarming terrorist organisations.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

  Police Reform
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to reform the police force in Northern Ireland.
  665
  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government published proposals last year for the reform of the framework for policing in Northern Ireland. On 15 December 1994 my right hon. and learned Friend announced that work is in hand, in continued consultation, to develop ideas for legislation.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he intends to have with representatives of(a) the Housing Executive and (b) the Royal Ulster Constabulary to resolve the problem of Housing Executive dwellings being used by tenants alleged to be associated with supplying illegal substances.

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Housing Executive and the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, I have been assured that there is regular contact between the Housing Executive and the RUC and where evidence is available in relation to drugs offences, appropriate action will be taken under the criminal law to search premises, arrest offenders and bring them before the courts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Support (Cost)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total net cost to the Exchequer of support for agriculture and the common agricultural policy, after deducting any relevant refunds and grants received in each year since 1991; and what amount per week per family of four this net figure represents for each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures on total Exchequer expenditure on agricultural support within the United Kingdom, and associated receipts from the European Community budget, are available for each of the years in question in table 9.1 of the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1993", a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House. The 1994 version will he available shortly. In addition, the UK contributes to the cost of EC-funded agricultural support in other member states through its net contributions to the EC budget. A note entitled, "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Taxpayers and Consumers", produced by my Department, was deposited in the Library of the House on 9 March. This includes details of transfers from taxpayers to farmers both in the UK and in other member states under the common agricultural policy. For the purpose of expressing costs per person or per family of four, the population of the UK is assumed to he 58 million.

  Fisheries Inspectors
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the ratio of his Department's fishery inspectors to United Kingdom registered fishing vessels.

  Mr. Jack
  The sea fisheries inspectorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employs 81 fisheries inspectors, based mainly at the major fishing ports in England and Wales. At end 1994, there were 666
  10,296 UK-registered fishing vessels, of which 5,332 vessels were administered by MAFF.

  Fishing
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will recommend a moratorium on all fishing in specific areas during the different spawning seasons.

  Mr. Jack
  On the basis of scientific advice, the common fisheries policy of the EU already contains a number of provisions, which are modified when necessary, defining areas in which fishing for certain species is prohibited or restricted for some or all of the year, in order to conserve fish stocks.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will recommend to the European Commission that it funds an educational campaign across southern Europe to inform consumers about dangers to fish stocks from the purchase of under-sized fish.

  Mr. Jack
  I believe that the problem, which the hon. Member rightly identifies, about the danger to fish stocks when under-sized fish are marketed, is best addressed at the point at which the problem arises. That is, when the fish are caught. It is essential that the Commission ensures that the existing provisions of the EU's common fisheries policy, which are intended to protect fish stocks and prevent the landing of under-sized fish, are rigorously enforced in all member states. I made the point to the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Signora Emma Bonino, when I met her recently.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Britian vessels are fishing in north Atlantic waters off Canada; what vessels fished there last year; and what catch is allocated to them and by whom.

  Mr. Jack
  No British vessels have fished in the regulatory area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation last year or this. The United Kingdom had a quota of three tonnes of cod in area 3NO and 1,022 tonnes of cod in area 3M in 1994. For 1995, there is a moratorium for cod 3NO. The cod quota for area 3M is 1,022 tonnes. These quotas are allocated to the United Kingdom by the Fisheries Council in accordance with relative stability.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to Spain in its fishing dispute with Canada;

  (2) what plans he has to disassociate Her Majesty's Government from Spanish overfishing and use of prescribed nets and gear in the north Atlantic; and if he will issue a statement on the representation he is making to Canada on its fishing dispute with Spain.

  Mr. Jack
  In the present dispute over Greenland halibut, we are taking all the steps we can to promote a reduction in tension, avoidance of confrontational action, and an early return to negotiations to result in an equitable settlement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what EEC controls are applied to Spanish vessels fishing the north Atlantic outside Canadian waters; what inspection of mesh sizes, gear, catch quotas and discards is applied on those fishing grounds; what control is exercised of the port of landing;
  667
  and what representations he is making to the Commission for more effective controls.

  Mr. Jack
  Rules of fisheries conservation and technical measures, including mesh size, minimum fish sizes, gear, catch quotas and discards, agreed in the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organization, are incorporated into EU law by the Fisheries Council. Fishing vessels may be inspected by the enforcement vessels of any NAFO contracting party operating the NAFO enforcement and controls scheme and apparent infringements are followed up by the flag state. There is an EU-funded enforcement vessel operating in the NAFO regulatory area. All Spanish and Portuguese vessels fishing in the area last year were inspected at sea on a number of occasions and all were checked at the port of landing. Any proposals for further enforcement and control measures would be considered at a meeting of the organisation.

  Organochlorine
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department carries out for organochlorine levels in sea birds or their eggs, and what range of chemicals has been found.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department is not conducting monitoring of organochlorines in sea birds or their eggs. If any sea birds were suspected of being poisoned by OC or other pesticides, the incident would be investigated under the Department's wildlife incident investigation scheme.

  Milk Quota Leasing System
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of 668
  whether the milk quota leasing system is working in the interests of the British farmer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]With the full support of the British dairy industry, the Government have sought to provide the most flexible conditions possible for producers to lease milk quota. The current leasing arrangements offer ready access to quota for those who do not have the resources to purchase quota outright or who want the flexibility to acquire extra quota as the need arises.

  Marine Mammals Strandings Project
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many strandings of dolphins, porpoises or whales there have been in each year since 1990; what analysis was carried out of the carcasses; if the results are available; and how the carcasses were disposed of.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The marine mammals strandings project has recorded strandings in England and Wales since 1990 and in Scotland since January 1992. The numbers of whales, dolphins and porpoises recorded as stranded were 144 in 1990; 191 in 1991; 418 in 1992; 320 in 1993; and 360 in 1994.

  Analyses of carcasses include tissue and stomach samples for studying viruses and dietary constituents. Post mortems also address contaminant levels and incidences of bycatch in fishing nets. Results are periodically published in scientific journals, and basic strandings information is recorded on a national database.

  Carcasses are disposed of by a variety of methods. The decision rests with the relevant local authority.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to reviewing the Data Protection Act 1984 to permit the emergency services direct access to the databases of British Telecom and Mercury.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no plans for direct access by the emergency services to the British Telecom, Mercury and other telephone operator databases other than to the publicly available directory services.

  Mrs. Sadetha Hafejee
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 6 March, ref: IMP H322601/3 (S); and PO 01835/95 to the hon. Member for Bradford West, concerning Mrs. Sadetha Mohammed Amin Hafejee, when Mr. Hafejee replied to the letter, dated 20 February, from Leeds/Bradford airport; when and where Mr. Hafejee is to be interviewed; and when is a decision to be taken on Mrs. Hafejee's application to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Hafejee replied on 28 February to Leeds/Bradford airport's letter of 20 February. As a result, an appointment has been made for Mr. Hafejee to be interviewed at 12 pm on Tuesday 21 March 1995 at the immigration office at North Shields. A record of the interview will be reported to the entry clearance officer in Bombay in the normal way. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a decision will then be made as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Quereshian Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 302, if Mr. Rahgzeb has been interviewed, to date, in relation to the application by Mrs. Quereshian Bibi—BV100/25109 and when a decision is to be taken on her application to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Rahgzeb was interviewed on 5 February. A report of the interview was sent to the entry clearance officer Islamabad on 1 March. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that a decision on the entry clearance application will be made as soon as possible.

  Turkish Special Intelligence
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what evidence he has received of links between Turkish Special Intelligence—MIT—and crimes of violence in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  It has been the long-standing practice not to comment on stories about the purported activities of domestic or overseas security and intelligence agencies.

  Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will arrange for Mr. Zia 670
  Rahman Farooqi to be removed from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence is not conducive to public order; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi, leader of the Soldiers of God, based in Pakistan, entered the United Kingdom as a visitor; for how long his visa was endorsed; and how many representations he has received from individuals and organisation in the UK protesting at Mr. Farooqi's being allowed to visit the UK.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not our normal practice to disclose information to third parties about an individual's immigration status. No representations have been received protesting against Mr. Farooqi's presence in the United Kingdom.

  Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek the extradition of a Turkish citizen from Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus in connection with an attempted murder in London on 29 December 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom does not have any extradition arrangements with Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus.

  Baglinton Airport (Policing)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to date of the West Midlands police operation at Baglinton airport; and what is his policy on the payment for the costs of policing on private property.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that, as at 14 March, the total additional costs incurred in policing the demonstrations against live animal exports from Coventry airport were about £55,000.

  Police officers are not being deployed on private property, and the question of charging does not arise since they are enforcing the peace and preventing breaches of the law.

  Reconviction Rates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the average rates of reconviction for(a) community (b) custodial sentences in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Comparisons between reconviction rates are affected by differences in age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of offenders receiving the sentences, as described in Home Office research study 136, "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis". The decrease in the reconviction rate for those discharged from prison between 1987 and 1990 is partly due to the decrease in the number of young offenders discharged from prison, who have a relatively high reconviction rate.

  The information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales and Probation Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. The available information is as follows:
  671

  Percentage of sentenced prisoners discharged from prison or of offenders commencing probation or community service who are reconvicted within two years of discharge or commencement by year of discharge or commencement

  Custody

  Probation

  Community Service

  19761

  58

  —

  —

  19771

  59

  —

  —

  19781

  58

  —

  —

  19791

  58

  41

  51

  1980

  59

  —

  —

  1981

  58

  —

  —

  1982

  59

  —

  —

  1983

  56

  —

  —

  1984

  54

  —

  —

  1985

  52

  —

  —

  1986

  50

  —

  —

  19872

  57

  53

  55

  19882

  55

  52

  54

  19892

  53

  54

  56

  19902

  52

  56

  56

  1Rates for those discharged from prison exclude those discharged from prison sentences of 3 months or less.

  2Figures for 1987 and after are not directly comparable with those from earlier years due to a change in methodology. If the old methodology had been followed it is estimated that the reconviction rates would be about 5 to 6 percentage points lower.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Service staff have been used for training private prisoner custody officers; at what cost; and at whose cost, giving figures for each year since 1991 and for the latest date available.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 16 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prison service staff have been used for training private prisoner custody officers; at what cost; and at whose cost, giving figures for each year since 1991 and for the latest date available.
  The information is outlined below:
  1991: No training provided
  1992: No training provided
  1993: A total of 135 trainer days employing 9 individual trainers for varying lengths of time, all in control and restraint skills.

  Number of 15-years olds sentenced for indictable offences by sex, type of disposal and type of court 1990–93

  England and Wales

  Year/Court

  Total sentenced

  Absolute and conditional discharge

  Fine

  Supervision order

  Attendance centre order

  Care order1

  Young Offender Institution

  Otherwise dealt with

  Males

  1990

  Juvenile courts

  5,558

  1,946

  845

  1,173

  1,144

  38

  306

  106

  Magistrates' courts

  396

  158

  103

  72

  42

  1

  10

  10

  Crown Court

  328

  25

  8

  125

  37

  14

  79

  40

  672
  1994: A total of 234 trainer days employing 12 individual trainers for varying lengths of time, all in control and restraint skills.
  1995: 4 prisoner custody officers attended courses run by the National Control & Restraint (Advanced) Training Centre alongside public sector colleagues.

  The companies employing the officers trained were charged aggregate amounts of £40,500, £87,000 and £4,000 in 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively for this training. These charges fully recovered the costs incurred.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimated expenditure on water and sewerage in the current financial year is about £8.3 million. Complete details of expenditure on these services in earlier years are not available.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-years-olds have(a) been cautioned and (b) been found guilty of any offence in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of 15-year-olds cautioned and found guilty is published in the annual Command Paper "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". Table 5.21 of the 1985 edition, table 5.23 of the 1991 edition and table 5.25 of the 1993 edition refer to it. Copies of these publications arc available in the Library.

  The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-olds have been sentenced to immediate custody on their first conviction in each year since 1990; and for which offence types.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected routinely. A special study of a sample of those convicted of indictable offences in 1991 revealed that of 319 15-year-olds in the sample, three, 1 per cent. were sentenced to immediate custody on their first conviction for an indictable offence.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the disposals given to(a) 15-year-old boys and (b) 15-year-old girls by the youth, magistrates and Crown courts in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the following table.

  The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.
  673

  Number of 15-years olds sentenced for indictable offences by sex. type of disposal and type of court 1990–93

  England and Wales

  Year/Court

  Total sentenced

  Absolute and conditional discharge

  Fine

  Supervision order

  Attendance centre order

  Care order1

  Young Offender Institution

  Otherwise dealt with

  1991

  Juvenile courts

  4,896

  1,787

  563

  1,091

  1,005

  8

  355

  87

  Magistrates courts

  378

  163

  64

  68

  47

  2

  27

  7

  Crown Court

  264

  23

  1

  98

  37

  4

  62

  39

  1992

  Juvenile/Youth courts

  4,421

  1,625

  470

  975

  915

  n/a

  347

  89

  Magistrates Courts

  328

  150

  45

  62

  43

  n/a

  17

  11

  Crown courts

  217

  19

  2

  83

  23

  n/a

  69

  21

  1993

  Youth courts

  4,703

  1,751

  338

  1,141

  964

  n/a

  428

  81

  Magistrates' courts

  298

  137

  33

  57

  46

  n/a

  19

  6

  Crown court

  203

  13

  —

  75

  18

  n/a

  57

  40

  Females

  1990

  Juvenile courts

  696

  407

  96

  120

  51

  5

  3

  14

  Magistrates' courts

  56

  34

  13

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Crown Court

  29

  6

  1

  14

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1991

  Juvenile courts

  670

  372

  83

  122

  58

  5

  10

  20

  Magistrates courts

  46

  26

  8

  7

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Crown Court

  27

  5

  3

  14

  1

  1

  2

  1

  19922

  Juvenile/Youth courts

  609

  354

  65

  125

  50

  n/a

  3

  12

  Magistrates courts

  46

  31

  8

  6

  —

  n/a

  —

  5

  Crown courts

  22

  —

  1

  14

  1

  n/a

  1

  5

  1993

  Youth courts

  673

  365

  55

  176

  55

  n/a

  17

  5

  Magistrates' courts

  36

  26

  5

  1

  3

  n/a

  1

  —

  Crown Court

  17

  —

  —

  8

  —

  n/a

  5

  4

  1Abolished under the Children Act 1989 (14 October 1991).2 The Youth Court was introduced from 1 October 1992. n/a = Not applicable.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many 15-year-olds have received(a) one caution, (b) two cautions and (c) three or more cautions in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected routinely. The following table shows results from special studies of those cautioned for indictable offences in one week in each of the years 1991, 1988 and 1985 in England and Wales.
  674

  Fifteen-year-olds cautioned in study week, 1991, 1988 and 1985

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Number of previous cautions1

  Year

  1991

  1988

  1985

  None

  63

  77

  83

  One

  19

  16

  15

  Two or more

  18

  7

  2

  1 Not necessarily in the study year.

  675
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what was the length of immediate custody to which 15-year-old boys and girls were sentenced by(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in each year since 1985 broken down by the type of offence.

  Mr. Maclean
  As the information for 1985 to 1993 is given in a large number of tables, I shall place them in the Library.

  The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Prisons (Drug and Alcohol Programmes)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what drug or alcohol programmes are available in prisons; and what percentage of prisons have each type of programme.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 16 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what drug or alcohol programmes are available; and what percentage of prisons have each type of programme.
  All prisons within England and Wales provide prisoners with access to education, treatment and counselling services for substance misuse via the prison health care centre, the probation service or outside agencies and visiting self help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. A survey in December 1994 of 130 prisons found that 119 prisons provide some form of additional treatment programme. Some but not all of these facilities are already used by both alcohol and drug misusers.
  The main types of treatment programme currently on offer are one-to-one counselling, group therapy and intensive treatment programmes such as therapeutic communities or the Minnesota 12-Step Programme. 78 per cent of prisons provide one-to-one counselling, 72 per cent provide group therapy and seven per cent provide intensive treatment programmes.
  As part of the new Prison Service drugs strategy, expected to be published in the spring, all prison governors will be required to develop and implement local drug strategies which will form part of their contract with their area manager. The local strategies will include provision for education, treatment and throughcare for prisoners who misuse, have misused, or are at risk of misusing drugs.
  Next month the Prison Service is launching the first phase of a new range of enhanced treatment services for drug misusers including: detoxification units; therapeutic communities; 3-month treatment programmes; intensive counselling and education services; and community-linked throughcare programmes. The effectiveness of the different programmes will be independently evaluated and the findings used to develop treatment programmes available to all prisoners according to their needs.

  Prisons (Absconders)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners absconded from open prisons in each of the last three years: how many have been returned to prison; and how many of the absconders were convicted of drug offences.

  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. Alan Williams, dated 16 March 1995:
  676
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners absconded from open prisons in each of the last three years; how many have been returned to prison; and how many of the absconders were convicted of drug offences.
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Year

  Number of absconders

  Number of absconders convicted of drug offences

  1992

  1,427

  44

  1993

  1,384

  41

  1994

  1,300

  51

  The number of absconders who are either recaptured by the police or who surrender to the prison is not recorded centrally.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the certified normal accommodation level, population and percentage overcrowding for each local prison for the latest date available; and how many assaults on(a) staff and (b) prisoners have occurred in each prison since 1st April 1994.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 16 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding for each local prison for the latest date available; and how many assaults on (a) staff and (b) prisoners have occurred in each prison since 1st April 1994.
  The information requested is given in the attached tables, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Table 1: Certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding in local prisons on 28 February 1995

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding (per cent.Pop/CNA in use

  Bedford

  303

  298

  0

  Belmarsh

  792

  699

  0

  Birmingham

  567

  821

  45

  Blakenhurst

  649

  652

  0

  Bristol

  464

  470

  1

  Brixton

  484

  639

  32

  Bullingdon

  644

  596

  0

  Canterbury

  184

  267

  45

  Cardiff

  321

  441

  37

  Chelmsford

  251

  403

  61

  Doncaster

  771

  780

  1

  Dorchester

  147

  205

  39

  Durham

  448

  643

  44

  Elmley

  637

  627

  0

  Exeter

  260

  385

  48

  Gloucester

  202

  265

  31

  Highdown

  629

  605

  0

  Holme House

  649

  624

  0

  Hull

  328

  404

  23

  Leeds

  814

  1,066

  31

  Leicester

  192

  352

  83

  Lewes

  312

  318

  2

  Lincoln

  444

  625

  41

  Liverpool

  973

  1,274

  31

  Manchester

  830

  899

  8

  Norwich

  333

  348

  5

  677

  Table 1: Certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding in local prisons on 28 February 1995

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding (per cent. Pop/CNA in use

  Pentonville

  559

  731

  31

  Preston

  342

  488

  43

  Shrewsbury

  168

  281

  67

  Swansea

  151

  229

  52

  Wandsworth

  922

  968

  5

  Winchester

  261

  364

  39

  Wolds

  320

  330

  3

  Woodhill

  566

  524

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  714

  822

  15

  Note:

  1 The certified normal accommodation figures used are the "in use" figures. They do not include places which arc temporarily out of use, eg. because of refurbishment programmes, damaged cells, etc.

  Table 2: Assaults proved at adjudication1 on staff and prisoners in local prisons in England and Wales between April 1994—February 19952

  Establishment

  Assaults on staff/others3

  Assaults on Prisoners

  Total

  Bedford

  15

  11

  26

  Belmarsh

  68

  26

  94

  Birmingham

  52

  36

  88

  Blakenhurst

  75

  22

  97

  Bristol

  20

  8

  28

  Brixton

  51

  25

  76

  Bullingdon

  38

  16

  54

  Canterbury

  11

  0

  11

  Cardiff

  21

  16

  37

  Chelmsford

  22

  14

  36

  Doncaster

  120

  46

  166

  Dorchester

  2

  2

  4

  Durham

  23

  13

  36

  Elmley

  28

  21

  49

  Exeter

  5

  8

  13

  Gloucester

  10

  3

  13

  Highdown

  47

  18

  65

  Holme House

  26

  9

  35

  Hull

  55

  36

  91

  Leeds

  92

  44

  136

  Leicester

  25

  17

  42

  Lewes

  19

  10

  29

  Lincoln

  25

  14

  39

  Liverpool

  42

  27

  69

  Manchester

  44

  20

  64

  Norwich

  25

  13

  38

  Pentonville

  60

  26

  86

  Preston

  39

  17

  56

  Shrewsbury

  11

  19

  30

  Swansea

  6

  6

  12

  Wandsworth

  122

  12

  134

  Winchester

  24

  12

  36

  Wolds

  31

  15

  46

  Woodhill

  39

  34

  73

  Wormwood Scrubs

  38

  16

  54

  Total

  1,331

  632

  1,963

  Notes:

  1 Includes attempt. incite or assist in an assault.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Includes prison officer grades, other staff and persons not being a member of staff.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider again the question of the introduction of compulsory identity cards as a means, inter alia, of helping those entitled to social security benefits by more effectively clamping down on fraudulent and bogus claims.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 13 October 1994 that the Government intend to publish a Green Paper on identity cards in the spring. The Green Paper will set out the options for a national identity card scheme, including whether an identity card should be voluntary or compulsory and the possible benefits of identity cards—for example in helping to combat crimes involving fraud and impersonation. Any decision on the introduction of identity cards will be made in the light of the comments we receive on this consultative document.

  Pakistani Mullahs (Visas)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been issued since 1990 to Pakistani mullahs to preach in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No information is available on Pakistanis citizens entering the United Kingdom as visitors who undertake preaching tours. However, since 1990, 130 visas have been issued to people applying in Islamabad, Pakistan to come to the United Kingdom for employment as ministers of religion.

  Karens (Political Asylum)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Karens have been granted political asylum since 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on applications for asylum by Karens is not separately identified in the statistics. The available information relates to asylum applications by Burmese nationals and data on these, for the years 1992 to 1994, are given in the table. Figures for 1990 and 1991 are published in tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1992", issue 19/93, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Decisions on applications for asylum1 received from nationals of Burma in the United Kingdom, excluding dependents, 1992 to 1994.

  number of principal applicants

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Asylum applications2

  20

  15

  20

  Decisions2,3

  45

  20

  5

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  ⋆

  5

  0

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  40

  10

  5

  Refused5

  ⋆

  5

  ⋆

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with "⋆" = 1 or 2.2

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.
  679
  5 Refusals include those made after full consideration, refusals under para 180F for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, and refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an appropriate allowance on capping limits for 1996–97 for metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities which had already set their budget for 1995–96 before the capping limits were raised on 17 February.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Secretary of State will carefully consider this point when he comes to announce his preliminary capping criteria for 1996–97 later in the year.

  Coastal Pollution
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the pupils of Canon Slade school, Bolton from whom he has received letters about pollution and the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received copies of 17 letters from pupils of Canon Slade school which my hon. Friend sent him. The letters are about coastal pollution and a full reply will be sent shortly enclosing literature which we hope they will find interesting and informative.

  The Government are concerned about coastal pollution and are committed to securing improvements to our coastal waters. The water industry's investment programme of some £2 billion is accomplishing a steady increase in the quality of our bathing waters—82 per cent. achieved the mandatory coliform standards of the bathing water directive last season. It is our firm intention that the programme should be completed as soon as practical constraints, such as planning procedures, permit. The hulk of the schemes will he complete by around the end of this year.

  Dormice
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made of the numbers and locations of the national population of dormice.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The national population of dormice is estimated to be between 100,000 and 500,000. The dormouse is found in parts of England and Wales, with the strongest populations in the south of England. Counties with large populations include Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Avon, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, east and west Sussex, Kent, Gwent, Gloucestershire and Hereford and Worcester. Scattered populations exist in Wiltshire, Hertfordshire, Shropshire, the Glamorgans, Dyfed and Powys. Isolated populations occur in Cumbria, Northumberland, Clwyd and Gwynedd. The species is apparently absent from all other English counties.

  Dead Livestock
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports his Department has received in respect of dead livestock being washed up on the south coast of England in the last three years.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No record can he traced of the receipt of any such reports by the Department of Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance his Department proposes to offer to regional electricity companies to lessen the impact of overhead powerlines; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the impact of both health and visual matters on overhead powerlines, and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what (a) code of practice and (b) other criteria have been established concerning the health and visual impact of overhead powerline as a result of planning inquiries; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is the planning guidance to local planning authorities on planning applications for overhead powerlines; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Responsibility for authorising overhead power lines above 20kv capacity rests with the President of the Board of Trade under the Electricity Act 1989. Guidance on this authorisation procedure, which requires consultations with local planning authorities, is published in Department of the Environment circular 14/90—Department of Energy circular 1/90—"Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines". Proposals which may have a significant impact on the environment must be accompanied by an environmental statement. Each case is considered on its own merits. The President of the Board of Trade is under a duty to take environmental considerations into account in deciding whether to authorise a proposal.

  Responsibility for advising on health impacts of power lines rests with the National Radiological Protection Board. I refer to my written answer of 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1265.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those district and metropolitan council areas in order of atmospheric pollution by(a) nitrogen dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) particulates in the last five years in terms of annual average ground level concentrations in nanograms per cubic metre;

  (2) if he will list those city and district council areas in order of atmospheric pollution by (a) nitrogen dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) particulates in the last five years in terms of annual average ground level concentrations in nanograms per cubic metre.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department makes measurements of NO2, S02 and particulates using non-automatic methods in collaboration with local authorities at over 1,200 sites for nitrogen dioxide and 257 sites for sulphur dioxide and black smoke. Data from the non-automatic sites are
  681
  published in a number of reports, as listed, which are available from the National Environmental Technology centre, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire.

  National NO2 Diffusion Surveys
  Camhell G. W, Stedman J. R. Stevenson K. J. A survey of NO, Concentrations in the UK using Diffusion Tubes, July–December 1991. Atmos Environ, 28 (3), 477—486,1994.
  Stevenson K. J, Bush T. UK Nitrogen Dioxide Survey Results for the First Year—1993 Report in preparation.
  Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide Survey
  UK Smoke and SO,2 Monitoring Networks: Summary Tables for 1989/90. Stevenage: Warren Spring Laboratory, 1994, Special Publication Report LR 835 (AP).
  UK Smoke and SO2 Monitoring Networks: Summary Tables for 1990/91. Stevenage: Warren Spring Laboratory 1994, Special Publication Report LR 889 (AP).
  UK Smoke and SO2 Monitoring Networks: Summary Tables for 1991/92. Stevenage: Warren Spring Laboratory 1994, Special Report LR 960 (AP).
  UK Smoke and SO2 Monitoring Networks: Summary Tables for 1992/93. Stevenage: Warren Spring Laboratory 1994, Special Publication Report LR 1007 (AP).
  UK Smoke and SO2 Monitoring Networks: Summary Tables for 1993/94. Report in preparation.

  Affordable Family Homes, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of any surplus or shortfall of affordable family homes in London in 1998; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department does not make regional assessments of possible surpluses or shortfalls of affordable housing.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 9 March.

  Mr. Atkins
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council held in Brussels on 9 March. During the lengthy discussion on the proposed directive on integrated pollution prevention and control, I made it clear that the UK continued to welcome this proposal. I indicated that we wished to see a directive which achieved a high level of protection for the environment while providing a level playing field for industry in the UK. The subsequent debate assisted in resolving a number of issues but an overall agreement was not reached.

  The Council agreed conclusions setting out the EU's position for the first conference of the parties to the UN climate change convention, building on those agreed at its meeting in December. The conclusions call for the negotiation of a protocol to the convention, setting out new targets and timetables beyond 2000 and for the agreement by all developed countries of policies and measures aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

  There was a useful initial discussion of the proposals for an ambient air quality framework directive, in which I indicated UK support for measures to tackle the problems of air pollution. Discussions also took place on the proposals for the ecological quality of water and on the revision of the Seveso directive.
  682
  The Council also agreed a paper setting out the current EU position on the preparations for the third meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

  British Waterways Board
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report published in January 1994 on the British Waterways Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to report that the British Waterways Board is continuing to make good progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations. I am placing a copy of its second response in the Library of the House.

  The board had already made significant progress in addressing the Commission's findings and recommendations by the time it submitted its first response in June 1994. Since then, the BWB has generally met its target for further action. A review of management systems has been completed which has identified new user requirements, including the need for new financial systems and improved management information, as well as offering opportunities for cost savings. In addition, a review of procurement procedures has also been completed. I particularly welcome the hoard's decision to undertake an employment review of the full range of its employment practices, taking into account the Commission's recommendations on staff appraisal and training.

  The board has also taken action to promote its waterways through the launch of its "Canals Alive" marketing campaign and is undertaking more market research into demand for waterway recreation, including commissioning, jointly with the National Rivers Authority, research into demand for leisure boating.

  I shall pay particular heed to the Commission's recommendations when considering with the board's strategy for the future and the criteria against which its performance should be assessed. I shall continue to take into account as appropriate the Commission's recommendations on development of BWB property, development control, the prospects for BWB securing contributions to its costs from those who benefit from its waterway activities but do not at present contribute, wayleaves and inland waterway commercial transport.

  The board aims to produce its final report on the implementation of the Commission's recommendations by January 1997. I shall make a further statement when it is received.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now announce the name of the new chairman of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to announce the name of the new chairman shortly. In the meantime I am pleased to say
  683
  that Professor Malcolm Grant, an existing member of the commission, has agreed to take on the chairmanship on an interim basis.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent or is contracted to be spent in(a) England and (b) each county in England on the public access element of the countryside stewardship scheme for the period of the scheme's existence.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Total sums spent, or contracted to be spent, on public access under countryside stewardship from 1992–93 to 2004–5 inclusive are given in the table.

  County

  Total access payments and/or commitments 1992–93 to 2004–5 £

  Northumberland

  501,465

  Cumbria

  284,741

  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan

  14,236

  Durham

  127,834

  Cleveland

  64,763

  Lancashire

  152,064

  Merseyside Metropolitan

  1,980

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan

  12,720

  Cheshire

  22,003

  North Yorkshire

  967,642

  West Yorkshire

  13,954

  Humberside

  76,471

  South Yorkshire

  25,646

  Derbyshire

  257,355

  Nottinghamshire

  36,607

  Staffordshire

  25,644

  Leicestershire

  230,880

  Hereford and Worcester

  67,787

  Warwickshire

  87,965

  Northamptonshire

  435,321

  Shropshire

  84,402

  Lincolnshire

  291,896

  Cambridgeshire

  167,873

  Norfolk

  295,047

  Suffolk

  165,238

  Bedfordshire

  87,695

  Oxfordshire

  119, 526

  Buckinghamshire

  155,504

  Hertfordshire

  77,032

  Berkshire

  69,428

  Greater London Metropolitan

  28,031

  Hampshire

  110,013

  Surrey

  98,515

  Kent

  331,850

  West Sussex

  192,568

  East Sussex

  273,988

  Isle of Wight

  73,304

  Essex

  124,933

  Gloucestershire

  134,377

  Cornwall

  731,083

  Devonshire

  277,933

  Somerset

  195,164

  Avon

  198,657

  Wiltshire

  453,169

  Dorset

  251,012

  Total

  8,395,316

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the current charges made to members of the public for the use of the services provided by the Public Record Office at(a) Chancery lane and (b) Kew; what plans he has to increase these charges; what new charges he intends to introduce; and when he plans to make these increases or introduce new fees.

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

  Letter front Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 13 March 1995:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: CHARGES FOR SERVICES
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about charges made to members of the public for the use of services provided by the Public Record Office at Kew and Chancery Lane.
  The current charges are listed in the Statutory Instrument made on 6 September 1994. I enclose a copy. It applies to Kew and to Chancery Lane.
  A revised Statutory Instrument is under discussion and if approved by the Lord Chancellor it is intended that it will be made so as to come into force on 1 May 1995.

  Court Users Survey
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of his Department's survey last year of 4,000 court users; and when he intends to publish the results of that survey.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the survey is £141,438 including VAT. The report of the survey's findings will be published in April 1995.

  Court Service Agency
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) other people concerning the creation of the Court Service agency; and what percentage of these representations has been (i) in favour and (ii) not in favour of its creation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on this issue. Most have been concerned with practical considerations and have not addressed the question of the desirability or otherwise of agency status for the Court Service. In the process of working towards the launch of the Court Service as an agency, we have consulted the judiciary and a number of interested organisations including the Bar, the Law Society and the departmental trade union side. We have received responses from these organisations and have held discussions with some of them.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost of management consultancy and other professional consultancy fees will be for the launch of the Court Service agency.
  685
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total amount of management consultancy and other professional consultancy fees incurred so far in the process of making the Court Service into an executive agency is £103,966. This amount has been spread over the two financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95. There may be a very small amount of further expenditure on consultancy fees in the remaining period leading up to the launch of the Court Service as an agency.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if there was an open and competitive selection process for the post of chief executive of the Court Service agency; and when and where this post was advertised.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following the decision to proceed with agency status for the Court Service, the existing head of the court service was appointed in 1993 as chief executive designate, with the intention that he should continue in post to prepare the court service for establishment as an agency and to take the agency into its early stages. It is intended that the post will be subject to publicly advertised open competition not later than April 1997.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current job title and salary of Michael Huebner; for how many years' duration is his current contract for the position of chief executive of the Court Service agency; and what his total salary will be for each of those years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At present, Michael Huebner is grade 2 head of the court service and chief executive designate of the Court Service agency. His current salary is £73,750. On becoming chief executive of the Court Service agency, he will remain an established civil servant on the same terms and conditions of employment as at present. Any performance pay awards he receives will, however, take into account the achievement of the targets set for the Court Service. In common with other members of the proposed senior civil service, he will in due course he expected to sign a contract, as outlined in the White Paper on the civil service.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provisions for performance-related pay on top of basic salary are contained in the contracts of(a) the chief executive and (b) other staff of the new Court Service Agency; what criteria will determine whether or not this additional pay is awarded; and what is the maximum amount each could claim under these provisions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Staff of the Court Service, including the first chief executive, will remain as established civil servants and will not be employed within the agency on a contractual basis, with the proviso that it is intended that contracts will be introduced for the proposed senior civil service as announced in the White Paper "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change" (CM2748).

  For details of the performance pay scheme for the chief executive, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to his question on the salary and contract of Michael Huebner. Performance pay awards to staff at grade 3 in the Court Service will continue to be made by the permanent secretary on the basis of performance against objectives and on advice from the chief executive, taking into account job weight and loading.
  686
  The pay of staff in the Court Service below grade 3 is currently determined in accordance with a number of national pay agreements negotiated by the Treasury. The provisions of these agreements are described in the "Civil Service Management Code", a copy of which is in the Library. Under the agreements staff receive pay increases in accordance with their personal performance, measured in terms of the overall "box mark" in their annual report. The maximum increases which may currently be awarded to individual staff in the main grades employed in the Court Service are as shown in the following table.

  Grade

  Box Mark

  London £

  National £

  Grade 4

  Box 1

  3,786

  3,786

  Box 2

  3,029

  3,029

  Box 3

  2,272

  2,272

  Grade 5

  Box 1

  2,851

  2,851

  Box 2

  2,281

  2,281

  Box 3

  1,711

  1,711

  Grade 6

  Box 1

  2,398

  2,398

  Box 2

  1,918

  1,918

  Box 3

  1,439

  1,439

  Grade 7

  Box 1

  1,950

  1,950

  Box 2

  1,560

  1,560

  Box 3

  1,170

  1,170

  SEO

  Box 1

  1,919

  1,844

  Box 2

  1,478

  1,419

  Box 3

  832

  798

  HEO

  Box 1

  1,535

  1,472

  Box 2

  1,182

  1,133

  Box 3

  665

  637

  EO

  Box 1

  1,120

  1,075

  Box 2

  862

  826

  Box 3

  484

  465

  AO

  Box 1

  1,003

  938

  Box 2

  771

  721

  Box 3

  554

  509

  AA

  Box 1

  792

  740

  Box 2

  609

  568

  Box 3

  431

  402

  Bailiff

  Box 1

  1,062

  992

  Box 2

  816

  763

  Box 3

  576

  539

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost of the Court Service for the current financial year; what the cost has been for each of the last five financial years; and what the planned cost of the Court Service agency will be for each of the next three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figures requested are set out in the table.

  £000

  1989–90

  396,125

  1990–91

  453,970

  1991–92

  544,626

  687

  £000

  1992–93

  586,199

  1993–94

  581,656

  1994–95

  1598,411

  1995–96

  2627,024

  1996–97

  2632,298

  1997–98

  2632,254

  1Estimated.

  2Planned.

  The figures showing the planned expenditure from 1995–96 onwards cannot be compared directly with the current and previous year's expenditure. The Court Service becomes an executive agency on 3 April 1995, and a number of the central functions which are currently provided by the Departments; headquarters will transfer on that date to the Court Service's headquarters.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Department began paying rent on the new Court Service agency headquarters; what the yearly rent is; how long the lease is for; when Court Service staff are to move in; and what is the cost of furnishing and equipping the headquarters for its first two years of operation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Court Service headquarters will be accommodated in an office building in which the Department had leased space since 1989; two additional floors were acquired in the building in 1994. However, as part of providing a separate headquarters for the Court Service, the Department has retionalised its departmental headquarters accommodation, which will result in savings.

  The rental costs of the accommodation that will ultimately be allocated to the Court Service headquarters is approximately£2 million per annum. There are several leases under which the accommodation is held, all due to expire in 2003–4.

  Some of the staff who will be working in the Court Service have already moved into their proposed headquarters accommodation; the remainder, currently accommodated in buildings elsewhere on the estate, will be moved into the building as part of the on-going rationalisation process over the remaining months of this year.

  The cost of furnishing and equipping the Court Service headquarters is anticipated to be minimal as staff moving into the Court Service headquarters building have taken, and will continue to take, furniture and equipment with them from their previous locations.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what office rental and other administrative savings are being made by moving Court Service staff to new Court Service agency headquarters.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The setting up of a headquarters for the Court Service has taken place at the same time as a wider rationalisation of the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters estate. This is anticipated to provide estimated savings of £1.8 million in 1995–96. These savings include office rental and estimated administrative costs.

TRANSPORT

  M62
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had from the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority in regard to the proposed M62 relief road; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority wrote to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 10 February requesting an early announcement about the future of the proposed M62 relief road.

  The authority was advised that on 22 June 1994 my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) announced further studies of the M62 which are now in progress. The studies are expected to take about two years to complete. The authority is among those who have been invited to assist in the work.

  Roads
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many priority road building schemes due to start this year he now expects will begin construction this year.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 16 March 1995:
  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, how many priority 1 road building schemes due to start this year he now anticipates will begin construction this year.
  The 'Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review' did not give a Priority to any of the schemes listed as agreed 1994/95 starts.
  On 2 March 1995 Mr. Watts announced a revised target of 13 new starts this year. I expect to have awarded contracts for all these schemes by the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he estimates it will cost his Department this year to compensate house owners for the loss of value on their property due to road-building projects.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 16 March 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, how much he anticipates it will cost his Department this year to compensate house owners for the loss of value on their property due to road building projects.
  Compensation for loss of value is not separately identified from expenditure on acquisition of property in central budgets or expenditure returns. Therefore, I am sorry that this information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the targets for progress set for priority road building schemes planned this year will now be achieved on schedule
  689
  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 16 March 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, how many of the targets for progress set for Priority 1 road building schemes planned this year will now be achieved on schedule.
  Mr. Watts announced on 2 March a revised set of milestones for the Agency. Of the 33 milestones set for Priority 1 schemes the Agency has already met 29 and expects to meet another one before the end of the financial year. The 3 remaining schemes have been delayed to accommodate further traffic appraisal.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) letters and (b) other forms of representation he has received since 1 January (i) in favour of and (ii) against the western route bypass for Newbury, Berkshire.

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1 January we have received some 230 letters and 2,400 pre-printed postcards supporting the western bypass route for Newbury. Most of these came from the local Newbury area. We have also received some 220 letters opposing the western bypass route for Newbury. About half of these came from outside the local area.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to give RAF Northolt a subsidiary passenger role in relation to Heathrow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no such plans. We are considering responses to last year's consultation exercise on the scope for a civil enclave for business aviation within the existing infrastructure at Northolt, and hope to make a statement on that shortly.

  Airline Operators
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions United Kingdom-registered airline operators have been(a) granted and (b) refused permission to operate aircraft registered in countries outside the European Union.

  Mr. Norris
  Between 1 January and 31 December 1994 a total of 40 applications were received for the use of non-EU registered aircraft by United Kingdom airlines. Eight were for Swedish or Norwegian-registered aircraft to which the EC third aviation package applied from August 1993. These figures do not include late, short-term substitutions for aircraft which had become unserviceable due to technical problems. With one exception, all these applications were granted.

  Joint Aviation Requirements
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the legal implications of the joint aviation requirements which are now being promoted by the Civil Aviation Authority; and what assessment he has made of whether they should be adopted in the United Kingdom.
  690
  Mr. Norris
  Joint aviation requirements are complex technical requirements agreed by the joint aviation authorities. There are several draft JARs currently being developed by the JAA. The Civil Aviation Authority participates fully in the development of the JARs and makes a thorough assessment of their implications. The United Kingdom will not approve a JAR unless the CAA is satisfied that it would enable the UK to maintain its very high level of aviation safety.

WALES

  Civil Actions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil actions for damages arising from alleged medical negligence were started against each NHS trust in Wales in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not held centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was paid out in damages by each NHS trust in Wales in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information as soon as possible. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultation he has had with the member at the European Commission responsible for regional development in relation to the calculation of European regional development fund receipts to the Welsh development agency in those financed years where no European regional development fund programme has yet been agreed;

  (2) what consultation he has had with the European Commission in relation to the anticipation of European regional development fund receipts by the Welsh development agency; and what agreement he has reached as to the level of fund receipts anticipated in the agency's corporate plan; and

  (3) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh development agency regarding the methods of estimating receipts from the European regional development fund to the agency in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the incidence of breast cancer in Wales and the success rate of its treatment, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom; and what plans there are to introduce stem cell removal and replacement treatment after high dose chemotherapy, with a view to its establishment as a clinical treatment for breast cancer under the national health service.
  691
  Mr. Redwood
  The incidence of breast cancer in Wales is above the average for England and Wales. Information on the success rate of treatment, either in Wales or in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, is not centrally held. The national breast screening programme, undertaken in Wales by Breast Test Wales, is enhancing the prognosis for women in the most vulnerable age group through early detection of the disease.

  I am advised that high dose chemotherapy involving stem cell removal and replacement is a relatively new procedure. In some rarer tumours the technique is becoming well established but for the most common cancers, including breast cancer, treatment is advised only as part of a properly designed clinical trial.

  Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) if he will make a statement on the appointment of the chairmen of the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff Royal Infirmary trust and the Cardiff community healthcare trust;

  (2) what information he had in relation to the political party affiliation of the successful candidates for appointment as the chairmen of the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff Royal Infirmary trust and the Cardiff community healthcare trust prior to their appointment; what account he took of it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Posts to chair the University Hospital of Wales and Cardiff Royal Group NHS trust and the Cardiff community healthcare NHS trust were advertised in the national and local press in December 1994. Both the successful candidates applied, along with over 40 others. A panel of officials chaired by the accounting officer for the NHS in Wales conducted a sift of applicants and recommended a shortlist of candidates to Ministers.

  Candidates were interviewed before appointments were made. The Welsh Officer does not seek information about the political affiliations of candidates for public appointment, as it is not relevant.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for appointing a chairman to the vacant post of chairman of Bridgend and District NHS trust.

  Mr. Redwood
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Morriston Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 2 March,Official Report, column 1281, to the Morriston hospital cardiac surgery unit, what is his current estimate of capital expenditure on the unit during (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Morriston NHS trust which has not yet determined the profile of capital expenditure.

  Browning Ferris plc
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors he will take into account in considering the award of an operating licence to Browning Ferris plc in Newport; and when he expects to announce his decision.
  692
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's principal concern is to establish whether the plant can be operated without pollution of water or danger to public health. In determining this, he will take account of all relevant factors. His decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Housing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the United Nation's Target 2000 housing strategy; and if he will make a statement on how his Department is seeking to meet this target.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Federation of Housing referred to the target in a report which it discussed with me in January. The Government's aims and objectives for housing in Wales are set out in "An Agenda for Action", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what clawback arrangements will apply to the payment of a derelict land clearance grant for land reclamation and asbestos removal at the Blue Circle site at Rhoose; when Blue Circle Industries acquired the site; on what date it first enquired about derelict land clearance grants to(a) his Department and (b) the Welsh development agency; and what consultations there have been with the two relevant local authorities concerning the after-use of the site.

  Mr. Redwood
  The administration of the land reclamation programme in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh development agency. I have, therefore, asked the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were removed from the treatment lists of their general practitioners in 1990 and in each of the succeeding years.

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of(a) the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and (b) the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the repayment of part of the grant paid to Grosvenor Waterside plc for the development of Crickhowell house in cognisance of (i) roof leaks, (ii) wall leaks, (iii) window leaks and (iv) basement leaks in Crickhowell house; and what notification his Department has had of negotiations in relation to such building defects.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Any building defect is a matter for Grosvenor Waterside to resolve with the parties responsible for the design and construction of the building.

  Crown Buildings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the installation work being
  693
  carried out in that section of the Crown Buildings, Cathays park occupied by the information technology branch of NCM Ltd. prior to its transfer to Llanishen.

  Mr. Redwood
  NCM is carrying out some preparatory work for its move from Cathays park.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for changes to the local authority capital—WO/LACAP—and Housing for Wales—WO/HFW—cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The cash limit for WO/LACAP will be reduced by £5,437,000 from £490,215,000 to £484,778,000 and the cash limit for WO/HFW will be increased correspondingly by £5,437,000 from £120,740,000 to £126,177,000.

  These changes reflect a transfer a provision from local authorities to Housing for Wales which enables housing associations to provide additional housing units.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Internal Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer of 22nd February,Official Report, column 245, if he will give details of the charges made against the 16 staff of his Department prosecuted for fraud and the outcome of the legal actions.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1 April 1994, 34 staff have been prosecuted for matters relating to benefit fraud. The charges and results of the prosecutions are:

  No.

  Case Charges

  Outcome

  1

  Theft and deception

  Awaiting trial

  2

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  3

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  4

  Deception

  Warrant out for arrest

  5

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  6

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  7

  Deception

  Adjourned

  8

  Deception

  Final hearing awaited

  9

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  10

  Deception

  Warrant out for arrest

  11

  Deception

  Conditional discharge

  12

  Deception

  Awaiting trial

  13

  Deception

  £110 fine and £120 costs

  14

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  15

  Aiding and Abetting

  £150 fine and £30 costs

  16

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  17

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  18

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Discharged

  19

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  20

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  21

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  22

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  23

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  24

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Two years imprisonment

  25

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Adjourned

  26

  Conspiracy to defraud and deception

  Awaiting trial

  27

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  28

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  29

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  694

  No.

  Case Charges

  Outcome

  30

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  31

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  32

  Conspiracy to defraud

  Awaiting trial

  33

  Theft and deception

  9 months imprisonment

  34

  Theft and false accounting

  Awaiting trial

  Residential Care Homes
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he proposes to revise the fees available for retirement pensioners in residential homes to meet the actual costs of the accommodation and services provided;

  (2) if he will identify his expectations of the liability of the state for retirement pensioners living in residential homes after their assets had run out in each year up to 2002;

  (3) if he will estimate the additional cost to public funds at current rates, if his Department matched the real costs met by retirement pensioners in residential homes.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I infer that these questions are about the higher levels of income support, which are available to people living in residential care and nursing homes on 31 March 1993 with preserved rights. These range between £194 and £262 for residential care homes and £290 and £325 for nursing homes with higher amounts available in London.

  All income support limits are reviewed each year taking account of a variety of available information as well as representations from interested parties. Any extra help is targeted within available resources at specific groups where the need is greatest. All the limits will be increased in April. It has never been the intention to meet all fees, however high they may be set. That would be an unrealistic commitment.

  We will continue to look carefully at these amounts each year as part of the uprating exercise. Any increases which result from that uprating will apply equally to people living in registered residential care homes on 31 March 1993 who were self-supporting at that time but who need to claim income support at a later date when their assets run out. Forecasts about the state's liability are not appropriate in these circumstances.

  The estimated additional cost to public funds if the Department were the meet the full costs charged to people above pension age in residential care homes would be £56 million and for those in nursing homes £79 million. These figures are based on the February 1994 income support quarterly statistical inquiry, and reflect the limits in payment at that time. The figures assume that homeowners do not make further increases in charges.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the aggregate spending of his Department on residential and nursing home care in the financial year 1992-93.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated annual expenditure for those in residential care and nursing homes in receipt of income support including other social security pensions and benefits taken into account, for 1992-93 was £3.05 billion.
  695
  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  Expenditure (Water and Sewerage)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested for the current year is available only for the period up to and including 31 January 1995.

  Period

  Departmental costs

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  2,788,734

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  3,081,113

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  2,852,609

  1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995

  2,409,267

  Mullahs
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the entitlement to benefits of Pakistani mullahs who have been issued visas to preach in mosques in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Visiting mullahs are admitted to the United Kingdom under the immigration rules for up to six months as a visitor on the understanding that they do not become a charge on public funds. They are not entitled to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit. They would not be entitled to contributory benefits because they would not have paid British national insurance contributions.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost and how many individuals would be successful in claims of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) sickness benefit and (c) invalidity benefit through qualification of sickness benefit if the pre-1988 contribution rules were re-established.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: The estimated cost and caseload increases of restoring the pre-1988 contribution conditions are given in the tables:

  Table 1: Effects of restoration of pre-1988 National Insurance contribution conditions on claims to and cost of unemployment benefit

  Gross cost (£million)

  115

  Net cost (£million)

  20

  Increase in unemployment benefit recipients

  45,000

  Notes:

  The following assumptions have been made:

  1. Costs have been rounded to the nearest £5 million and caseloads to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Calculations are based on an unemployment benefit caseload of 500,000.

  3. Calculations have been based on data taken from the 1992-93 National Insurance Recording System data-base, the 1993 Annual Statistical Enquiry and the 1990/91/92 Family Expenditure Surveys, updated to 1994–95 prices and benefit levels.

  696

  4. Some people who would satisfy revised contribution conditions may be disallowed, or disqualified for, unemployment benefit on other grounds (eg leaving work voluntarily, misconduct, compensation from an employer).

  5. The figures are an under-estimate as no allowance can be made for people who sign as unemployed for the first time as s result of the change in contribution conditions.

  Table 2: Effects of restoration of pre-1988 National Insurance contribution conditions on claims to and cost of incapacity benefit

  Long-run gross cost (£ million)

  500

  Long-run net cost (£ million)

  100

  Estimated number of successful new Short-term (lower rate) Incapacity Benefit claims (per annum)

  50,000

  Long run increase in number of longer term Incapacity Benefit recipients

  100,000

  Notes:

  1. "Longer term incapacity benefit" means those receiving short-term (higher rate) and long-term incapacity benefit.

  The following assumptions have been made:

  1. Costs have been rounded to the nearest £50 million and caseloads to the nearest 50,000.

  2. Calculations have been based on data taken from the 1992–93 National Insurance Recording System data-base, and the 1993 Annual Statistical Enquiry, updated to 1994–95 prices and benefit levels.

  3. New entitlements come from either the current severe disablement allowance caseload or from those, registering as sick, who are less than 80 per cent. disabled and who currently have insufficient contributions.

  4. Allowance has been made of the effect of the incapacity benefit changes and the expected effect of the new medical test on the long-term Incapacity Benefit caseload.

  5. The new contribution conditions for the lower rate of short-term incapacity benefit are assumed to apply to long-term incapacity benefit. This means that all those who get lower rate of short-term incapacity benefit will move onto long-term incapacity benefit as long as their incapacity continues.

  6. The figures are an under-estimate as no allowance can be made for people registering as sick for the first time as a result of the change in the contribution conditions.

  7. These estimates are highly uncertain and should be treated with extreme caution.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the net value after repayment of loans of the social fund budget for 1994–95; and what percentage this was of the net value of the social fund budget for 1988–89.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The net value of the social fund discretionary budget in 1994–95 was £140 million. This is equivalent to 112 per cent. of the net social fund discretionary budget of £125 million for 1988–89.

  The improved recovery of loans means that over this period the gross discretionary budget increased from £203 million to £368 million, an increase of over 81 per cent. The recycling of loans has allowed more people to get more help while protecting the public purse.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current total number of staff employed by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)
  697
  by Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive on 7 March 1995, Official Report, column 165.

  Appointments
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to appoint a new chairman of the social security advisory committee.

  Mr. Lilley
  The current chairman of the social security advisory committee, Mr. Michael Bett, will be giving up his post following his appointment as First Civil Service Commissioner. He has agreed to continue as chairman until a suitable successor is found. I shall be advertising the post nationally.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the statutory sick pay entitlement for individuals undertaking the Government's youth training scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  For trainees who have employed status and are paid wages by their employer while on youth training, entitlement to statutory sick pay is assessed on the same basis as for any other employee employed under a contract of service. The remaining trainees, who have non-employed or self-employed status and receive a training allowance, are excluded from entitlement to SSP.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants received sums for income support for mortgage interest under the deserted partners rule allowing interest on normally ineligible loans to be paid to the remaining partner, in 1994–95 and in each of the five preceeding years;

  (2) what was the average expenditure on income support for mortgage interest for each claimant who received a payment of income support for mortgage interest under the deserted partner rule in 1994–95 and in each year of the five preceeding years;

  (3) what was the total expenditure on income support for mortgage interest under the deserted partner rule in 1994–95 and in each of the five preceeding years; and what percentage of total expenditure on income support for mortgage interest it represented in each of these years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information collected on income support mortgage interest paid to claimants does not differentiate the amounts paid for otherwise ineligible loans. The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the methods by which his Department is monitoring the outcomes of the appeals made by British nationals who are refused income support because they have failed to satisfy the habitual residence test.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The independent tribunal service identifies appeals according to the benefit involved at the appeals tribunal stage but does not categorise the reason for each appeal.

  School Meals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of extending access to free school meals to children whose parents are in receipt of family credit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Around £120 million a year.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the hack-to-work bonus under the jobseeker's allowance will affect claims for(a) family credit and (b) housing benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The back-to-work bonus will be treated as capital for the purposes of claims to income-related benefits. Bonus payments made to people who move from jobseeker's allowance or income support into work and claim family credit and housing benefit will be disregarded as capital for 52 weeks from date of receipt.

  Where a claimant returns to income-based jobseekers allowance or income support after claiming the bonus, the payment will be taken fully into account in assessing the claimant's capital resources. Any person qualifying for these benefits will continue to be entitled to maximum help with rent as now.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the total cost to each local authority in England and Wales of making payments to housing benefit claimants under regulation 11 to the Housing Benefit General Regulations and in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials of his Department in each of the last 30 years have been prosecuted for making fraudulent benefit claims.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1995, c. 245]: I regret that the information provided was incorrect. The correct information is as follows.

  The figures requested are not available for any of the past 30 years. However, the Benefits Agency recently conducted a special survey to ascertain how many staff were prosecuted for benefit fraud, including instrument of payment fraud and benefit fraud where the member of staff was involved in fraudulent benefit claims by others, since 1 April 1994. There were 34 such prosecutions.

HEALTH

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of her Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following the splitting of the Department of Health from the Department of Social
  699
  Security, expenditure on water and sewerage was not separately recorded from expenditure on other utilities. Information for 1991–92 is therefore not available. Expenditure by the Department in subsequent years is shown in the table. The figures include expenditure by the Department's agencies with the exception of the NHS Estates agency. The landlord of the building occupied by NHS Estates levies a single, fixed service charge, and does not separately bill the agency for water and sewerage.

  1992–93: £334,9201

  1993–94: £102,233

  1994–9522: £66,120

  1 This figure included overpayment in respect of the London estate, as a result of which expenditure in subsequent years has been reduced.
  2 Year to date.

  NHS Complaints
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects to announce the Government's response to the review of the national health service complaints system.

  Mr. Malone
  Shortly.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of complaints about the NHS in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  The latest information available about numbers of complaints about the national health service are shown in the tables. The rise can be attributed to the increase of patient awareness and confidence due to the patients charter.

  Family Health Services: Number of complaints investigated formally:
  1991: 2,205
  1992: 1,974
  1993: 2,520

  Hospital Complaints:
  1990–91: 37,350
  1991–92: 51,130
  1992–93: 58,443 Notes:
  1. Information for 1994 for family health services will be available in the autumn, and will be contained in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics", copies of which are routinely placed in the Library.
  2. Information on hospital complaints for 1993–94 will be available shortly.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on any aspects of NHS administration that arise from the necessity to transfer an accident victim in Orpington to Leeds Royal infirmary.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for identifying health care needs rests with the local health authorities who, together with local providers, should ensure there is sufficient provision. The South Thames region of the national health service executive is conducting a full investigation.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has to indicate how widespread is the practice of consultants refusing to accept on to their 700
  waiting lists patients referred by GPs for non-urgent operations on the basis that this would extend the waiting lists beyond Government guidelines of acceptability.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present waiting lists for hospitals in the borough of Barnet; and if she will estimate what she expects them to be in 1997.

  Mr. Malone
  Barnet General and Edgware General hospitals are both managed by the Wellhouse national health service trust. At 30 September 1994, there were 5,671 patients waiting for in-patient or day case treatment at the trust, of whom none were waiting more than 18 months. I expect further progress to be made in reducing waiting times at the trust.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were caused by solvent abuse(a) in Lancashire, (b) in the north-west and (c) in the United Kingdom in respect of those aged (i) under 16, (ii) 16 to 24 and (iii) 25 years and over for the years 1990 to 1995.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information for the last five years available is shown in the table:

  Age

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Lancashire

  Under 16

  2

  0

  2

  16–24

  3

  1

  1

  25 + over

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  Under 16

  6

  2

  5

  16–24

  9

  8

  8

  25 + over

  1

  3

  1

  United Kingdom

  Under 16

  47

  44

  19

  16–24

  98

  55

  45

  25 + over

  6

  22

  15

  Total

  151

  121

  79

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what price increase the London ambulance service is imposing for its emergency service; how much extra each London district health authority will have to pay; what choice they have about paying it; what considerations have caused the Government not to pay directly to rectify any problems in the emergency service in respect of the London ambulance service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for district health authorities in London and the London ambulance service to agree contracts.

  Private Patients
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to NHS trust hospitals directly from(a) private hospitals and (b) private beds in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.
  701
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were on private patients in NHS facilities in each of the last four years(a) in total, (b) by region and (c) by district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested in total and by region is published in "Hospital Episodes Statistics, Volume 1"; copies for the four latest years of published data to 1992–93 are available in the Library. The corresponding information by district health authority is not available centrally.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the income from private patient activity in each NHS trust and directly managed unit for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 13 January, columns 267–68.

  Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 February,Official Report, columns 355-56, if she will list the health statistics in the categories in the answer for the top five district health authorities or family health service authorities as appropriate.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.a) the five district health authorities with the highest crude birth rates in 1993 were:

  Crude birth rate1

  East London and City

  19.3

  West Birmingham

  18.2

  East Birmingham

  17.9

  North Manchester

  17.3

  South East London

  16.7

  England

  13.1

  1 Number of births per 1,000 population of all ages.

  b) The five local authority areas in England with the highest number of notifications of tuberculosis in 1993 were:

  Notifications of tuberculosis

  Birmingham

  319

  Bradford

  164

  Leicester

  162

  Newham

  137

  Brent

  129

  Data for district health authorities are not available.
  c) The five district health authorities with the highest conception rates to women under 20 in England, 1991, were:

  Conception rates1

  North Manchester

  139.2

  City and Hackney

  113.9

  West Lambeth

  112.4

  Tower Hamlets

  111.4

  East Birmingham

  105.5

  England

  64.8

  702
  1 All conceptions to women under 20 per 1,000 females aged 15-19.

  d) Residents of three health districts accounted for 35 per cent. of all AIDS notifications in England and Wales in 1993. The districts were:
  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster
  Camden and Islington
  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow
  e) The six district health authorities in England with the highest rates of perinatal mortality1 in 1993 were:

  Perinatal mortality rates

  West Birmingham

  14.9

  South Birmingham

  14.1

  Central Manchester

  13.8

  Gateshead

  13.3

  South Manchester

  13.2

  Worcester and District

  13.2

  1 Per 1,000 live and still births

  Clinical Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which clinical and clinical support services which have been market tested are now(a) viewed as suitable for privatisation in the future or (b) available for tender to private contractors in 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  None—contracts for clinical and clinical support services awarded as a result of a market testing exercise remain national health service contracts whether they are won in-house or by another public or private contractor. At the end of the relevant contract
  period, they will again be subject to fresh market testing under NHS arrangements.

  We have been advised of local plans to market test some 20 clinical and clinical support services for 1994–95.

  Long-Term Care
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were received from individuals and from organisations concerning the draft guidance on long–term care of the elderly; and how many were opposed to the Department's proposals.

  Mr. Bowis
  A total of 182 responses were received from both individuals and organisations in response to our invitation for comments on the draft guidance on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs. We considered very carefully the range of views expressed on the draft guidance in finalising HSG(95)8/LAC(95)5, which was issued on 23 February 1995. Copies are available in the Library. The guidance has been widely welcomed.

  Hospital Staff (Recruitment)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by her Department, NHSE, district health authorities and trusts on recruiting hospital staff from overseas in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to her Department and the NHS
  703
  of management consultants advising on market testing of (a) clinical and clinical support services and (b) other NHS services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and national health service summary accounts do not separately record expenditure on management consultancy advice for market testing issues.

  Consultancy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost estimated by the Audit Commission or her Department on management consultants by her Department, NHSE, regional Health authorities, district health authorities, family health service authorities, trusts and general practitioner fundholders in the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and the national health service executive, however, have spent the following amounts from running costs on consultancy in the last three years;

  1991–92: £24,258,000

  1992–93: £18,399,000

  1993–94: £15,933,037

  Information is not available centrally about expenditure on management consultants by regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities, trust and general practitioner fundholders.

  Operation Cancellations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many operations were cancelled on the day of or after the date the patient was due to be admitted to hospital by regional health authority, district health authority and in total; and how many were not re-admitted with one month during each quarter since March 1993.

  Mr. Malone
  This information was not collected in the form requested until April 1994 when the national patients charter standard on cancelled operations was improved so that a patient whose operation is cancelled for non-medical reasons on the day of, or after, admission is admitted for treatment within one month of the first cancellation. The information from 1 April 1994 will be placed in the Library. Performance against this patients charter standard is being kept under review.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional office the latest waiting times for each fundholder procedure for(a) patients funded by health authorities and (b) patients funded by general practitioner fundholders.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what was the total amount of savings made by fundholders in the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 November 1994, columns 321-22 and on 14 March, column 545.
  704
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she will give the aggregate level of savings by fundholding general practitioners in each family health service authority for the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what was the number of general practitioner fundholding practices and the amount of savings(a) by family health service authority and (b) in total for (i) 1991–92, (ii) 1992–93 and (iii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 15 March for information on the number of general practitioner fundholding practices.

  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members, to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 November 1994, columns 321-22 which provides information on fundholder savings at regional health authority level in 1991–92 and 1992–93. Information on fundholder savings at family health services authority level for these years is not available centrally.

  The requested information on fundholder savings for 1993–94 will be placed in the Library. Nationally, retained savings in 1993–94 equalled £64.2 million, about 3.5 per cent. of budgets set—similar to the levels of efficiency savings made by fundholders in the first two years of the scheme.

  Savings may be spent only after external audit of the fundholding account by the Audit Commission. Fundholder savings are held by FHSAs on behalf of the patients of fundholders and may be retained for up to four years. With the agreement of the regional health authority, savings may be used for the benefit of patients of the practice as outlined in the practice's annual business plan.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what difficulties she has identified in integrating special hospitals into the internal market; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what are her plans regarding the status of special hospitals; what is the timescale for changes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on 3 February, column 872.

  Edgware
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the present capitation formula for Edgware is calculated; and what evidence she has on whether the census figures for 1991 still represent the true picture in the case of the London borough of Barnet.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1995–96, the modified national weighted capitation formula has been used to set targets for regional health authorities. It is for North Thames RHA to determine both its own sub-regional formula and how much funding is to be made available to its district health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman of North Thames regional health authority.

  The population base used for revenue resource allocation is the mid-year sub-national population

  705
  projections, that is mid-1995 for 1995–96. These are currently based on the 1991 census, however, they do take account of assumed rates of births, deaths and migration since 1991.

  Minor Accident Treatment Service Units
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the minimum number of staff at any one time at a minor accident treatment service unit: what is the level of qualification of those staff; and whether it is part of their responsibility to diagnose acute medical conditions.

  Mr. Sackville
  These aspects are determined by individual hospital trusts according to local needs.

  Grading Appeals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will estimate how long it will take until all the outstanding nurses' grading appeals have been heard; and what steps she is taking to speed up the waiting times;

  (2) how many nurses' grading appeals have not been heard; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 1 March 1995, there were just over 2,500 nurse grading appeals in England which were still unresolved. This is about half of the number outstanding a year ago. The Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council is operating an agreed appeals mechanism for clearing all outstanding appeals. The aim is for all appeals to be cleared by 31 December 1995.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses' grading appeals have been conducted since 1988; and how many were outstanding in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1988, approximately 98,000 nurse clinical grading appeals have been heard. Information on the number of appeals outstanding at the end of the last three years is shown in the table. Comparable information is not available for 1990 and 1991.

  Outstanding nurses and midwives clinical grading appeals (England)

  Year ending

  Number of appeals outstanding

  31 December 1992

  21,326

  31 December 1993

  4,819

  31 December 1994

  2,964

  The aim is for all appeals to be cleared by 31 December 1995.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to secure the financial future of NHS trusts against medical negligence claims; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The management of medical negligence claims is a matter for individual trusts. At present, where 706
  a trust has, in any financial year, to pay claims with a total value in excess of 0.5 per cent. of its turnover, the trust may apply to the national health service executive for a loan in order to spread the cost of meeting the claims. A scheme is being developed under section 21 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 for trusts to pool the financial liabilities arising out of clinical negligence. Discussions are continuing on the details of the proposals and if trusts are sufficiently supportive, the scheme is likely to be introduced in 1995–96 on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid out in damages by each NHS trust in England in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c)

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

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil actions for damages arising from alleged medical negligence were started against each NHS trust in England in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c)

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the current(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of each trust board by region, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: The latest information available centrally will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those trust boards that currently have vacancies for chairs and non-executive directors; and whether the posts will be filled under the new appointments regime.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him earlier, for details of vacancies on the boards of national health service trusts. All appointments made after 1 April will be in accordance with new guidelines on appointments procedures.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the current(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of each trust board by region, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: The latest information available centrally will be placed in the Library.

  Immunisation and Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the effect of the GP contract on immunisation and cancer screening services.

  Mr. Malone
  When the new general practitioner contract was introduced in 1990, 89 per cent. of GPs met targets for childhood immunisation and 86 per cent. for cancer screening. By April 1993, this had increased to 96 per cent. of GPs meeting childhood immunisation targets and 98 per cent. cancer screening targets. This shows clearly the positive impact of the GP contract on these services.

  Chemotherapy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS trials are being conducted of treatment for breast cancer involving the removal and replacement of stem cells after high dose chemotherapy analogous to recent trials in the United States of America; and what plans she has to make this treatment available under the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 15 March,Official Report, column 549.

  NHS Accountants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accountants were employed within all sections of the NHS in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Malone
  In the years 1991 to 1994, the years for which information is available, some 1,463, 1,701, 2,176 and 2,174 staff in the national health service were recorded as holding qualifications recognised by the consultative committee of the accounting bodies.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 400, when she will publish data for 1993 on patients removed from general practitioners' lists.

  Mr. Malone
  Information for all family health services authorities for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Pinderfields Hospital
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will seek reports regarding the future of Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield from(a) the chair of the Yorkshire and Northern health region, (b) the chair of the Wakefield health authority and (c) the chair of the Pinderfields trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Wakefield Healthcare. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Brian Hayward, chairman of Wakefield Healthcare, for details.

  Non-elective admissions (general and acute) by region and quarter 1993–94 to 1994–95: England finished consultant episodes

  Thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Region1

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Northern and Yorkshire

  144

  149

  158

  154

  145

  145

  153

  Trent

  93

  89

  98

  96

  97

  96

  102

  Anglia and Oxford

  88

  91

  96

  95

  95

  93

  95

  North Thames

  113

  123

  127

  128

  128

  134

  136

  South Thames

  116

  116

  125

  116

  119

  118

  123

  South and West

  118

  125

  124

  126

  124

  125

  130

  West Midlands

  104

  100

  109

  106

  102

  106

  111

  North West

  144

  144

  158

  150

  150

  154

  161

  England

  918

  937

  994

  971

  961

  972

  1,010

  1The table shows admissions in each region not including data from the special health authorities.

  Form FP10
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total estimated cost of printing and distributing the amended form FP1O required to be available as from 1 April next; what was the total cost of printing and distributing the forms that the amended FP1O will replace; and what representations she has received from professional bodies about the lack of consultation over the design and content of amended FP1O prior to printing.

  Mr. Malone
  No new costs have been incurred by introducing a revised print of form FP10. At about £1.38 million, the costs of printing and distributing the forms for 1995–96 are expected to be some 11 per cent. higher than in 1994–95 because of a rise in the cost of paper.

  Representations have been received from the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee with whom there are on-going consultations about the new arrangements.

  NHS Supplies Contracts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total value of contracts placed by the NHS Supplies Authority for cash registers and other accounting devices in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority was set up in October 1991, and has no specific contracts for cash registers or accounting devices.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the change in emergency admissions to hospital by regional health authority and in total for each quarter of 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: The table shows numbers of non-elective admissions in the general and acute specialties for each regional health authority in England and in total, using information collected by the national health service executive.

  For England as a whole, the national proportion of non-elective admissions in relation to total admissions has remained at about 47 per cent. for all the period.

DEFENCE

  Nerve Agents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GB at the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GB were used at this research; when the results of this research were shared with other countries; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GB at the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GB were used at this research; when the results of this research were shared with other countries; and under which Defence Agreements these results were exchanged, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The research work carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Nancekuke involving the nerve agent GB focused on the following:

  (a) Developing a specification for the materials used in the preparation process.

  (b) To study the impurities and by-products found in the GB product.

  (c) To examine alternative preparation processes and to compare the differences in the GB product.

  (d) To study the amount of GB in the by-products from the preparations.

  (e) To investigate the storage of GB.

  (f) To study the corrosion properties of materials used in the construction of the GB preparation facility.

  4. During the period 1951–1956 some 20 tonnes of GB were produced. Most of this was used in the storage studies and then subsequently destroyed.

  5. After 1956 some research on the stability of GB continued until 1979 when the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke closed. The results of the research and studies into GB were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 888, what was the conclusion of the studies to find out if it was easier to produce the nerve agent GE than the nerve agent GB; in which years these studies were carried out; and when the results of these studies were exchanged with Canada and the United States of America under the tripartite conferences on toxicological warfare.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  710
  Letter from Graham Pearson to Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 3 February, Official Report, column 888, what was the conclusion of the studies to find out if it was easier to produce the nerve agent GE than the nerve agent GB; in which years these studies were carried out; and when the results of these studies were exchanged with Canada and the United States of America under the Tripartite Conferences on Toxicological Warfare, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The studies to determine whether it was easier to produce the nerve agent GE rather than the nerve agent GB confirmed that this was not the case. Earlier studies had suggested that the phosphorus intermediate ethyl derivative was simpler to synthesise but when alternative processes were explored it was found that the primary intermediates for GB (methylphosphonic difluoride and methylphosphonic dichloride) could be more readily produced.

  4. These studies took place during the late 1940s and early 1950s and the exchange of this data with the USA and Canada under the Tripartite Conferences would have taken place during this period.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the names of the experiments carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on service volunteers with the incapacitating agent BZ since 1965; in which years each of these experiments took place; how many service volunteers were involved; what was the nature of these experiments; what were the conclusions of these studies; and what follow-up checks were conducted on these service volunteers in the years after they left Porton Down to monitor the long-term effect of the experiments on their mental and physical health.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what were the names of the experiments carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on Service volunteers with the incapacitating agent BZ since 1965; in which years each of these experiments took place; how many Service volunteers were involved; what was the nature of these experiments; what were the conclusions of these studies; and what follow-up checks were conducted on these Service volunteers in the years after they left Porton Down to monitor the long-term effect of the experiments on their mental and physical health, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. This work includes the evaluation of the potential hazard of possible agents such as the incapacitating agent BZ.

  3. Studies involving Service volunteers and BZ since 1965 were not given a specific operational name. Our records indicate that 4 Service volunteers were given BZ between 1965 and 1967. No studies involving Service volunteers have taken place since 1967.

  4. The purpose of the studies was to assess the effects of a potential agent which might affect the volunteers' behaviour. The conclusion of the evaluation of BZ was that it could affect the behaviour of Service personnel and as such presented a potential hazard which should not be ignored in considering the potential hazards to which UK Forces might be exposed.

  711

  5. The volunteers were examined before and after the tests by the resident Army psychiatrist and no indication of any continuing effect was observed. There have been no reports of any subsequent sequelae from any of the volunteers.

  Service volunteers return to their units on completion of the study, where they are, medically, the responsibility of the unit Medical Officer. There is no history of Service doctors in their units seeking advice from CBDE Porton Down on any subsequent illnesses that may have been reported by volunteers who have been exposed to agent during studies at CBDE.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, columns 887–88, in which scientific journals the results of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's studies on nerve agent pre-treatment sets were published; when NAPS was first issued for use by the armed forces; in which years the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries; and under which defence agreement these results were shared.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 3 February, Official Report, columns 887–8, in which scientific journals the results of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's studies on NAPS were published; when NAPS was first issued for use by the Armed Forces; in which years the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries; and under which Defence Agreement these results were shared, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. Our records indicate that the results of our studies on NAPS were published in the following scientific journals:

  a. Fundamentals of Applied Toxicology.

  b. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology.

  c. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.

  4. NAPS was first issued for use by the Armed Forces following its acceptance into service in August 1981.

  5. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our Allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the Rt Hon Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 255–256.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out on the nerve agent VX at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke; what quantity of the nerve agent VX has been used in this research at Porton Down; when the results of this research were exchanged with other countries; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what research has been carried out on the nerve
  712
  agent VX at the Chemical and Biological Establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke; what quantity of the nerve agent VX has been used in this research at Porton Down; when the results of this research were exchanged with other countries; and under which Defence Agreements these results were exchanged, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Since the closure of the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke in 1980 research on VX has covered all aspects concerned with the provision of effective protective measures against the threat that VX might be used by an aggressor against the UK Armed Forces. This has included hazard assessment, detection and identification, physical protection, contamination control and the use of prophylactic and medical countermeasures. Our records are not maintained in such a way as to readily identify the quantity of VX used since 1980. However, the quantity of VX used in research at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment from 1985 to the present day is about 1.25 Kgs.

  4. The results of this work were part of the chemical biological defence programme and have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the right hon. Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255-256.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1994,Official Report, columns 1176-77, why the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment felt it necessary to carry out further studies on the nerve agent pretreatment set at the Cambridge military hospital in 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 20 December, Official Report, columns 1176–7, why the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment felt it necessary to carry out further studies on the Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set at the Cambridge Military Hospital in 1993, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. The Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS) was developed in response to a requirement which called for a pretreatment effective against poisoning by all known nerve agents. A number of studies were conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to identify the effective oral dose regime which used

  713
  in conjunction with therapy would provide protection against nerve agent poisoning whilst producing minimal or nil side effects.
  4. The administration of NAPS during the Gulf conflict of 1990/91 confirmed the results of the NAPS studies previously carried out at CBDE and in various external trials in that the side effects from the taking of NAPS were minimal and did not interfere with military efficiency. However, the MOD considered that a further more extensive study should take place at the Cambridge Military Hospital in order to assess the significance of the side effects from the taking of NAPS over a longer period. The study lasted for eight weeks. The conclusions of the study confirm the earlier findings in that the side effects from the taking of NAPS were minimal and did not interfere with military efficiency.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 886, how many safety audits of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment have been carried out by the Safety Services Organisation of his Department since 1965.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 3 February, Official Report, column 886, how many safety audits of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment have been carried out by the Safety Services Organisation of his Department since 1965, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. Our records are not maintained in such a way as to easily provide the number of safety audits carried out since 1965 and to do so would involve disproportionate effort and cost.

  4. Since 1987, the Safety Services Organisation has carried out a total of 21 safety audits made up of individual audits in each of four broad areas which are general, range safety, explosives and fire services.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers have been involved in studies with the NBC suit No. 1 Mk 4 at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965; when these studies were carried out; what was the nature and conclusion of these studies; under which defence agreement the results of these studies were shared with other countries; and when this suit was issued for use by the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many Service volunteers have been involved in studies with the NBC suit No. 1, Mk 4, at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965; when these studies were carried out; what was the nature and conclusion of these studies; under which Defence Agreement the results of these studies were shared with other countries; and when this suit was issued to use by the Armed Forces, has been passed to me to answer
  714
  as Chief Executive. of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentration of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Studies into the Mk IV NBC suit involving Service volunteers began in the early 1980s. Since then approximately, 500 Service volunteers have been involved in studies of the Mk IV NBC suit at CBDE. The studies have investigated the physiological load imposed by wearing the Mk IV suit in various climatic conditions and the integrity of the complete ensemble when challenged with aerosols of sodium chloride and sodium fluorescein.
  4. Further studies have been conducted at intervals since the introduction into service of the Mk IV suit in 1987. The physiological trials confirmed previous findings that wearing extra clothing over normal combat clothing reduced work tolerance times under certain climatic conditions and the integrity trials confirmed that the various items of UK NBC protective equipment provide effective protection.
  5. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our Allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the Right Hon. Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the current Director-General of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is expected to retire; and what is the name and background of his appointed successor.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Establishment. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the current Director General of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, is expected to retire; and what is the name and background of his appointed successor, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. I shall retire on 19 July 1995 although I shall cease to be the Director General and Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on 31 March 1995. On I April 1995 CBDE becomes a division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) whose Chief Executive will be John Chisholm, currently Chief Executive of the Defence Research Agency (DRA). This division will include the present CBDE and the Chemical and Electronic Systems Sector of the current DRA.

  4.I shall be replaced at Porton Down by Dr Graham D Coley who will become the Managing Director of CBDE. His background includes 20 years at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, (Aldermaston) in a number of scientific and managerial posts,

  715
  followed by various posts in Whitehall, including being Deputy Head of the Efficiency Unit in the Prime Minister's Office, and latterly Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Projects) in the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years since 1965 the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out studies with service volunteers at Bulford; what was the purpose and conclusion of these studies; how many studies were carried out there; and how many service volunteers were involved in these tests.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which years since 1965 the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out studies with Service volunteers at Bulford; what was the purpose and conclusions of these studies; how many studies were carried out there; and how many Service volunteers were involved in these tests, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.

  3. In a previous answer (Official Report, 24 June 1994, column 374–5); I said that studies involving Service volunteers took place inter alia at Bulford. A further check of our records has now shown that a transcription error occurred and that the Service volunteer studies took place at Bordon and not at Bulford.

  4. One NAPS study took place at Bordon in 1981. Twenty five Service personnel took part of whom 15 received NAPS and 10 received a placebo. The conclusions of the study confirmed earlier findings that the side effects from the taking of NAPS were minimal and did not interfere with military efficiency.

  5. The Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS) was developed in response to a requirement which called for a pretreatment effective against poisoning by all known nerve agents. A number of studies were conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to identify the effective oral dose regime which used in conjunction with therapy would provide protection against nerve agent poisoning whilst producing minimal or nil side effects.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times staff in(a) the biology division and (b) the chemistry and decontamination division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, have published the results of their research in scientific journals in the past two years; when they were published; and in which journals.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:
  716

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many times staff in (a) the Biology Division and (b) the Chemistry and Decontamination Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. Porton Down, have published the results of their research in scientific journals in the past two years; when they were published; and in which journals, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may he used against them.

  3. Staff in the Biological Division and the Chemistry and Decontamination Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have had 21 and 6 publications respectively in scientific journals during 1993 and 1994. The journals in which these were published are:

  a. Analytical Proceedings.

  b. Biochemical Pharmacology.

  c. Biochemical Society Transactions.

  d. British Journal of Pharmacology.

  e. Chemistry in Britain.

  f. Human and Experimental Toxicology.

  g. International Journal of Biochemistry.

  h. Journal of Applied Toxicology.

  i. Journal of Chromatography.

  j. Journal 4 Pharmacology.

  k. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology.

  I. Journal of Psychopharmacology.

  m. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts.

  n. Toxicology.

  o. Toxicology In Vitro.

  p. Xenobiotica.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the nature of the collaboration between the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the Institute of Aviation Medicine with regard to the service volunteers programme; and in which years this collaboration took place.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what is the nature of the collaboration between the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the Institute of Aviation Medicine with regard to the Service Volunteers programme; and in which years this collaboration took place, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.

  717

  3. There has been long standing collaboration between CBDE Porton Down and the Institute of Aviation Medicine on a wide range of topics of mutual interest involving visits to and by each Establishment. This collaboration has addressed inter alia the effects of nerve agents on the visual acuity of pilots. Insofar as the Service Volunteer programme is concerned. CBDE and IAM have collaborated in the analytical methods used in carrying out studies with the Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS).

  Respirators
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers have been involved in studies with the S6 respirator at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down since 1965; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; and under which defence agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many Service volunteers have been involved in studies with the S6 respirator at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down since 1965; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; and under which Defence Agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.

  3. Our records are not maintained in such a way as to identify the number of Service personnel who have participated in studies with the S6 respirator at CBDE. Studies have been carried out at CBDE on the protection afforded by the S6 respirator when worn by human beings. In addition, during the research and development phases of the S6 programme, user trials were conducted to determine the military acceptability of various aspects of the design. There trials took the form of issuing prototype respirators to units for use during routine exercises.

  4. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our Allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the Right Hon. Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–56.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 889, when the SIO respirator was issued for use by the armed forces; when the NATO triptych was laid down; and what are its provisions.
  718
  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 3 February, Official Report, column 889, when the S10 respirator was issued for use by the Armed Forces; when the Nato triptych was laid down; and what are its provisions, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The S10 respirator began entering service with UK Armed Forces in 1986–87, and is now the standard issue respirator for all Service personnel.

  4. The current version of the NATO NBC Respirator Triptych was issued in May 1991 and replaced the original version issued in 1967. The Triptych comprise three sections headed: Operational Requirements, Technical Specifications, and Evaluation Tests and Criteria. These are further sub-divided into sections on protection characteristics, use characteristics, survivability, and storage and service life. These lay down the minimum requirements for various parameters such as comfort, compatibility with other equipment, field of vision, protection properties, flash resistance, care and maintenance, canister thread dimensions, and communication. A series of Annexes describe some of the test methods used in determining compliance with the requirements.

  War Widows
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases a post-1973 war widow has(a) been warned that she might lose her attributable forces family pension or (b) had the pension terminated on the ground that she had been co-habiting.

  Mr. Soames
  Each new award to a service widow or widower is accompanied by a guide explaining the conditions of the award. The information includes advice to the pensioner that the pension ceases on remarriage or on living with a partner as husband and wife. The Paymaster General also issues an annual newsletter to every pensioner which contains a reminder that the Paymaster General is to be informed in the event of a service widow or widower's remarriage or living with a new partner.

  Information on the number of widows whose attributable forces family pension has ceased on living with a man as his wife is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many post—1973 war widows are currently in receipt of an attributable forces family pension.

  Mr. Soames
  Departmental records of service widows pensions in payment do not separately identify those in receipt of attributable forces family pensions. There are, however, some 64,000 armed forces dependants' pensions in payment of which it is estimated some 2,000 will be attributable forces family pensions to service widows.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of the attributable forces family pension currently being paid to post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Soames
  Departmental records of service widows pensions in payment do not separately identify those in
  719
  receipt of attributable forces family pensions and therefore it is not possible easily to isolate the total annual cost of such pensions.

  The current rates of attributable pensions for the dependants of those who gave service on or after 31 December 1994, excluding senior officers, range between £4,882 and £20,493 per annum.

  Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many French Government employees have visited the United Kingdom to discuss or review nuclear matters during the last year; and if he will list the locations where the meetings took place.

  Mr. Freeman
  French Government employees frequently visit the United Kingdom to discuss a wide range of issues, including nuclear matters.

  AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Health and Safety Executive issued a prohibition notice on the A45 facility at atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two prohibition notices relating to the A45 complex at AWE Aldermaston were issued by the Health and Safety Executive on 3 September 1993 following the spillage of some coolant from a lathe. The notices are a matter of public record and both have since been lifted.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to end the requirement at the atomic weapons establishments Aldermaston and Burghfield to submit fire reports to Berkshire fire and rescue service.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has long been the practice to alert the Berkshire fire and rescue service to all fire service calls received at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield other than those concerning minor on-site road traffic accidents. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Blinding Laser Weapons
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking to arrange the UN conference, convened for September 1995 in Vienna, to update the UN weapons convention to stop the development, production and use of blinding laser weapons;

  (2) what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring about international agreement to make illegal and ban the use of weapons purely made for the blinding of people.

  Mr. Soames
  We are considering proposals to add to the UN weaponry convention a new protocol covering the employment of lasers.

  NATO Air Defence Agreement
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors led the United Kingdom not to become party to the recent NATO agreement to develop co-operatively a medium extended air defence system; and if he will make a statement.
  720
  Mr. Freeman
  A quadrilateral statement of intent on MEADS was recently agreed by France, Germany, Italy and the USA. We are currently reviewing the nature and timing of our requirement for a future medium surface-to-air missile, in parallel with studies into ballistic missile defence options. At this stage it would be premature to commit ourselves to meeting any such requirements through the MEADS programme, although we are keeping in close touch with its progress.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving armed forces personnel in the United Kingdom who live within daily travelling distance of their work base have financial support from his Department for their children to attend independent schools; and what is his estimate of the cost.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Boarding school allowance is paid to assist eligible service parents of all ranks to provide a stable education for their children and to avoid the disruptive school changes which would otherwise be likely to occur as a result of the frequent postings within the United Kingdom and abroad to which service personnel are liable. Eligibility depends on the liability of service parents to be posted within the course of a discrete stage of education for the child. It may well happen, therefore, that for part of this period the service parent is working and living close to the school selected for the child.

  Clothing Contracts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the delay in the allocation of Ministry of Defence clothing contracts in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no general delays in placing MOD clothing contracts in the current year. The placement of a small number of these contracts has, however, been delayed while Ministers reviewed MOD's response to the demise of the priority suppliers scheme.

  Injury Compensation Claims
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance is normally given to members of the armed forces in pursuing claims against third parties for compensation for injuries in the course of their duties.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no general provision for such assistance from the Ministry of Defence either for members of the armed forces or for civilian employees. All personnel do, of course, have the same entitlement as members of the public to apply to the Legal Aid Board for assistance in bringing claims through the courts against third parties for damages for personal injury.

  Service Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the failure of the project to transfer MOD married quarters to a housing trust; and what are his present intentions for the married quarters owned by his Department;

  (2) what severance payments are to be paid to Mr. Mike Robinson and Mr. Mark Taylor in respect of the failed

  721
  MOD housing trust project; how far these exceed the amounts required by contract; and who was responsible for negotiating the original contracts.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the employment of(a) Mike Robinson, as chief executive, and (b) the senior managers of the housing trust; and what sum of public money will be used to terminate their contracts.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of the severance clauses contained in the employment contracts of the current(a) chairman and (b) finance director of the Defence housing trust;

  (2) what are his Department's future plans for the married quarters housing stock;

  (3) what is the total cost of the severance pay, including pension rights, for (a) Mr. Mike Robinson, chairman of the Ministry of Defence Housing Trust, and (b) Mr. Mark Taylor, finance director of the Ministry of Defence Housing Trust.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is(a) the minimum and (b) the maximum amounts of severance pay that Michael Robinson and Mark Taylor, employees of the housing trust, are entitled to under their contracts;

  (2) if he will list the criteria which will be used to decide if the Chief Executive of the housing trust receives a performance related bonus in April 1995;

  (3) how much the chief executive of the housing trust has received, or will receive in severance pay;

  (4) how much Mark Taylor, an employee of the housing trust, has received or will be receiving in severance payment.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answers 8 and 9 March 1995]: In keeping with our determination to improve the management of service housing, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 17 November 1994, Official Report, column 1, our plans to establish a Defence Housing Executive. This organisation will manage the married quarters estate on a fully integrated basis an deliver important management improvements as sought under the earlier proposals for a housing trust.

  The trust proposals had to be abandoned when it was concluded that the proposed new body could not properly be classified to the private sector, and would not therefore be able to gain access to private sector capital to fund its operations and improve the housing stock. Since the three senior managers of the embryo housing trust had originally been recruited and appointed by the Ministry of Defence, following open competition, for the specific purpose of setting up and managing the trust, they were consequently entitled to be released from, and paid for the unexpired portion of their contracts. All three agreed to stay on, however, to assist us in reorganising the way in which we manage our housing estate and preparing for the establishment of the Defence Housing Executive.

  This work, to which their contribution has been invaluable, has progressed well, and the Defence Housing Executive is on course to take up its responsibilities from 1 April 1995. Meanwhile, and in addition to the Defence Housing Executive initiative, we are continuing to consider alternative possibilities for transferring the married quarters estate to the private sector.
  722
  Once the Defence Housing Executive formally comes into being, my Department will no longer require the services of two of the senior managers, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Taylor. They will accordingly he made redundant on 31 March. In line with the provisions of their contracts, they will be entitled to compensation for the remainder of the three-year period of their contracts, calculated at the annual rate of the first year's salary plus any bonus earned during the first year. Although the amounts of compensation have yet to be finalised, they are expected to be around £200,000 for Mr. Robinson and £170,000 for Mr. Taylor, depending on the final assessment of performance against milestones agreed with their line management. The basic pay for their period of service will he pensionable.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that the third manager recruited to the trust, Mr. James, will stay on in the role of chief executive of the Defence Housing Executive. Under Mr. James's direction, the executive will bring together the disparate housing staffs, and will manage and maintain the married quarters estate as a single entity in accordance with best professional practice. Drawing on may of the plans originally developed for the housing trust, it will be able to maximise efficiencies and provide a better service to service personnel and their families.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the total amount of fees paid to(a) estate agents and (b) consultants in relation to the sale of surplus Ministry of Defence houses in the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 14 March 1995]: Although this information is not available in the precise form requested, fees paid to estate agents and consultants in support of the land and buildings disposal programme total £7.27 million for the period in question. These fees cover the cost of advice on planning, highways and other matters, and help to ensure that the best return for the taxpayer is obtained.

  Bilateral Cost-sharing Agreement
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 858, what works under the bilateral cost-sharing agreement are being carried out at each of the named locations; how much money was owed by the United States Government under this agreement on (a) 31 March 1992 and (b) 31 March 1993; what percentage of the annual expenditure under this agreement this figure represented on both dates, excluding administration costs; and which agency is responsible for carrying out the works and for collecting the debts under this arrangement.

  Mr. Soames
  Works being carried out at the locations named in my previous answer cover operation and maintenance, minor and major projects. Bills with the US Government for payment amounted to £ 12,200,00 on 31 March 1992 and £7,040,000 on 31 March 1993 representing 13.5 per cent. and 8.7 per cent. respectively of the annual expenditure on US works under the agreement. The Ministry of Defence, defence works services—United States forces—is responsible for carrying out work under the cost-sharing agreement, and for managing the associated financial arrangements.

TREASURY

  European Monetary Institute
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage and numerical breakdown by nationality of the employees of the European Monetary Institute.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested as at 9 March 1995 is as follows:

  Distribution of EMI appointments by nationality

  Nationality

  Number

  Per cent.

  Austrian

  5

  3.2

  Belgian

  9

  5.8

  British

  29

  18.8

  Danish

  4

  2.6

  Dutch

  9

  5.8

  Finish

  1

  0.6

  French

  15

  9.7

  German

  51

  33.1

  Greek

  2

  1.3

  Irish

  11

  7.1

  Italian

  9

  5.8

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  Portuguese

  0

  0

  Spanish

  8

  5.2

  Swedish

  1

  0.6

  Total

  154

  Note:

  Percentages do not sum to 100 per cent. because of rounding.

  Exchange Rate Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the percentage change in nominal 724
  exchange rate between February 1993 and January 1994; and what were the policy considerations underlying this;

  (2) what priority he attaches when he increases interest rates to (a) defending the exchange rate and (b) controlling inflation; and if he will make a statement on the connection between the two processes.

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates are set to deliver low inflation. Since changes in interest rates influence inflation with a lag, interest rate decisions are based on an assessment of the prospects for underlying inflation in one to two years' time. This assessment is based on a wide range of information including movements in the exchange rate. While the Government recognise the value of exchange rate stability, they do not have a target for the exchange rate. Figures for the nominal exchange rate are published by the Central Statistical Office in table 7.1 A of "Financial Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the exchange rate between February 1993 and January 1994 on the competitiveness of British manufactured goods at home and overseas.

  Mr. Nelson
  An assessment of developments in trade and the balance of payments, including competitiveness, was published in chapter 3 of the November 1994 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". This took full account of changes in the level of the exchange rate.

  Barings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation will be affected by developments at Barings.

  Mr. Nelson
  That is a matter for them, but from what the two institutions have told my officials, neither currently believes that it will be affected by developments at Barings.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Crimes Aboard Aircraft: UK Powers
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend the law to give British courts jurisdiction over persons landed here who have committed crimes outside United Kingdom airspace on foreign aircraft bound for the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government understand the concern that aircrew and passengers may be left without effective legal protection. We are currently considering whether the problems which have been identified can be overcome and we expect to discuss the matter shortly with the Board of Airline Representatives of the United Kingdom.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. However, is she aware that there have been a number of serious incidents recently, including the attempted rape of a stewardess on a flight from Hong Kong, an assault on a flight service director resulting in serious injury on a Quantas flight from Australia and, more recently, a fight among three British passengers on a Royal Air Maroc to Manchester which resulted in grievous bodily harm? In each case, when the aircraft landed here the police were not able to do anything because the incidents took place on foreign registered aircraft outside United Kingdom airspace. Had a similar incident taken place on a British aircraft going to Australia, Canada or the United States the police there would have been able to act because those countries have taken powers to enable them to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of what my noble friend is saying. It is precisely because of these problems, which are increasingly concerning the Government, that discussions are now taking place with all interested parties. We shall be talking to the Board of Airline Representatives. It may be helpful if I give the statistics. Between 1992 and 1994 there were approximately 80 incidents, of which 70 involved United Kingdom registered aircraft and over which we have jurisdiction. Of the remainder, four occurred on flights en route to the UK and, as my noble friend said, we were powerless to act.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since we know from surveys that both the incidence and severity of offences on aircraft are increasing and that in the 12 months to July 1994 there were 10 offences on aircraft coming into Heathrow alone when it was impossible to arrest the offenders, and given that next
924
year we are hosting the European Championship finals, can the noble Baroness try to ensure that the Home Office does not wait for the cloudburst before it addresses its mind to building the Ark?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the risk of being repetitive, it is because of those concerns—and, as I said, those concerns are increasing—that we are considering the matter. I shall report again to the House at a later date.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not within the powers of this Parliament to pass legislation attracting to the courts of this country what is called technically "exorbitant jurisdiction"? The law of piracy would be one example. I believe that yesterday the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill with which I do not altogether agree but which would give exactly that power in another case of exorbitant jurisdiction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is because of the attraction of doing something about a matter which is of concern to everyone that these discussions are taking place. Discussions will take place between us and the airlines concerned. Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend that there is some confusion. The confusion arose in my mind literally a matter of minutes before I came to answer this Question. Under the Aviation Security Act 1982 jurisdiction extends in all of these situations for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide or assaults and offences under Sections 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. I understand that wounding with intention to cause grievous bodily harm, inflicting bodily harm, choking, suffocating, strangulation and poisoning are included. I am anxious, as an individual who has to come before the House to explain these matters, to see whether there is a read-across here and whether that Act of Parliament could be invoked in these instances.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer the Minister has just given is most encouraging. If she can integrate it into her earlier answers, that would be even more encouraging. However, does she not agree that there is a conflict between the encouraging answers she is able to give today and the discouraging answers she gave last night on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill when, despite the advice of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Ackner, who argued that there was a case for extra-territorial exorbitant legislation, she contended that that would not be a proper procedure and used that as an argument for not supporting the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I gave all the practical reasons for not supporting the Bill. I also told the House that I was deeply sympathetic to the aims of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in view of the importance of this issue, which is recognised by

925
the noble Baroness, does she believe that she will be in a position to indicate the Government's decision on the matter before the Summer Recess?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be certain about that. The discussions around Whitehall have taken place but the discussions with the airline representatives have not yet taken place. Therefore, I cannot pre-empt either the timing or what the considerations will be. I shall report to the House as soon as I am able to do so. In the light of the point I made about the Aviation Security Act 1982, it was a bit of personal detective work and I therefore make the caveat that I shall have to go back and complete my research.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in her consideration of the matter, will my noble friend bear in mind that under the Merchant Shipping Act it is possible to arrest a British citizen on a foreign-owned vessel? In her, I hope, favourable consideration of extending a full remit to aviation, will she extend a full remit to shipping as well?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would appear that laws in the air have not caught up with laws at sea. That certainly will be material in our thinking when we come to consider this matter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there is a certain link between the issue we debated last night and the issue we are debating now. Can the Minister say what is the significance of the last words of her speech last night, which she has repeated today, that she personally has sympathy with the legislation? Is there not all the difference in the world between personally having sympathy and having declared that the Government are virtually opposed to the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that I was personally deeply sympathetic to the aims of the Bill. I also had to indicate, and quite properly put on the record, the enormous practical difficulties there are in bringing people to book. I was recording that. It is a Private Member's Bill and therefore the Government will remain neutral. As the noble Lord will know, the Bill received a Second Reading in the House last night.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that under Article 3.3 of the Tokyo Convention 1963, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, it is expressly stated that the convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law? Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, the United States is already exercising such jurisdiction. Does the Minister not believe that it would be eminently sensible for primary legislation to be introduced to give jurisdiction to British courts in this sort of instance, well within the remit of the Tokyo Convention?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the United Kingdom has indeed implemented the Tokyo Convention
926
through the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These permit the commander of an aircraft wherever registered to detain an alleged offender until the police are able to take him into lawful custody pending extradition. The difficulty arises if there is insufficient time for the state authorities concerned to be contacted and to indicate whether they intend to apply for extradition.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in consulting with the Board of Airline Representatives, will my noble friend also study the legal situation in Australia, Canada and the United States to see if we can learn anything from them? After all, they are probably the three countries in the world with which we have most in common.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give that assurance. We shall also take into account the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, which was prepared for Quantas.

Wandsworth Council: District Auditor's Report
3.11 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the district auditor's report on Wandsworth Council's housing policies.
The Minister of State, Department of Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the matters raised in the district auditor's report are for the local authority. Under Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1992 the council is obliged to publish the existence of a public interest report; it is obliged to consider the report at a meeting of the full council within four months; and it must publish a summary of decisions taken in the light of the report. The Government have no role to play.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, whether or not the Government have a role to play, is it not monumentally embarrassing that their favoured local authority, Wandsworth Council, has been found to be behaving unlawfully; that it has been neglecting its statutory duties to the homeless and all this at a time when a Government Minister, Sir Paul Beresford, was either chairman of its housing committee or leader of the council? Surely the Government have a bit more than that to say about this issue.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the accountants themselves say;
"Our provisional view is that the council did misdirect itself in law".
The next sentence goes on to say:
"Wandsworth has obtained advice from counsel which disagrees with this view of the law".

927
Also in the report the auditors said:
"We have found no evidence to indicate that the council's voluntary sales policy was adopted for an improper purpose or took into account any irrelevant consideration".
Baroness Young: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many Labour authorities are being investigated by the district auditor, or indeed are under investigation by the Labour Party itself?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will be interested in one particular statistic. Since 1979 district auditors have been compelled to publish an unprecedented 17 public interest reports into mismanagement and incompetence in Lambeth Council.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that here we are on common ground. Will the Minister agree that malpractice in local government, or anywhere else, should be rooted out whenever it is properly proved? It must be properly proved. In that context will the Minister now repudiate the remark made by the chairman of the Conservative Party who said that Labour local government tends to be corrupt?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is rather a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. I do not believe that the noble Lord is standing at the Dispatch Box saying that Labour authorities always behave entirely properly.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that what has happened in Wandsworth has received massive publicity? When the Government are satisfied that they have made a thorough investigation into the behaviour of that council, will they then also announce that the remainder of the London borough councils, local councils and indeed British local government entirely, are in no way at the same low status and have not committed grave offences, almost crimes, like Wandsworth Council? Does the Minister agree that other councils deserve to be exonerated?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is giving a completely different interpretation of what the auditor said. It is entirely for the auditor to take whatever action he considers necessary after the full council has had an opportunity to look at the report. No accusations have been made that there has been financial loss.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has just disclaimed any responsibility by the Government, does he not believe that the Conservative Party might well follow the example of the Labour Party and institute an investigation for its own good name?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is entirely what a district auditor is for. He has taken that course on complaint from a couple of people in Wandsworth and issued his report accordingly.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has lived for 27 years in Wandsworth and in Battersea, the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have found Wandsworth to be an incredibly well run local authority. If my opinion is not
928
very important, does my noble friend agree that it is a fact that, whatever national trends have been, time after time the Conservatives have been re-elected at Wandsworth with increasing majorities? Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Wandsworth council was won from Labour in 1979. When Labour last ran Wandsworth it set the highest rates for inner London.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the noble Viscount refused to repudiate the remarks made by the chairman of the Conservative Party. Is the Minister aware that some of us are extremely perturbed by that because the remarks condemned all Labour local authorities as being corrupt? I hope that the Minister will reconsider his reply and repudiate that view put forward by the Tory Party chairman.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am answering the Question on the Order Paper on behalf of the Government. I am indicating that in this instance it is for the district auditor to take whatever action he considers necessary and that it is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Richards: My Lords, the Minister is answering for the Government. Perhaps I may ask him this question: does the Minister believe that all Labour local authorities are corrupt?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would like to table that question, I will not only do my best to answer it, but I shall bring forward with it quite a lot of evidence.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may try to return the House to the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the fact that this particular auditor's report is provisional? Is there not something which offends natural justice in that proceedings between a provisional and a final report can drag on for months and months?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I indicated in my original Answer that the report must be considered by the full council within four months. The auditor will then consider the council's responses and decide whether to take any further action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, like the noble Lord opposite, I too have lived in Wandsworth for 30 years or more. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am sorry, my Lords. Is the noble Viscount aware that the rosier view of Wandsworth Council given by the noble Lord opposite will be disposed of at the coming local elections?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Conservative majority rose to 30 in the May 1994 elections whereas it was held by a mere one vote in 1979. The noble Lord has the great benefit of having the second lowest council tax in London.

Inland Revenue: Location of Offices
3.19 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why taxpayers living in London and the South of England have their affairs dealt with by Inland Revenue offices in Wales and the Midlands, to the inconvenience of those taxpayers.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, successive governments have followed a policy of dispersing government jobs from London and the south east to areas of the country where accommodation costs are lower and where unemployment is high. Relocating PA YE work has been part of that policy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that it is a very great convenience for the taxpayer if the tax office which deals with his affairs is close enough for him to be able to have conversations and personal contact with staff there? If you happen to live in the south of England and find that your tax affairs are dealt with from, for example, Walsall, you are driven to conducting your business by correspondence only rather than by personal contact. Is not the convenience of the taxpayer and the facility of the working of the system very important?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, most of us prefer to keep the taxman at sufficient arm's length so that we deal with him only by post. Perhaps I may advise my noble friend that there is a network of tax inquiry centres throughout the country, including in London and the south east, where people can have their inquiries dealt with directly. I am a little surprised, however, that my noble friend does not seem to approve of the policy, given that it started in 1959 when he was a distinguished member of the Government, first, as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and then as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that kindly personal reminiscence, but will he follow my example and repent of a great many of his decisions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no intention of repenting of any of my decisions, and I do not think that it is my place to repent on behalf of any of my noble friends.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with the introduction of self-assessment in the income tax system, it is highly desirable that the disinterested advice of Inland Revenue officers should be readily and easily available? In the light of those changes, are not the proposed locations of the tax offices highly inefficient and most undesirable?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am most surprised that the noble Lord seems to be taking the view that governments should not disperse jobs to those areas of the country where they are most needed.
930
Perhaps I may advise him that, by using modern information technology methods of communication and so forth, the tax inquiry centres which I mentioned earlier are well able to deal with people making personal inquiries. Indeed, many of them are directly linked by computer to the place where an individual's tax affairs are handled, which means that the taxpayer's records can be called up on screen so that the taxpayer can be given advice. I should have thought that that was perfectly sensible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the views expressed by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter are widely shared among Inland Revenue staff, and that the Inland Revenue has always made it clear that personal contact and negotiation between its staff and taxpayers frequently make inquiries much shorter and produce much more satisfactory results than does protracted correspondence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I have made the point that the tax inquiry centres enable people to have direct contact if they want it, but I suspect that the majority of people conduct most of their tax business by correspondence. I repeat that I think that the dispersion of jobs from London and the south east has been a sensible government policy. I am surprised to have two critics of that policy from the Labour Party. I do not think that living and working in Glasgow or Cardiff is too much of an encumbrance for those concerned, given that conditions are perhaps less crowded than here in London.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is extremely important for towns in the north, such as Glasgow, Leeds and Middlesbrough, that the policy of the dispersion of government departments should continue, and that that policy should not be changed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. As he rightly mentioned, areas such as Middlesbrough and Sunderland in the north gain from the jobs being dispersed. Indeed, there has been a similar gain with the announcement this morning of Toyota's development of 1,000 new jobs in Derbyshire.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question has nothing to do with the dispersion of offices and that the majority of taxpayers in this country live outside London? The Question relates to whether taxpayers can readily gain advice. Given that the Government are introducing self-assessment, would it not be more consistent if the Government provided that advice in the localities where taxpayers live, whether in London or elsewhere?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the logic of that position is that we take jobs away from those areas to which they have been relocated over many years and return them to London and the south east—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, that is the logic of the position. If the noble Lord does not like it,

931
he had better think out the logic of the question that he has asked. As I have said, there are tax inquiry centres throughout the country. For my own part, my tax affairs are dealt with by the taxman in Cardiff—and I have no complaints at all about that.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—from the remarks that he made earlier, it is obvious that he is not—that although a great many people may wish to deal with their tax affairs by letter, an enormous number of people cannot or do not want to do so? It is most important to give those people the facility to attend a local tax office.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have already explained to the House—and I do so again to my noble friend—that there is a national network of tax inquiry centres, many of which have computer facilities which allow staff to call up on screen the individual tax records of those who attend the centre, thus enabling them to discuss the matter with the full records before them.

Water Debt
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the conclusions of the report by the Policy Studies Institute entitled Water Debt and Disconnection and published on 14th March, that the number of households in water debt has gone up by nine times since the industry was privatised in 1989, and what proposals they have to mitigate the effect on low income households.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, PSI questioned fewer than 2,000 households in the whole of Great Britain. Despite the perception of increased water debt in England and Wales since 1989, the real issue is how those who have difficulty in meeting their charges are treated. Disconnections are falling, and water companies have put into effect procedures to provide the earliest possible assistance to customers through the availability of optional instalment arrangements and budget plans.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell me whether he agrees, as the Question asks, with the PSI conclusion? He did not answer the Question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated in my Answer that PSI had questioned fewer than 2,000 households. The problem is that in arriving at its estimate of 2 million households in arrears in 1994, PSI asked people:
"over the past 12 months, have you been behind with your payments or owed money for your water?"
They were considered to have difficulties if they answered yes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I still cannot get an answer from the Government. Do they or do they not agree? Will the noble Viscount please answer that question yes or no? If they do agree, will they accept
932
that the people who cannot pay and who find difficulty in paying come from lower income households and that disconnection is normally the answer? That is simply another example of how this Government ignore the poor in favour of the rich.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I tried to indicate why the Government do not believe that PSI is giving a true perspective on the matter. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, the legislation provides that in virtually all cases a water company must obtain a court order for the repayment of arrears before disconnection can be undertaken. The Government believe that that offers the best protection to customers to ensure that only those who can pay, but will not, face the prospect of disconnection.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not correct (in my noble friend's opinion) that whenever we hear that a question demands to be answered yes or no, in at least 90 per cent, of the cases the question is unfair?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, sometimes my noble and learned friend is right, but on some occasions he may be wrong.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I think it unfair to cut off the water supply of many of our deprived families, as can happen before a case is brought to court? Is it right and proper that people in that category should be brought before the courts and fined for being unable to pay their water bills, and then be subject to a prison sentence because they cannot pay their fine?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would start from the other side. I believe that it is right to expect bills to be paid and to take action against those who can pay but will not. The same report indicated that 66 per cent. of those who were disconnected were connected again, having paid, within 48 hours.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much the price of water has increased thanks to the £9,000 million which we have spent, or are committed to spend, on two European water directives—the urban waste water treatment directive and the bathing water directive—much of which, in the opinion of Ofwat, was unnecessary and may therefore have been wasted? Will Her Majesty's Government do all that they can therefore to resist the proposed new drinking water directive and the proposed new bathing water directive which are likely to cost very much more?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend that all those directives are not required. We need higher environmental standards in this country. The new price limits allow for an enormous sum of capital expenditure, something which was not done when water distribution was in the public sector. The level of investment since privatisation has been far

933
higher, and the director general has allowed expenditure of some £6 billion to implement the urban waste water treatment directive.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, thinks that all the questions asked of the Government which cannot be answered are unfair, let me ask another unfair question. Does the Minister agree with the authors of the report that,
"Government and politicians need to reconsider whether or not disconnection continues to be an appropriate sanction for non-payment"?
Do the Government agree with that or not?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes or no!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The PSI recognises that the drop in levels of disconnection has reflected Ofwat's guidance, and in 1993–94 the 10 water and sewerage companies carried out fewer disconnections than in 1986 before privatisation.

Business of the House: Easter Recess
3.31 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 Easter Recess on Thursday 6th April and return on Tuesday 18th April. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 6th April.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Undersecretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)s: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill makes important changes to mental health legislation in England, Wales, and Scotland. It underlines the Government's commitment to care in the community by introducing key measures to strengthen it. Though the community care principles continue to enjoy widespread support a number of recent cases have served to heighten public concern. The Government recognise those concerns and this Bill addresses them. It deserves the support of all those who want the policy to work and who recognise that the safety and protection for the public are important—indeed are inseparable— from the interests of mentally ill people. Since a major part of the part of the Bill refers to Scottish law my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will respond to the debate and deal with any issues that refer to the Scottish provisions in the Bill.
I should like to start by setting the Bill in context. The public have become conscious of the needs of severely mentally ill people through a handful of well-publicised cases which have gone tragically wrong. But the full story is far from being one of tragedy and failure. We have made great strides in moving people out of large
934
and often forbidding asylums, into towns, cities and villages where the rest of us live. We have seen people become de-institutionalised; leave the isolated institutions where they existed out of sight out of mind, and go into houses, flats and bungalows. People who had been denied a normal social life can now carry out the day-to-day activities that the rest of us take for granted, such as shopping, attending church, spending an evening down the pub.
Some severely ill people who prior to the introduction of new treatments and therapeutic drug regimes would have spent years in hospital can now hold down responsible jobs. People with a mental illness can, and do, become part of the community in which they live; and a recent survey showed that the majority of people in the country (75 per cent.) agree that opportunities should be given to those who can be supported.
The gains have been enormous. We do, however, recognise the dangers. There is a very small minority of severely mentally ill people who on discharge from hospital fail to take their medication or comply with agreements reached in terms of their continuing care. Then they can become a risk to themselves, their families and the public. That risk is not acceptable and policy and practice have to work to minimise it. The Government have brought forward this Bill to address this important issue.
So far as concerns England and Wales the Bill does three things: first, it introduces the new power of supervised discharge, referred to in the Bill as after-care supervision for mentally ill patients leaving hospital; secondly, it extends the period of leave of absence which detained patients may be granted before their final discharge; and, thirdly, it closes a loophole in the present Act by which a patient who goes absent without leave can no longer be detained if he or she has been away for 28 days. These provisions are covered in three clauses amending the 1983 Mental Health Act. The Scottish provisions follow the same broad structure.
Clause 1 deals with supervised discharge, and is the most important element in the English part of the Bill. It meets the 1993 commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the most vulnerable people do not slip through the net after they leave hospital.
My right honourable friend had made clear her view that stronger legal powers were needed to back up care in the community well before the subject started to hit the headlines. Others shared this concern. The Royal College of Psychiatrists published its own proposals for community supervision orders in January 1993. They provided the starting point for my right honourable friend's review of legal powers from which came the proposals for supervised discharge. Subsequent consultation showed widespread support for our view that a new legal provision was needed.
Supervised discharge is the most important part, but only a part, of a comprehensive strategy announced by my right honourable friend in August 1993 to strengthen care in the community. Other effective measures include supervision registers, introduced last April for patients considered to be at risk to themselves and/or to others. Those registers are designed to ensure that contact is

935
maintained with patients after they are discharged. We also issued comprehensive guidance last May. That guidance is clear and firm. Patients must not be discharged unless and until the clinicians responsible for their care are satisfied that it is safe to do so, and that the patient poses no significant risks to himself or herself, or to others in the community. The guidance is to be supplemented soon by our detailed guide to co-operative working, on which we have also consulted widely. Wales has its own comprehensive arrangements for dealing with mental health. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering issuing further guidance on assessment and care management, including discharge and after-care arrangements, to strengthen co-ordination of care for severely mentally ill people.
Supervised discharge will provide a new power to ensure that patients keep to the care arrangements which are considered necessary to enable them to live safely in the community. If arrangements are broken, then the patient's case will be reviewed and that could lead to readmission to hospital under the 1983 Mental Health Act. Patients subject to supervised discharge are those who have been detained in hospital under the 1983 Act and who need special support in the community. These are patients who present a significant risk of substantial danger to themselves or others but are not in the category of restricted patients who have committed serious offences and are subject to the Home Secretary's special powers defined in the Act.
The application for supervised after-care will be made by the consultant who has been responsible for the patient's care in hospital. That consultant is referred to in the Bill as the "responsible medical officer". The application will be made to the health authority, which will be responsible (with the local authority) for providing the after-care services the patient requires. In making the application the responsible medical officer must consult the patient, and others professionally concerned with his or her care. He or she must also consult any informal carers. The application must be supported by a further medical opinion and a recommendation from an approved social worker. A statement of the after-care services to be provided must be submitted with the application.
On accepting the application the health authority must tell the patient and his or her professional and informal carers. Unless the patient objects, the health authority will also consult the nearest relative as defined in the 1983 Act.
Once the patient has left hospital, the Bill provides for a supervisor—normally the patient's key worker— to supervise and monitor the after-care services. Under the powers in the Bill, the patient may be required to reside at a specified place or to attend for medical treatment, occupation, education or training. The supervisor, or a person authorised by him or her, may take the patient to a place where he or she is required to reside or attend. There will, however, be no power to administer medication or any other form of medical treatment against the patient's will.
936
The responsible health and local authorities have a duty to keep the after-care services under review. There would be an immediate review if the patient ceased to accept the after-care services. In this case, the professional care team would consider whether supervision was still appropriate. It may consider that the patient should be readmitted to hospital under the existing provisions of the Mental Health Act. It is clearly important that when patients are not prepared to comply with the terms of their supervision the option of taking them back into hospital is considered. Otherwise there is a real risk that they will lose contact with the care they need and go on to pose a danger to themselves or to others.
A patient will be subject to supervision for an initial period of six months. If the original conditions are still satisfied that may be extended for a further six months and then for periods of a year at a time, but only after consultation with others concerned in the patient's care. The patient may also be discharged from supervision at any time, but again only after consultation.
Patients subject to supervision, and their nearest relatives, will have the right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal when supervised discharge is first imposed or is subsequently renewed. These rights are specified in Schedule 1.
Supervised discharge will underpin the principles of the care programme approach, which we introduced in 1991 and upon which the after-care of all psychiatric patients should be based. We do not believe that it will impose extra cost because it does not introduce new requirements. Rather, it gives legal backing to what is already recognised as good practice.
NHS spending on services for mentally ill people has increased by 40 per cent, in real terms since 1979. The corresponding figure for local authority services is 171 per cent. Local authority spending is strongly supported by the mental illness specific grant, which we introduced in 1991. That stands at £36 million in the current year and we are increasing it to £47.5 million next year, which is a rise of one-third. The benefits of this growth in spending can be plainly seen; for example, a fourfold increase in the past 12 years in the number of community mental health nurses. These are expanding and developing services. Supervised discharge, with our related initiatives such as supervision registers, will help to ensure that extra spending is targeted at the most vulnerable mentally ill people who need it most
Local authority guardianship under the 1983 Act will remain available for those patients for whom it is considered more suitable. There is a clear difference in the character of the two powers. Supervised discharge, as I have said, embodies the principles of the care programme approach and gives a specific role to healthcare professionals. We do not believe that its purpose could have been achieved by simply extending guardianship.
I now move on to Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 closes the loophole in the 1983 Mental Health Act by which patients who are absent without leave may not be taken into custody more than 28 days after the day on which they absconded. That is a strange anachronism which

937
dates back at least to the 1890 Lunacy Act. The new provision will allow a patient to be taken into custody at any time up to six months from the date on which he or she absconded or, if later, the end of his or her existing authority for detention in hospital or guardianship. Where a patient is taken into custody or returned after more than 28 days the responsible medical officer must reassess him or her within seven days of the patient's return. The patient will remain liable to be detained only if the responsible medical officer so recommends.
The clause also provides for the return of patients who have absconded to the Republic of Ireland. Apart from the provision relating to the Republic of Ireland, none of this applies to restricted patients. The Act already allows them to be returned at any time and we are not changing this.
The return of absconding patients appears to be a straightforward matter. It is, nevertheless, important to take account of all the relevant factors, which include our international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We have consulted widely about these provisions and we are confident that we have got the balance right.
Finally, as regards England and Wales, Clause 3 extends the period for which a patient may be given leave of absence from hospital. That is currently a maximum of six months. Clause 3 increases that to a year. A patient on leave of absence remains in the care of the responsible medical officer and it can be an important first step towards rehabilitation in the community. The extension to 12 months was also proposed in my right honourable friend's review and has been widely supported.
I now turn to the Scottish provisions. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has kept in close touch with our policy development in England and Wales and our officials have worked together on our respective legislative frameworks and practices. Your Lordships will be well aware of our different legal systems, so different but equivalent approaches have been adopted to our respective provisions and, accordingly, I will address what is proposed for Scotland in a slightly different way. First, I turn to leave of absence. Unlike the equivalent provision in England and Wales—where there was a limit of six months and is now to be one of a year—leave of absence is open-ended in Scotland. In light of the judgment of Sheriff Younger in 1987, my noble and learned friend has concluded that the use of leave of absence on a long-term basis carried a risk of legal challenge. It was also based on an apparently illogical premise; that if the patient is well enough to stay in the community on a long-term, almost indefinite basis, then why is he still liable to be detained in a hospital?
That said, leave of absence is a valuable and effective community rehabilitation and treatment option and there is no desire to lose it altogether. So, as proposed for patients south of the Border, Clause 5 of the Bill introduces a limit of one year to its duration. The need to reduce the legal difficulties associated with leave of absence has been the main impetus for change in
938
Scotland. To that extent, my noble and learned friend has come to the issue from a different angle to ours, but we have arrived at similar conclusions.
However, introducing this new limit on leave of absence in Scotland does leave a gap in the legal framework for the care and treatment of mentally ill people in the community. Following consultation, my noble and learned friend has decided to develop a new community care order to fill the gap. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces this order. It has been tailored to fit the separate and different Scottish Mental Health Act and different legal system.
The community care order will provide a broadly similar safeguard to the supervised discharge proposals for England and Wales. The different terminology and the more formal approach of the Scottish proposals reflect the principles of the 1984' Act and Scottish practice. That acknowledges the key role of the sheriff and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland in that system. Community care orders are intended for the same categories of mentally disordered people as will be covered by the proposals for supervised discharge. The process will be triggered when the patient's responsible medical officer and another medical practitioner are satisfied that the patient's medical condition justifies a community care order, that an order is needed to ensure that the patient receives treatment and support services and that it is necessary in the interests of the patient's own health or safety or for the protection of others.
An application for the order may then be made to the sheriff by the responsible medical officer, supported by the second doctor and a recommendation from a social worker.
If the sheriff makes the order it will specify the conditions with which the patient should comply and give the names of his special medical officer and the after-care officer. Any variation in the conditions will have to be discussed with those concerned with the patient's care and treatment and requires the sheriffs approval. If the patient objects to any variation, there has to be a hearing. As with supervised discharge in England and Wales, the initial order will apply for six months, after which it may be renewed by the special medical officer for six months and, if appropriate, yearly thereafter.
Patients will have a right to a hearing when the order is made and may appeal to the sheriff on its renewal. The protective functions of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland will be extended to include patients subject to an order, and the commission will have the power of revocation in appropriate cases. The Mental Health Act Commission, which looks after the interests of detained patients in England and Wales, has a different remit which will not be extended to cover those subject to after-care under supervision. This reflects its much more specific role under the Mental Health Act 1983. However, we have consulted it over our proposals.
A new feature proposed for Scottish legislation is the inclusion of a provision for reassessment in hospital for any patient subject to an order whose condition has deteriorated and is, or is likely to become, such as to

939
give grounds for serious concern regarding his health or safety or the protection of other persons. Such a reassessment—for a period of up to seven days—would have to be justified by two doctors on objective mental health criteria. Following this, the order may be continued or revoked; or an application for detention in hospital be made. As with after-care under supervision, there will be no provision for compulsory medication in the community.
Finally for Scotland, Clause 6 makes a provision equivalent to that proposed for detained patients who abscond from hospitals in England and Wales, or those subject to guardianship; that is, a period of six months, or the current period of detention or guardianship, within which he may be taken into custody and returned.
In the main text of the Bill this only leaves Clause 7 covering the formal provisions for the short title, commencement and extent. Other detailed matters are covered in the two schedules. For England and Wales these confirm, among other things, the appeal rights of patients subject to supervised discharge, and for Scotland, the role of the Mental Welfare Commission.
We are confident that the new supervision arrangements in England and Wales, the equivalent provisions in Scotland, and the other measures with which they are linked, add up to a coherent and consistent approach. They preserve the vital principles of care in the community for vulnerable people. They also provide the safeguards which are essential for patients and the public alike. The Bill will strengthen care in the community and reinforce public confidence in it. Care in the community is a long-standing policy which has enjoyed the support of all parties and a high proportion of the public. It deserves that support. This Bill displays the Government's continuing commitment to this policy which is right and which is working. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Cumberlege).
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this, her second piece of important legislation in the same number of weeks, and for outlining the proposals very precisely. I am glad that before Committee stage we are to have an opportunity to consider the details with the Minister at a special meeting. My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove will speak later this afternoon and will take forward the special issues in relation to Scotland as the Bill proceeds.
Although the Bill is relatively short, it is, as we will have gathered from the Minister's clear explanation, relatively complicated. Its provisions embrace difficult areas of jurisprudence and ethics way beyond the practical concerns of health care. We shall wish to consider carefully the issues of civil rights and the relative rights and duties of both patients and professionals as the Bill makes its way forward.
On these Benches, we believe it is a serious indictment of government policy that this complex Bill is needed at all. It represents the admission that an
940
important part of care in the community has failed. As the Minister said, community care for the mentally ill has been widely supported for more than a decade. There has been general clinical and political agreement about closing the old-style long-stay hospitals and developing services to help patients lead their lives outside institutions in what we hoped would be a normal environment.
That is the vision of community care. Sadly the vision has never been properly achieved because it has never been properly resourced and supported. Today we have the shameful spectacle of mentally ill people wandering the streets, often homeless and apparently totally uncared for. Many health authorities, particularly in the big cities, talk of service provisions being dangerously inadequate.
In September 1994, just six months ago, the Mental Health Task Force, a national body set up by the Department of Health, published its findings on Inner London and reported a serious problem of access to appropriate care. The task force stated:
"Patients with severe and chronic mental disabilities are being discharged without adequate supervision, or the provision necessary to meet their housing, social and health needs. This could incur risks not only to public safety but also to the safety of the individuals concerned".
At the same time, specialist voluntary organisations, like the Matthew Trust, have experienced an enormous increase in demand for their charitable grants and services. In the three years to 1994 applications to the Matthew Trust from mentally ill people who had exhausted official channels of support, rose by 300 per cent. Just last month the trust produced a commentary called Victims of Care. That is a powerful document which, through individual stories, highlights the failure of the new care system to help vulnerable people, people whose daily lives are dominated by a struggle against mental illness and poverty.
It is worth reminding your Lordships of the overall financial context of mental health care. NHS spending on mental hospitals and community services has remained at roughly 11 per cent, of the total budget for a number of years. The Mental Health Foundation now suggests that spending on community services may be actually falling. Savings from the proceeds of the closure of long stay hospitals have often "leaked" into other services. In the health market, it would be realistic to assume that competing trusts have little enthusiasm for expanding the expensive and unglamorous services for the mentally ill. And yet we were told this afternoon by the Minister that this Bill will make services more effective but will not give rise to any additional costs. There will be no need for extra staff. Instead, apparently, a dreadful situation will be improved solely by a new statutory supervising system. There will be no additional resources for health authorities or social services departments.
The central proposal that we are considering for supervised aftercare is, as the Minister said, obviously the result of some high profile tragedies which created legitimate public anxiety. But I hope that I will not offend when I say that in some ways the Bill reminds me of the Dangerous Dogs Act—a few very serious

941
incidents leading to a reactive measure which seeks more to reassure tabloid opinion than to solve the problem.
However, in the field of mental illness, there seems to be a reluctant acceptance by most of those involved in therapeutic relations with patients that, for a very small minority, some form of additionally supervised care in the community may be necessary, not so much to deal with the rare cases of random aggressive violence, as with the severely ill who find compliance with any care programme very difficult. As MIND has pointed out, 90 per cent, of those who are diagnosed as mentally ill and living in the community are not violent. The Royal College of Nursing has said that
"A mentally ill person is more likely to harm himself than others and the rate of homicides by mentally ill people reflects the rate amongst the population as a whole".
The RCN thinks that the Bill before us offers false reassurance to patients and the public about violent incidents.
The central question is, given the present appalling state of community services, some form of extra supervision may be needed: how is that best achieved? Your Lordships will recall the Ritchie Report in 1994 on the case of the schizophrenic Christopher Clunis, who murdered Jonathan Zito on the London Underground. The report laid great emphasis on the failure to co-ordinate services, and included the pathetic statements of Clunis himself, who described himself being passed from one person to another, and not knowing who was in charge.
The Ritchie Report concluded:
"The aftercare which is provided must be properly co-ordinated and supervised; it is severely to the patient's detriment if each member of the team acts in isolation. The consultant psychiatrist and care manager from social services must together be responsible for supervising aftercare".
That recommendation seems quite clear. But, in the present proposals, lines of responsibility for supervision are imprecisely developed. The Zito Trust which, as your Lordships will remember, has been courageously established by Mrs. Jane Zito following the report on her husband's death, has commented on this part of the Bill:
"Lack of clarity and clear lines of accountability in this context are not only unhelpful but may be potentially fatal".
In the trust's response to the Bill it
"asks that the Bill is more explicit in its definitions regarding the role and responsibilities of the supervisor under its provisions".
As stated at present, it seems that supervised care will be the personal responsibility of a nominated supervisor, working with a community GP, trying to co-ordinate services from different agencies. It is not obvious who is likely to be named as the supervisor. Although the initial application for supervision will be made to a health authority, it is generally supposed—and I would be grateful if the Ministers would correct me if I am wrong—that the responsible supervisor will in fact be a nominated social worker.
There are already professional concerns that, if the supervision breaks down, the unfortunate social worker would become very exposed—a scapegoat—and the centre, no doubt, of widespread unpleasant publicity. No
942
wonder managers are already doubting their ability to get colleagues to take those obviously very difficult roles, if they are expected to act without sufficient support and additional resources. The precise nature of the responsibility for continuing care under supervision, and who will be accountable if there is a failure or breakdown, must be clearly stated and spelt out.
It has also been suggested that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent either a health authority or, for that matter, a social service department refusing a supervision application. What then happens to the miserable patient? Does he have to stay in hospital?
Other specific concerns have been raised about the nature of consultation on supervised aftercare, both with supervising agencies and, most importantly, with the patients. Many professionals are worried that the so-called "therapeutic alliance" with patients may be seriously threatened if the heavy hand of potential coercion is emphasised in supervised discharge plans. Many of the community-based voluntary service organisations agree that they only want to work with patients on the basis that the service users themselves want to use the service. We will need to examine in detail the issues of whether there will be genuine consultation, and free consent to treatment plans in supervised aftercare, at a later stage. It will be particularly important to see how a patient's relatives, friends and informal carers will be properly involved and not just "informed" as the Bill suggests in several places.
Those are significant details about the present Bill, but we should return to the central question of whether the new powers are really needed at all. Although the Minister said that that was not the case, it still seems to me to be possible to achieve all that is important under the existing guardianship orders—orders which, after all, have been in existence under the Mental Health Act since 1959. The concept of guardianship was reasserted in the 1983 Act and —this is most important—the code of practice says:
"The purpose is to enable patients to receive community care where it cannot be provided without the use of compulsory powers. It enables the establishment of an authoritative framework for working with a patient with the minimum of constraint to achieve as independent a life as possible within the community. Where it is used"—
and this was something that the Minister said was not possible; but it is explicit in the guidelines—
"it must be part of the patient's overall care and treatment plan".
Surely that code contains the basic aim of the new proposals.
Therefore, why not use the guardianship laws, combined with the existing discharge planning requirements under Section 117 of the 1983 Act, and the care programme approach adopted in the past few years? In that way, it seems that a care agency can already achieve what the Bill sets out to achieve. That approach was underlined by the report of the Law Commission on Mental Incapacity published on 28th February this year, two weeks after the Bill was published. The report supports and seeks to extend the powers of guardianship. For example, the commission suggests amending the 1993 Act to give a guardian

943
additional power to convey a patient to a residence specified by the guardian. The power to convey, as the Minister mentioned, is regarded by the Government as one of the essential new provisions of the new Bill.
However, the Law Commission report shows that that could have been achieved by amending the 1983 Act. The commission also recommended that the powers of the Mental Health Act Commission should be extended to include people in guardianship, a provision which, as the Minister mentioned, is rather surprisingly not included in the new Bill for the new type of supervision. In addition, the commission also creates a new emergency protection scheme which, to quote Mr. Justice Brooke, the chairman of the Law Commission,
"is designed to enable local authorities to act effectively to protect vulnerable people who may be at risk of harm, without interfering with their autonomy".
I hope that the Minister will indicate precisely why, given the existence of guardianship and the new proposals from the Law Commission, the Government now think it necessary to introduce this new, complicated statutory procedure. One is tempted to think that it is simply so that they are seen to be doing something. We will want to pursue the detail of the similarities and distinctions between the proposal for supervised aftercare and guardianship at a later stage.
I am told that guardianship has sometimes not been very widely used partly because responsible care workers have judged that they have insufficient resources to make it work effectively. Presumably, that must also be true of the new proposed arrangement. The lesson must surely be that if supervised aftercare is to succeed, it should be accompanied by statutory provision for a minimum set of services in the community for everyone who is receiving that type of aftercare. It is the services which are crucial: they are what is needed.
Indeed, many doctors and healthcare managers see the introduction of a new statute as simply adding another administrative layer to their already existing burdens. We should be under no illusions about how heavy such burdens already are. Since the Bill was published, I have talked to a large number of people who work in all different capacities directly with the mentally ill, both in hospital and in the community. During those meetings my admiration for their dedication and commitment has grown even stronger than it was before. They feel that they, and their patients and clients, are struggling at the moment against almost overwhelming odds. When asked what could improve their situation, their priorities include: better training and limited caseloads for community psychiatric nurses; more intensively staffed crisis homes where severely ill people can be looked after on a temporary basis; crisis cards so that there can be easy admission to such places; and a wider network of support staff to help people at home. They are not agitating for additional, legal powers. I am glad that some of those front-line workers will be able to be involved in our informal meeting before the Committee stage of the Bill.
944
The overall problem is clearly inadequate services, not inadequate laws. The chairman of the Law Commission recently said that the law in this area has grown up piecemeal and is,
"now out of date and full of gaps".
But the solution must be to conduct a thorough review and reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 and to make our legislation, which was originally designed for hospital services, more relevant to community care. The Bill before us today is trying to patch up a crisis; but that crisis needs different long-term solutions.
The Zito Trust has kindly shown me the case studies of many of the people whom they are trying to help in their victim support programme. The story of Mary Collins is typical. In October 1994, Mrs. Collins' son, a diagnosed schizophrenic, stabbed her husband to death and attempted to kill his mother. This man had been sectioned to hospital care on several occasions but, most recently, had been a voluntary patient and was discharged, against his will, on the pretext that he was better. One suspects that this may have been because pressured medical staff needed his bed. Following discharge he was provided with a flat, but with no furniture and he was given little support. His mental health deteriorated and Mary's attempts to remain in contact with her son, to improve his care, led to the fatal attack. Even after this new Bill, Mrs. Collins's son would not have been subject to the supervised after-care arrangements. He would have fallen through the legal net. He, like many others, needed structured and intense support. We must find foolproof ways to provide it.
4.10p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for the clear way in which she introduced the Bill. I also wish to announce at this point that my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will deal with the Scottish part of the Bill.
We on these Benches very much welcome the aims of the present Bill. We are pleased that the Government have recognised the need for reform of the current Mental Health Act. But that does not by any means mean that we approve of every detail of the Bill. We have deep reservations about many of its details. However, it gives us the opportunity to discuss the problem in detail and we hope to improve the Bill by introducing amendments at a later stage.
First, I wish to look at the Bill from the point of view of its implications under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 of that convention provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. However, that right can be limited in relation to persons of unsound mind. The Bill before us states that a patient may be detained if he represents a danger to himself or others. The court has held that this constitutes a deprivation of liberty. However, the present Bill goes further. New Section 25A(4) (b) states that after-care supervision can be sought for a patient who is at risk of being seriously exploited. The proposed infringement of liberty contained in the Bill is not warranted in relation to those who are at risk of being seriously exploited.

945
They should be supported in the community and protected in the community without the threat of being taken away and conveyed to a place of safety.
New Section 25D(4) gives the power to take away and convey the patient to a place where the patient is required to attend for the purpose of medical treatment. It implies that the Bill will also allow medication to be administered without the patient's consent, even though he is not, in the true sense, a detained patient. There is nothing in the Bill, apart from the explanatory memorandum, to confirm that a patient cannot be required to take medication against his will. This freedom must be safeguarded in the Bill itself.
The three amendments to the current Act contained in the Bill are particularly welcome. First, the right of a patient to apply to a mental health tribunal for supervision to be terminated; secondly, the extension of the limit on the period for which patients may be given leave of absence; and, thirdly, the extension of the period during which patients who are absent without leave may be taken into custody and returned.
The patient's right of appeal to the mental health review tribunal to be discharged from supervision is in itself welcome, but the procedure envisaged in the Bill is not. The fact that the burden of proof that the supervision is not necessary rests on the patient will heavily militate against a discharge being granted. Further, hearings before the mental health review tribunals are subject to considerable delays during which time the conditions of the supervision order will have to be complied with. The right to apply to the mental health review tribunal will only be safeguarded if the burden of proof is reversed and if patients can be guaranteed a speedy hearing.
The Bill assumes that the new powers will enable more resources to be concentrated on those patients subject to supervised discharge, but makes no provision for an overall increase in the level of resources. Concentrating resources on one client group will inevitably lead to fewer resources being available to the vast majority of mentally ill people who already receive inadequate support in the community, and consequently may lead to an increase in the need for supervised discharge powers.
We are also concerned about the limited number of hospital beds now available for those patients who are considered to require hospital treatment. With a shortage of beds patients run the risk of being discharged into the community before they are ready to accept the responsibility of life in the community, resulting in frequent, short-term re-admissions to hospital. If the Bill is to be effective, immediate hospital admission when needed must be safeguarded. Incidents like that of the patient who telephoned for help on a Monday and was told that a community psychiatric nurse would see him the following Thursday simply are not good enough. That is like ringing the fire service on Monday and that service telling you it will arrive on Thursday. It is desperately important that people who ask for assistance should be given it immediately.
946
According to the Royal College of Nursing, only one in five people diagnosed as having schizophrenia has access to a community psychiatric nurse. The number of community psychiatric nurses must obviously be increased if patients are to receive adequate support. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Bill is that the only extra costs envisaged by the Government are the costs for mental health review tribunals. But even those costs do not include the cost of the extra time spent by psychiatrists and social workers on preparing reports. If this Bill is to improve the position of the mentally inadequate people in our society there will be many other additional costs involved in providing the right background. For example, I cannot see how the Bill's provisions can possibly work without a 24-hour emergency service provided by a multi-disciplinary team.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the West Birmingham home treatment service which covers an inner city population of 200,000 people. It is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has reduced hospital admissions by 50 per cent, and produced a saving of 25 per cent, in the cost of the service. One of the most important matters is to make certain that people who are out in the community are given the right conditions in which to live. It can never be acceptable that some of these people are put into bed and breakfast accommodation.
I believe, therefore, that if there is to be any possibility that the Bill will improve the services available to patients, the Government must withdraw the statement in the financial memorandum that it should give rise to no additional costs for the health authority or local authority. That cannot be true. The scheme will not work unless we fund it.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I support its broad objectives. I thank the noble Baroness for her very clear exposition.
While I welcome the Bill, like previous speakers I have strong reservations. The new legal framework can be very helpful in improving the level of care in the community, but the question is how it will work in practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, there are considerable doubts as to whether the resources will be available to make it work properly.
I shall not go into the question of whether guardianship could be a sufficient means of dealing with this difficult problem. The fact remains that for a considerable number of years guardianship has not proved to be sufficient. Therefore, from the point of view of the lay public the introduction of this new legal framework is welcome.
All the experts, professionals, agree that there is a critical issue: that of the trust between the responsible professionals and the patients. There is a real danger that unless the provisions of the Bill are handled with great sensitivity that trust, not only between the individual patient and those seeking to help him or her but also

947
more widely among those suffering from mental ill health, may be undermined as a result of the prevailing impression.
I recognise, as will your Lordships, that there is sensitive and effective handling by the responsible authorities of difficult cases requiring sectioning. However, the mentally ill who will be the subject of supervision are very difficult people. Suspicion is one of the basic symptoms of schizophrenia. Suspicion is easily translated into violence, and when that escalates and becomes a matter for constraint the situation becomes very painful and difficult.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, indicated, a factor to be considered is the pressure on CPNs and social workers. We were glad to hear from the noble Baroness that the number of CPNs has increased considerably; but from what a small base. When community care was introduced, the army of CPNs was pathetic. Therefore, as Griffiths observed in his great report, the need is very much greater than can be met by the present resources.
Community care has proved satisfactory in some areas. West Birmingham has been mentioned. However, all responsible people concerned agree that it has been patchy. That is inevitable in the development of a new system which has been running for only a limited period of time. However, Griffiths indicated that the closure of the big hospitals would inevitably lead to greater requirements for resources because care in the community is more expensive. It requires more resources. Although resources have been increased—the noble Baroness quoted the figure of 49 per cent, in real terms—and that is welcome, the need runs ahead of provision. Therefore, we look forward to a progressive increase as the years go by. Public perception is that in relative terms the amount allocated within the health service to the mental health sector has fallen.
The noble Baroness mentioned the leakage of funds saved in the closure of mental hospitals into other budgets within local authorities. That is a statistical quagmire. It is probably impossible for anyone to sort out what goes on in that way, but there is a general impression that, in view of the great constraints under which so many local authorities are operating, that leakage has been at the expense of mental health funds.
I should like to mention one point that the Law Society has emphasised. That is the crisis in inner city mental health services, particularly the high throughput and rapid discharge of detained patients. That creates a serious problem of high bed-occupancy, leaving no space in many cases for informal admissions. That is a very serious matter because we all prefer patients to go into hospital informally rather than under section.
I echo the appeals made by the noble Baronesses who have spoken from this side of the House for a continued increase in resources while admitting and' acknowledging that an increase has already taken place.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for outlining so clearly the purpose and the proposals in the Bill.
948
Last November I was pleased to see included in the Queen's Speech a measure to provide for people with a serious mental disorder to be cared for under supervision when not in hospital. That seemed a quick response to disturbing incidents, including murders by schizophrenics in particular. In the Clunis case the subsequent inquiry produced recommendations for sensible action and changes.
While I applaud the intention, therefore, there are disadvantages in instant legislation. First, one cannot avoid disturbing the present law and procedures without having had a general review. Secondly, the time for consultation with the medical professions and organisations involved and concerned has been very short. The Bill has been given an early place in our parliamentary programme; and I welcome that. But it must have been in draft, and possibly in print, over a month ago and that is only a short time after the announcement in the middle of November. Some of the objections and reservations voiced by interested organisations may well have arisen because of the short time between the announcement in mid-November and the presentation of the Bill. The present law to be changed and supplemented is contained in the 1983 Act for England and Wales, and the equivalent 1984 Act for Scotland. The Bill is sensibly divided neatly into two for that reason.
The Bill's proposals are before us at a critical time— previous speakers have already referred to this—in the new system of care in the community which has not yet settled down, with differing results so far in various parts of the country.
As some noble Lords will know, for nearly 30 years I have been advocating in both Houses of Parliament that there should be more care in the community for disabled people, (both physically and mentally disabled) in suitable conditions rather than keeping them in institutions as long-term patients. I welcomed the Griffiths Report and the decision to launch the system in the 1990 Act. However, adopting the system has not been simple or straightforward. Where the mentally ill are concerned, the intention has been clear and admirable. No one should be discharged from hospital until full and proper arrangements have been made for that individual in the community. In practice I am sure that many of us know of cases where that simply has not happened. We are in the early stages, and one hopes that the situation will improve.
Furthermore, with mental illness, hospital beds will be needed at short notice for patients who have had relapses or failed to take their prescribed medication. We must remember that care in the community has been made possible largely because of the advances in medicine and in knowledge over the past 40 years, and in the drugs and treatment possible. Sufferers from mental illness can now live fairly normal lives in the community provided that they are not too bad and that there are arrangements for them to be returned quickly to hospital when necessary. However, if sufferers from mental illness cease to take assistance—medication and treatment—then the situation can change dramatically and in some cases their ability to cope with ordinary life recedes.

949
The cases which have had great publicity in the past three years involved schizophrenics, violence, danger to the public, and danger to the sufferer himself in the case of the London Zoo incident. The schizophrenics who are violent form a small proportion of the whole. They can usually be identified by the medical profession and I suggest that they must be the people for whom this Bill is primarily designed. There is a delicate balance to be achieved between protecting the public and patients themselves on the one hand, and preserving civil liberties on the other. Depriving a person of freedom by detaining in hospital, or forcing treatment against someone's apparent will, are controversial matters which will doubtless be raised later in the debate.
I speak with no medical qualifications, but from experience. As some noble Lords know, and I remind them, a close member of my family has been suffering from schizophrenia for the past 30 years. Also for part of that period I was for four years (when in another place) Secretary of State responsible for health. I have been closely associated with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship since it was established 25 years ago; and I am the patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland). Therefore I am close to the problems and have been for some time.
I strongly support the principle that the consent and co-operation of a sufferer from mental illness should be sought and obtained if possible. At the same time, the minimum powers of compulsion necessary should be available in the patients' best interests. A characteristic of schizophrenics is that they hear voices. Often those voices seem commanding, and to be obeyed. The voices usually propose unpredictable actions, or foolish ones such as, "Stop taking the medication", or "Disappear into the blue without telling anyone and go missing for days". In those circumstances the schizophrenics are probably not violent, but they need special care and supervision.
Of course, compulsion must be used only on suitable occasions and with care. We are all well aware of the gross misuse of psychiatric diagnoses and detentions by totalitarian regimes, especially in the former Soviet Union, to keep political opponents, or as they thought dissidents, in custody or out of the way. In a democracy, however, that should not be possible and the safety of the public and of the individual require some powers of restraint.
Perhaps I may make some comments regarding Scotland. Because the law and system are different, the Bill proposes community care orders—an alternative arrangement for Scotland. I must tell your Lordships that those proposals have met with some disappointment among the organisations concerned north of the Border. The present indefinite leave of absence from the hospital which has worked extremely well is now to be reduced to one year. Some of us have known that leave of absence from hospital without time limit might be challenged legally. That has not happened so far. As it is an accepted system, operating well in Scotland, we had hoped that the Bill might make a simple change in the legislation and remove the possibility of a legal challenge.
950
In Scotland the mental illness system includes arrangements for guardianship but that has been very little used. I understand that it is considerably used for mental handicap—for people with learning disabilities—north and south of the Border. That disability is not a subject for this Bill. However, I believe that the guardianship arrangements have special application in that field.
Two weeks ago I wrote to my noble and learned friend, who will reply, about the points which have arisen among the organisations concerned in Scotland. He has already sent me a full reply. I quickly add that I shall not dilate on any of the points now. However, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege stated, unlimited leave of absence seems illogical. Sheriff Younger pointed that out. Its great merit is that it works and has been accepted in Scotland by almost everyone concerned. I think that in other walks of life there are similar situations.
The intentions behind the Bill are sound, in my opinion. The difficulties arise from the details of the changes and the new procedures proposed. I hope that the Government will continue their discussions, especially north of the Border, with the organisations most concerned and first, explain more fully what they propose and how the procedures suggested will operate in practice; secondly, listen and be prepared, if necessary, to make amendments.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Jay on the competent way in which she spoke about the Bill and her attitude to it. There is a long list of speakers today not just for the Bill but for the other measures and I shall endeavour to outline some of the points on the Bill which relate to Scotland and which have been raised with me by outside organisations. I hope that I shall be able to spend more time on the Bill when we reach the Committee stage, proposing well-documented amendments after receiving information. I apologise to the Minister and the House; I have never before left a debate halfway through, but unfortunately I must leave early. It is quite unavoidable, I must be in Scotland at a reasonable time this evening and I hope that the House will forgive me. I shall, of course, carefully read the speeches when Hansard is published.
We must all thank the Scottish Office for its efforts to involve the many statutory and non-statutory bodies in Scotland in consultations before the Bill was published. However, that does not mean that the views of the statutory and non-statutory bodies have been met to anything like the extent that we would have liked. I read with care the consultation document issued by St. Andrew's House last December and must admit that I found it pretty hard going. Perhaps that had less to do with the paper and much more to do with my learning curve. As I read on, I began to understand a little more and with the help of many agencies I am just beginning to grasp some of the Bill's proposals.

951
It is a pity that the clauses relating to Scotland could not have been incorporated into a revised Mental Health (Scotland) Bill rather than the way we have had them presented to us in a UK Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, took exactly the same attitude to the Bill. I have no desire and I am sure he has none to make a narrow nationalist point, but I feel that the Bill is a clumsy way of legislating for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in a measure which is so mixed and difficult to access for the layman. There are two Bills dealing with two separate spheres all in one volume and I do not believe that that makes for good legislation.
It is generally accepted, and has been accepted in all the speeches that we have heard so far that, where possible and where beneficial to the patient, as many people as the services can cope with should be treated in the community. However, there are problems, many of which have been mentioned today, to which we must find solutions. I hope that some of the amendments which I intend to put down at Committee stage will elicit information from the Minister.
I am informed by professionals that there is not always easy or indeed any proper co-operation between all the agencies which should or need to be involved in dealing with individuals who have mental difficulties. A specific staff member should always be responsible for regular contact with the patient and have full awareness of and liaise with all the other professional agencies involved.
Another point which I wish to emphasise is that I am told there is no easy method of co-ordinating information across the agencies which deal with the patient in the community. Sufficient weight is not always given to the experience of families and friends of the patient. After all, they see him much more often than anyone in the hospital and they also see the patient in different moods. They should be consulted much more widely than they seem to be. It is even difficult for the professionals—whether it be the nurse, social worker or the psychiatrist—to judge, because they only see the patient for short periods. Relatives and friends, however, live with the patient for long periods.
I am indebted to numerous agencies in Scotland and to individuals for their help in briefing me for this debate. It would probably be helpful if I outlined some areas of unease on which I shall try to put down amendments at Committee stage in order to obtain clarification. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider the amendments and go halfway or even further towards meeting the desires and views of most of the professionals in Scotland.
We will need definitions of those to whom the Bill will apply. Obviously, it includes patients with serious mental health problems, but what about those with serious learning disabilities which affect their performance? Sometimes they are treated as though they have a mental problem, whereas it is a specific type of mental disability. That causes anxiety in Scotland.
Then there is the question of leave of absence with which I shall deal at some length at the Committee stage. Is this a serious problem in Scotland? We do not really know whether it is. I do not know that any serious
952
research has been done on it and, if it is not a serious problem, why should we change the legislation? Again, the Minister will be able to tell us about that in winding up.
I return to a question on which I was trying to obtain elucidation earlier. Is the psychiatrist the best person to take the leading role? Obviously, he will play an important part, but should he take a leading role in the long-term supervision of a patient? He will have a vital input, but surely the social work department will be in much closer and more continuous contact with the patient and should have at least an equal voice in helping to make decisions, playing an important role in any assessment of the patient. I am not trying to reduce the role of the psychiatrist who, as well as being the senior professional, has a leading role. Knowing the medical profession, I believe that he will make the real decisions, but it would take a strong-willed psychiatric nurse to bypass him.
The other point raised concerns compulsory treatment of a patient who returns to hospital for assessment which is dealt with under Clause 35. The wording of the clause suggests that the patient who is re-admitted for assessment is "detained". We would like the wording clarified, because it may very well mean that a patient who has been detained may be given medication, whether or not he wants it. In other words, he could be given medication against his will. I should like to know whether the patient has any right to appeal against recall to hospital. What is the process by which he is recalled?
We on this side of the House and the Scottish people to whom I have spoken believe that the Government have genuinely tried to deal with the situation. Care in the community is something which we all feel is right in the proper circumstances. We believe that it is good, but the Minister will not be surprised that those professionals and specialists are asking for clarification on a large number of issues within the field of mental health. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to help by getting answers from the Minister on some of the points that I have very briefly tried to outline.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for introducing this Bill. I also apologise to the whole House. I sincerely hope to be present at the end of this debate, but I may need to leave early to return to Scotland.
We are discussing mental health. This is a forgotten area and, regrettably, one that is probably still taboo. I suspect that most families would prefer that their relatives were bad rather than mad. We are considering compulsory measures of care for those who have been labelled as psychotic or schizophrenic, or as having aggravated learning difficulties. Here I must declare an interest. During my social work career I was, in England, a duly authorised officer and, in Scotland, a mental health officer. That was some time ago, but I speak as a former practitioner.

953
Mental health patients often do not realise that they are ill, and therefore they sometimes do not take their medication. That prevents them from functioning normally in the community. I regard this as a very important point and I shall return to it. I thank my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington for introducing the Bill from our side and for mentioning that I shall be dealing only with Part II, relating to Scotland. This Bill amends and alters the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, and, like other noble Lords, I wish that this were the "Mental Health (Community Care Order) (Scotland) Bill", so that we could be discussing that on its own.
Clause 4 extends the range of compulsory measures in the treatment of people who are either mentally ill or suffer from aggravated learning disabilities. The range of these measures is: Section 18 hospital orders; Section 37 guardianship orders; and restriction orders where the Secretary of State determines when a patient will be released, rather than the consultant. There are also fairly extensive leave of absence arrangements. Among this range of measures are two new mental health orders; namely, the supervision and treatment order, coming in through the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that is currently in another place, and the community care orders that we are discussing at the moment.
Clause 5 deals with those who are absent without leave. It lengthens the period before they cease to be detained from 28 days to six months. That is probably too long. Clause 6 deals with the leave of absence arrangements and restricts the period to one year, which is probably too limited.
Most patients in Scotland are informal patients. We have 30,000 admissions, of whom 3,000 are normally on compulsory measures. Significantly, there are approximately 100 patients in Scotland who have been on leave of absence for more than one year and are therefore prescribed candidates for community care orders.
The Bill lays down the criteria for the community care order patient—that is, that he or she should be mentally disordered, requiring treatment but not requiring detention, with some risk to his or her own health or safety; or someone who is likely to generate the need for the protection of other people. These are not the same criteria as for a Section 18 hospital order, as there is no requirement for detention and no power of treatment. Obviously, acute psychiatric patients will remain in hospital, which is an unnatural environment. Mental health implies the ability to live in the community.
There is some logic in this statutory halfway house provision. The expected route to getting onto a community care order would be that the patient would be admitted to hospital under either a Section 18 compulsory admission or possibly a Section 24 emergency admission, and would come into hospital for assessment and treatment. The consultant psychiatrist would apply to the sheriff for a community care order after consulting the social work department, a community mental nurse, some voluntary agencies, the carer and the patient. The consultant psychiatrist is
954
required to draw up a community care plan which will distinctly need a care worker, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
What exactly will these people do? I suggest that the social workers will not only produce a social circumstance report but will also make arrangements for accommodation for an occupational programme, probably in daycare or in a sheltered workshop. They will make travel arrangements; arrange an income with the Department of Social Security; provide counselling; and may do things such as advising the school to which the patient's child goes as to what is happening. The community mental nurse would be dealing with medication and monitoring the patient's mental health, and of course providing counselling.
The carer is perhaps the most critical person in this whole sphere. This person may be a parent, a spouse, a relative or even a neighbour. The carer is the person who, frankly, has the burden of care. Then, of course, the patient must also consent to being placed on the order. The sheriff will make the community care order but cannot make such an order unless there is a satisfactory community care plan that is ready to implement. It seems to me that the quality of the community care plan ends up being a burden on the sheriff to decide. Ironically, the patient may be on leave of absence from hospital while the community care plan is being prepared.
So the patient is released to the community care team. I suggest that a busy community care team might be able to handle up to 15 patients, and probably fewer in a very rural area. The team must be able to respond today, usually on a call from the carer, and not just make routine visits. We are dealing with people who would otherwise be revolving door patients. If the patient deteriorates, then readmission can follow, and the consultant psychiatrist will arrange for the person to be brought back into the hospital for a new period of reassessment at seven days, whereas normally emergency admissions are only 72 hours.
If, as a result of the reassessment period, the person is found to be rapidly restabilised, then the patient will go back out into the community and the community care order will continue. Otherwise, a new Section 18 admission will be taken from the sheriff court. The community care order will last six months. It can be renewed by the consultant psychiatrist, first for six months and then subsequently for 12 months. But I note that renewals are not subject to judicial scrutiny by the sheriff. They are, however, notified to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. A community care patient will take his or her medication voluntarily, whereas patients on leave of absence will be liable to compulsory treatment because they are still subject to a Section 18 hospital order.
While the legislative arrangements are properly ordered in the Bill, there is more to a community care order than passing a Bill about it. Community care plans require the co-operation of social work departments, housing, health board staff, voluntary agencies and carers—and the use of their funds. The House will be well aware that Scottish local authorities are to be reorganised in 1996 when we move from 12 social work

955
reorganised in 1996 when we move from 12 social work authorities to 32. So I fear that this Bill may be introduced into an atmosphere of organisational chaos.
I also wonder whether the consultant psychiatrist should be making the community care application, as he will be committing other agencies' funds and personnel. Also, in Schedule 2 (page 39, line 27) dealing with offences, I am a little worried by the part which reads:
"(2A) It shall be an offence for any individual to ill-treat or wilfully neglect a patient in respect of whom a community care order is for the time being in force."
Does this failure to provide after-care services, which may occur, come under this Bill? If so, who is going to end up in the dock? As it is, Section 8 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, dealing with after-care services, is already regarded as being underfunded. Community care orders will cost more than the community-based budget but, of course, less than the hospital budget. As the community care team seems liable to prosecution for failing to provide after-care services in extremis, it seems to me that they should be making a joint community care application rather than the more hospital-based consultant psychiatrist. These resource implications are, of course, the crux of any community care proposals. Hospital care is expensive but all the patients are together and easily administered. Care in the community is cheaper but more difficult to carry out effectively, especially on a shoestring budget.
I am also worried by the wording of new Section 35A (on page 17) in Part II, which says that the responsible medical officer may make application to the sheriff for an order,
"providing that the patient shall, instead of continuing to be liable to be so detained, be subject to the conditions specified in the order, being conditions imposed with a view to ensuring that he receives—

(a) medical treatment; and

(b) after-care services provided for him under section 8 of this Act."

I am worried about the possible implications of that. If community care order patients are given statutory access to health and social work services, it seems to me this would lead to a rescheduling of priorities and a denial of services to others, unless the budget can be expanded.
To conclude, provisions of a community care order are in fact weaker than the provisions in respect of leave of absence. There are no powers of treatment in a community care order and of course leave of absence is to be restricted to one year. I wonder whether psychiatrists will rush to use them in view of that. I think we shall see the psychiatrists holding on for a full year before implementing them. However, community care orders may bring compulsory measures and after-care services to the most vulnerable among the currently informal patients, and this may be a bonus.
Finally, Scotland needs an overhaul of all mental health provisions, in the light of increasing community care provision, not just additions and amendments. I look forward to a new mental health Bill for Scotland being introduced.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe?: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for, as always, spelling out so
956
clearly the proposed legislation. I welcome this Bill. I feel that the proposals provide for the care of people in the best sense of the word. The Bill proposes extra care for the patient who is in need of medical care, and care for the general public who can suffer if the proper supervision is not present.
When my children were small and I was thankful for my good fortune that they had both good mental and physical health, I went with many others on a regular basis on a Saturday afternoon to a nearby hospital, where long-term patients lived. My job was to help in the hospital shop and canteen, providing refreshments to the families who came every week to spend three or four hours with their relatives. I found it a very humbling and worthwhile experience. The dedication and love of these people was demonstrated; some making long and difficult journeys to visit their relatives on a weekly basis. Without any medical knowledge, it appeared to me that marry of the patients were responsible and capable people who could have lived a normal life outside. It was therefore very heartwarming when I heard that more suitable accommodation had been found. The hospital was an old Victorian institution and care in the community, if organised properly, seemed to be a much happier and more sensible answer.
Many of those patients are now living useful lives in independent accommodation but of course there will always be a need for more structured and constant supervision for the few suffering from severe mental illness. We have all read the tragic circumstances of certain recent cases. Although care in the community is working well in the majority of cases, it is essential that for that minority the provisions are strengthened where people have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. This minority of people are those who need special and extra support on discharge from hospital.
So I welcome the proposals for supervised discharge. Patients should agree with their carer to a treatment plan. It should be detailed and should specify requirements, if necessary, such as residence and attendances for medical treatment. As everyone who has been ill appreciates, even with general medication the need to continue a course of treatment may still be there after the initial symptoms have been relieved. In the case of mental illness this may be even more vital. Failure to make use of the facilities available can cause many problems, and it is this issue and not only the alleged lack of facilities for mentally ill people which has needed addressing.
In a compassionate society such as ours, it is essential that those suffering from mental illness have access to all the services that they need. For some, that may mean a period as an inpatient in hospital or in receipt of continuing care in the community. Financing the right treatment has been a priority for the NHS, with a 40 per cent, increase in funding. The number of consultant psychiatrists and community health nurses has risen dramatically. Local authorities are also providing places for people with mental illness, to help meet the social rather than the health needs involved. This is very important in the care of an ageing population. There is a perception that the number of beds has decreased over the last decade, but in fact it has been fairly constant at

957
around 80,000. It is the closure of the large institutions, such as the one where I worked, which leads us to that belief. But of course there is now a whole range of options, from the more highly supervised larger units to the smaller homes. I should like to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who, with pump priming from the Government, participate in the care of mentally ill people. I refer to the Samaritans and SANE in particular, who have put forward many initiatives in this field.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the families of mentally ill people, often suffering themselves from the stress of caring for their sick relatives. I believe that we should all welcome this Bill as it strives to improve the quality of life for the patient while maintaining the confidence of the public that the safety of us all is paramount.
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am an unrepentant feminist even though I am not always politically correct. I assume that women possess certain qualities not possessed by men, and of course there is the other aspect of that—that men may possess qualities not possessed by women. At any rate, today we have a debate in which the first three speakers, all highly qualified and eloquent, were women and now I find myself speaking between two ladies who are also eloquent and highly qualified; and so I will offer a rather diffident contribution.
I am encouraged by my noble leader in this matter, Lady Jay, who referred to the Matthew Trust report, Victims of Care. I remember that during the war, Mr. Duff Cooper, then Minister of Information, suggested that when people talked in a rather defeatist way, they should be asked: are you a paid or unpaid agent of Hitler? I suppose I might be asked whether I am a paid or unpaid agent for the Matthew Trust in these days when everybody has to declare an interest. I am not a paid or unpaid agent of the Matthew Trust but I am a great admirer of its work and of Peter Thompson, its founder and inspirer, who, as I have said before now, has done more for mental health than anyone I know of in our time.
Perhaps I may dwell for a moment on the report, Victims of Care. No one could read it without realising that there are great deficiencies in our arrangements for the most difficult cases. I do not know whether it is possible to enumerate these cases statistically, but there are a number of our fellow human beings who present difficult problems. I am glad to find that one of the Ministers in the Department of Health has written to Mr. Thompson saying that he found the report thought provoking. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has also found it thought provoking. Reading the report one realises that there are great deficiencies. The question then arises: what do we propose to do about it? People in their different ways, many of them highly expert, have tried to cope with the problem, but it will always remain one of the most difficult in the world with which politicians will have to cope.
958
These people are problems. They are problems for society. The press regard some of them as dangerous. They are problems for those who love them and they are problems for themselves. They must be supervised and helped. Those two problems are at the centre of what the Government are trying to do. When we come to the Committee stage we shall no doubt have a lot of detailed proposals to consider. I am looking at the broad issue in my few remarks today.
On a previous occasion I mentioned someone who was referred to me by the Matthew Trust. He is a young man, now aged 28, who when he was 16 was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Now, 12 years later, he has been in and out of trouble—not very bad trouble but in and out of trouble. He is going to provide a very great problem for all concerned, not least himself.
How do we propose to tackle such problems? Resources are an important part of the solution. I hope that the Government are not committing themselves to the idea that they cannot or will not provide any more resources. The idea that a new and better service can be provided without more resources is absurd.
Perhaps I may offer an analogy from the prison area. I am in touch with someone who, I was told by the Minister with responsibility for prisons, was to be treated in a certain prison. However, he has not yet received any treatment. The excellent governor concerned pointed out that when the prisoner arrived there were 14 other prisoners in the same category arriving on the same day and there was one psychologist to make the initial assessment. Without more resources, nothing of any consequence will happen in this area.
But resources are not everything. With so many experts present I hardly need to say that most of the public do not realise quite how shortsighted it is to say that these mentally ill people ought to make use of the existing services. It is all very well to talk like that. There must be a few noble Lords present—I cannot see any of them today—who have pensioner bus passes.
Noble Lords: Yes!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there are apparently one or two present. Perhaps some of them— I am sure only one or two—lose their bus passes occasionally, as I am inclined to. In that case I hope that they do not go to the local post office. At my post office, which is a few hundred yards from where I live, one is put through a very awkward cross-examination if one loses one's bus pass. I was told, "We must be sure that you live here where you say, just a few yards down the road. Do you have your passport on you?" I said, "I'm sorry. I don't carry it with me". I was then asked, "What about your birth certificate?" I said, "I don't have that either". The next question was, "Your driving licence, perhaps?" I replied, "I'm sorry. I don't drive". I was told, "Go away and come back when you are better equipped", or words to that effect. Luckily, one can outsmart those people because we have a lovely post office here. Any Peer who knows his way about this building can get a new bus pass by presenting himself at the post office. That is the privilege of Members of the House and of the House of Commons. However, the ordinary mentally ill person, confronted with that kind

959
of treatment, as he is likely to be, will not go near a post office again. Therefore, there must be a lot of extra help—beyond what appears to be duty—if those people are to benefit.
Resources are not everything. Even good intentions are not everything. There must be skill and understanding in those who seek to serve mentally ill people. The Matthew Trust makes a big point of more training. I do not say that there should be more training for all local government officers but social services workers should have more training—perhaps a year's more training—and there should be a much greater number of psychiatric community nurses. Without that kind of provision, throwing money at the problem will not make as much difference as one would wish.
Many other points will be raised by subsequent speakers in the debate. I just want to back up what has been said from our own Front Bench, and said much better than I could wish to say it.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are discussing the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society and a Bill which we hope will be of help to them. I thank the Minister for the way in which she so cogently presented the Bill. To me, it is very complicated. I had looked upon it as going repeatedly over the same point but probably to those who drafted the Bill it was done with expert knowledge. The Minister has helped us on our way.
I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who gave us an insight into what it is to help the people for whom he has been responsible. The noble Earl's name always appears before mine on the list of speakers. Perhaps the typewriter has become stuck. I have followed the noble Earl on the last three occasions I have made speeches on the welfare of other people. Very few people have done more than the noble Earl for the welfare of other people.
Many people, both inside and outside the Chamber, have knowledge of those who have left psychiatric hospitals. We know that it is the after-care which will shape their lives. Today, we are dealing with men and women who have suffered from mental disorders which include schizophrenia, severe mental impairment, psychopathic disorder or mental impairment. I sincerely wish that we could offer much more help to those who suffer from depression. There are far too many people who are homeless and deeply lonely. Such people are often unemployed. They rarely get offers of the care which the Bill envisages for those who have been in hospital. It is estimated that there are 2,000 mentally ill patients in London alone without accommodation. I have the honour of being president of the Cherry Tree Housing Association which helps those who are in Napsbury hospital in Hertfordshire.
We started the association some time ago because we were worried about the welfare of the patients going out into the community. We began a plan which, unfortunately, is very rarely used in the rest of the country. The plan consists of medical and nursing staff who get together and choose six men and women who
960
are expected to like living together. Through our auspices those people are put into a flat within the hospital boundaries. They are able to see their doctor, nursing staff or whoever they want. They are put there for six months to see if they can live together.
People have to be on the verge of going out into the community. After they have spent six months in one of the two flats—there are 12 people at a time involved— we have borrowed, begged and perhaps stolen and had homes built for the same group in some of the 12 boroughs in which we have a catchment area. We now have 18 homes administered by the Cherry Tree Association. The ex-patients who are still on licence live in the homes and go out to work as normal people. They are paid for their work and are therefore able to pay rent for the homes in which they live. Usually one person in the home acts as housekeeper and cook while the others go out to work. It is a home for people who have had no key of their own for very many years.
The scheme has worked amazingly well. I am very proud that the most recent home, built from knocking down two very old houses, was named after me. That is how we have dealt with the matter at Napsbury. Beds are being closed in that area. It is vitally important that beds should be available when needed by any of the people in the homes or those who have gone out into the community. They may have to return at almost a moment's notice. Some of the illnesses from which they suffer can take control again very rapidly and the patient has to be restored to hospital.
Not enough people care for ex-patients. There are not enough people in the community to care. Although we have been told by the Minister that no more money will be needed, I say that it will. We need more people like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who will undertake to look after people who are on the verge of being totally cured of a very serious illness.
Those who go out from the hospital arc lucky if they have relatives to go to. If they have not—we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, about the guardians who came into existence after the 1983 Act— I wish that the guardians were more fully used. I have also heard of foster homes where perhaps one ex-nurse will take in, and look after, one patient, very often for the rest of their lives. I know of one case of a schizophrenic who is so much better because she is being looked after by an ex-nurse who sees to her medication.
Two billion pounds is spent on services for the mentally ill —a vast budget. One would have thought that it covered people who work in this field both inside and outside the hospitals. But money is always very difficult to come by. We look to the Minister to help us to come by more for the working of the Bill.
As I have tried to say, it is people in the community who are vital in looking after these ex-patients whether in the voluntary sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, or as carers who are very often part of the local authority. They are the people who will care for these patients. We owe them our thanks for all that they do.

961
To my knowledge, which is fairly extensive, but perhaps not as great as that of other noble Lords, voluntary helpers will come forward and help to look after people either inside or outside hospital. I say to the Minister that to my knowledge it is young people between 16 and 22 years of age who will help to look after the psychiatric and mentally disordered patients, more so perhaps than middle-aged people who may believe, "There but for the grace of God go I". I hope that the Bill will do more than has been done in the past for people who have psychiatric disorders.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has every reason to be proud that the most recent of these homes has been named after her. The long period of work which she has done in this field is admired by all. It is typical of the tremendous amount of voluntary work that is going on throughout the country in one way or another.
I was ruminating as I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, presenting the Bill and the speech of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. I thought how privileged we are in this House to have two women of such ability to lead us in our debates. But I then had another thought which is not against my former thought. Many noble Lords begin by saying something like, "Ladies and gentlemen"—as one does when making a speech—"I welcome this Bill". I cannot welcome this Bill at all. I would like to do so. If a penny farthing is added to it I would welcome it to the extent of the penny farthing. I believe it is a difficult Bill which will create more problems than it resolves.
I had the honour to be president of the mental health charity MIND. I have been associated with its work for 25 years including four years working on its staff and another four years as its chairman. I have watched its work. MIND is the National Association for Mental Health. I have seen its campaigns and its work for a better life for those diagnosed as being mentally ill. I have seen a great deal of the work of its 240 local associations. It is a major provider of services and, through its information, legal and campaigning work, it promotes respect for the rights and dignity of those who are diagnosed as mentally ill.
When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, having concluded that the 1959 Act was too old and that it needed to be revised, I had the privilege of starting the long process of consultation which, as far as I was concerned, would end in a White Paper putting forward new ideas for a new Mental Health Act. When I then found myself sitting on the wrong side of the House—I am not expecting to sit on the wrong side of the House for very much longer—I later had the privilege of serving on the Special Select Committee which considered the 1983 Mental Health Act. We benefited greatly from the meetings that were held in advance to clear away some of the misunderstandings and to ensure that the committee was more aware of some of the complications of such a Bill than might otherwise have been the case.
962
I believe that experience has shown that those who, in earlier times, might have spent long periods of their lives incarcerated in long-term hospitals can, and do, live full and valuable lives in the community. To that extent, I very much agree with the Minister that the situation has improved. Parts of the country have good community care services, which provide essentials such as crisis services, long-term support and a choice of treatments and where people with mental health difficulties are listened to and are fully involved in the decisions that are taken about their care and treatment. I should like to repeat that because I believe that we simply cannot act on behalf of other people. We should act only following proper consultation with those whose lives are as real as ours and whose views need to be listened to carefully.
It is clear that short-term hospital admission can be avoided, freeing resources to end what the Audit Commission characterised as a "vicious circle" of inadequate community care services, leading to hospital admission. The commission's report shows that, despite the rhetoric of community care, over two-thirds of the spending on mental health is still on hospitals. Community services are inadequately funded—and under the Bill not a penny is provided to help with that.
Together with most organisations that are involved with mental health care, MIND believes that the problem is that there are not enough good community care services of the type that people need and want. In my view, crisis services come at the top of the list. When people are stuck and they do not know where to go or where they will sleep, and when all of a sudden things are crushing them, they need some help. MIND has argued that the Government should set national minimum standards for community care which would prevent the provision of such services being the geographical lottery that it is at the moment. The Government should promote the entitlement of psychiatric patients to the services that they need. I repeat that such patients have an "entitlement".
The Bill does not offer any new resources. It does not place any new duties on authorities to provide essential community care services—nor does it lay down standards of service provision. Instead, it proposes that patients who are discharged into the community can be forced to accept the services that they are offered through health and social services authorities imposing requirements of residence, attendance for medical treatment, work or training, and by giving "supervisors" the power to "take and convey" a patient to their residence, treatment, work or training place. I find the power to "take and convey" a patient from one place to another (when that may well be against his will) to be very intimidating.
MIND fears that the framework proposed in the Bill will undermine the very things that are required for good community care: good therapeutic relationships, trust between patients and carers and, as I have already said, patient involvement in decision-making, and that the coercive measures undermine fundamental human rights. MIND's concerns are shared by organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, the Mental After Care

963
Association, the Mental Health Foundation, the Law Society, Liberty, the UK Advocacy Network and Survivors Speak Out.
I have had letters from many psychiatrists—in fact, I have had more letters from psychiatrists than from any other group in the period leading up to this debate— who are now running successful community services and who are worried that the Bill will undermine, if not destroy, the services that they are providing. Perhaps I may give one example. I refer to a letter that I have received from Dr. E. V. Edmunds, who is a consultant psychiatrist in Rugby. The letter states:
"Over the past five years or so we have developed for Rugby District, which has a population of about 90,000, a mental health service which is community based and involves different disciplines working together. We actively involve both the service users themselves and their carers in planning their treatment and management, and have tried to focus on building a therapeutic and trusting relationship with our service users, some of whom have had a long history of contact with the psychiatric services which have not always been to their satisfaction.
I believe this approach has had good results. Some of my patients who have suffered from very severe mental disorders have made good recoveries and have been able to return to full time work and education. A number have returned to complete degree courses and one has completed teacher training and has gained employment".
The letter continues:
"I am … very concerned that the additional compulsory powers will have the opposite effect from that which is intended"—
I stress the use of the word "intended" because I am sure that the Minister does not intend to do otherwise. The letter concludes:
"and I think that it would be very difficult for me to continue with the style of working that I feel is most effective. It is difficult to build up trusting relationships when the patient/user perceives that all of the power rests with the psychiatrist. I would instead prefer that greater attention should be paid to the provision of community care services which are suited to individual needs and the communities that are served".
I was also interested in the comments made by the Royal College of Nursing, which refers to the Bill as offering,
"false reassurance to patients and the public".
Those are the words of an organisation which all of us in this House respect including, I am sure, the Minister. It points out that the Bill fails to provide mentally ill people with the full range of services that they need; threatens to offer little more than a method of compelling patients to take harmful neuroleptic medication; fails to provide sufficient resources and training, particularly for community psychiatric nurses, to implement the proposals; and will reinforce existing discrimination in mental health services against patients from minority ethnic communities. We must watch that point carefully.
Indeed, the RCN developed that point later, stating that it,
"fears that far from addressing discrimination in mental health services against patients from black and minority ethnic communities, the Bill will only serve to reinforce it. Patients from black and minority ethnic groups are already over-represented in the use of Dowers under existing mental health legislation. They are more likely to be treated with neuroleptic drugs and to be given higher doses than white patients. It is likely that 80 per cent, of the new supervision orders will apply to this group of patients and the discrimination will therefore continue".
964
I have another useful quotation from the Mental Health and Disability Sub-Committee of the Law Society for which I have great respect. I spoke at one of its conferences a year or so ago. It says that the Law Society:
"considers that the case has not been made for more extensive powers of compulsion over people with mental health problems, whether they are being treated in hospital or in the community. In the Committee's view, the existing powers and provisions of the 1983 Act have never been properly used because of insufficient understanding of the extent of those powers, nor fully implemented because of the lack of adequate resources devoted to the care of mentally ill people".
My last quotation comes from the BMA which I know does not always command the Minister's respect. It deals, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, with guardianship. We must look at that carefully as the Bill proceeds. The BMA said:
"The Government recognises that there may be scope for extending the use of guardianship and amendments could be made to the provisions on guardianship in the Mental Health Act 1983 to meet the need to tighten up and improve the care provided in the community for severely disordered people".
I shall say no more except to ask the Minister a question. Bearing in mind all the organisations to which I have referred and which have such sharp criticisms of the Bill's contents, when she replies will she tell me with some precision what organisations the Government consulted before they brought the Bill to the House?
5.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, although on one point alone I disagree with him, and that is his keen support for MIND. I have found the members of MIND useful and easy to work with out in the country, but the enthusiasm for civil liberties at the centre of MIND does nothing but harm, rather than good, to the cause of mentally ill people. It is sad that that should be so. He made an admirable speech with quotations from all sorts of other people. It is a pity therefore that I find it difficult always to pay the respect that I should to the noble Lord's speeches when he is doing one of his "MIND jobs".
I thank my noble friend the Minister for so clearly introducing what I believe to be a most welcome Bill. It is supported in principle by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship which advises me on these matters, as I expect your Lordships know, and by SANE of which I am chairman. With the excessively rapid reduction in the number of hospital beds for the mentally ill over recent years—I emphasise excessively rapid—there have been several well-publicised cases of persons with schizophrenia who have not had sufficient care in the community—some with disastrous results. We all know of them, and indeed some noble Lords have given examples.
However there have been several cases, not so very different, which have come to my notice from time to time where the people most affected were the sufferer and his or her family. I had a friend in the Navy. He was a close friend in the early days, and I am talking about 55 years ago or more. He was invalided out of the Navy in the late 1950s or early 1960s. He was mentally

965
ill. He lived a satisfactory life during the 1960s, cared for by his family and his GP. In the late 1960s, by which time I had moved away, he had to go to a mental hospital because of something that he did. I really cannot remember what it was. He spent a bit of time there, and was discharged in due course. None of the procedures about which we are talking today was around. To cut a long story short, before long he murdered his second wife. He is now in a mental hospital again. If something like the proposed system had been in existence 30 years ago, it is possible that the lady would have survived. I do not believe, as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell implied, that the legislation is being rushed through. I believe that the legislation is overdue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way, because I think he has misunderstood me. I was saying that I was delighted when the Government announced last November that they were going to produce the Bill in this Session. I said that there were disadvantages when preparations had to be made quickly. There was just a short period for consultation. I certainly welcomed the fact that the Bill was coming. Some of the problems that have been raised about organisations outside Parliament have arisen because of the short time in which the Bill has been brought forward. I am certainly not suggesting that it is being rushed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. However, it is not something that should be dismissed, because of the difficulties that will unquestionably arise. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship estimates from its long experience that sufferers from schizophrenia will always need a great deal of help if they are to have reasonable lives in the community. About 30 per cent, will need support between lapses, in hospital it is hoped. An additional 50 per cent, will need varying degrees of care indefinitely from their families and statutory bodies. Within that 80 per cent, of schizophrenia sufferers, there will be a small minority—estimated at about 3,000 people —which will reject care or which will never be offered it.
The Bill should be especially helpful to that minority which so often causes most anguish to the public. I hope, however, that the Bill will also provide some better care for the larger number of sufferers.
Although I accept that there might be legal difficulties in adding compulsory medication for mentally ill persons in the community where that is needed, the Bill would be much more useful for the sufferers and the public if a measure of compulsory medication had been included within it. It would also be more helpful and give a clear understanding to health and local authorities of the probable commitments required by the Bill if the explanatory note admitted that, properly implemented, it is bound to cost more and to need more manpower, as most noble Lords have already said.
One other criticism that must be made is that the Bill's wording seems to take particular care to limit the involvement of the nearest relatives. It is true that some schizophrenia sufferers feel passionately, some of the
966
time, that they want their nearest relatives kept off the scene. That can be understood. Relationships may not be good or the resistance may be a symptom of the illness. However, close adoption of the procedures which keep the nearest relatives at bay may mean that some nearest relatives will be kept completely in the dark about what is happening when it would be helpful, if not essential, for them to know more. There is certainly room for amendments to deal with that problem.
With the aid of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, I shall be spelling out my doubts about the Bill when we have our preliminary discussions on its detail next Wednesday. In that connection, having heard our noble friends from Scotland, I believe that there are significant differences between Parts I and II and, more importantly, between the types of amendment relating to Scotland and those relating to England and Wales. Will my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser consider having two separate preliminary meetings next Wednesday in order to discuss Parts I and II independently? That will allow more time for each subject. I understand that we shall have approximately two hours for discussion. It could be the case that, from the point of view of the Scots, that time could be absorbed by the English and Welsh or vice versa. That would be unfortunate if, in the event, the detail is different. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will consider that proposal and give an indication in his reply tonight.
In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will give this useful Bill a Second Reading.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jay gave the analogy of the Dangerous Dogs Act in respect of which a small number of well publicised problems led to reaction in terms of legislation. I wish to use the analogy of car pollution. We know that only approximately 10 per cent, of cars cause most of the pollution but we feel obliged to legislate for all cars.
My belief about the problem, on which I am not a specialist, is that a few mentally ill patients have been discharged from hospital, perhaps too soon, and pushed from pillar to post—as Mr. Clunis claimed—from one person to another in an unco-ordinated fashion. The problem requires not legislation but a rethinking of the treatment.
It may be, for example, that the problem within the NHS is that since the introduction of care in the community and the purchase of provider arrangements there has been a fragmentation of treatment. I direct the Minister to an article in the latest issue of the Health Services Journal about incentives and mental illness. It points out that among the three main purchasers in the mental illness field —the health authorities, the local authorities and the funded GPs—there are conflicting incentives about what to recommend and what to opt for.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, while health authorities wish to minimise long stay care in hospitals local authorities, when they are landed with the care of someone, must find the resources for it. And not only

967
resources for social workers but for housing and so forth. When someone is put into the care of the community they need not only a social worker but housing. If there is one thing that local authorities are short of it is housing. Therefore, we have not thought through the problem. Only a small number of patients are involved—not more than 10 per cent., as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Each person has a unique problem and one must devise a package of treatment for him or her. That package must be co-ordinated and as I look through the Bill I do not see a reference to anyone who will do that. That worries me. It may be the case not that we need more resources but that we need to deploy the existing resources more intelligently and carefully in a more directed fashion in order to produce a package of treatment for those people who require special attention. If there is scope for such amendments to be made, we may increase the effectiveness of the Bill.
Many noble Lords mentioned human rights. Perhaps I may re-emphasise what was said by my noble friend Lord Ennals. Many patients from ethnic minorities, in particular the Afro-Caribbean, are disproportionately represented among the mentally ill. There is a problem and it may be that classification in a certain category is thought by the patient to be not a medical judgment but a judgment biased by racism. That may not be the case but conflict might arise.
In such a case, the person has a right to refuse medication. It may be said that the person is right and the doctor is wrong, but there has been a great deal of controversy in this area. A great deal of literature has been published about schizophrenia and people disagree about its nature, symptoms, causes and cures. There is no single philosophy and no single belief about the medication that should be used. It is likely that the patient, or someone related to the patient, may object to medication and may have good grounds to do so. In that case, we must look most carefully at the problem of forced medication.
In that respect, I wish to comment about the problem of language. Many people of ethnic minorities may not know English sufficiently well to be able to articulate their objections or desires, let alone the fact that they have religious objections to certain kinds of medication. All those problems must be considered carefully when we deal with the issue of civil liberties.
There is a problem but I am not sure that this Bill is the solution. However, if we identify the problem we might, with a great deal of goodwill and consultation, be able to find a solution which is similar to these proposals but not exactly these.
5.57 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for introducing the Bill so clearly. The debate has been most interesting and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made some valuable and interesting points. Ideas have moved on since we debated these matters in 1989. Those debates took place in a non-party-political atmosphere. All noble Lords on all
968
sides of the House want the Bill to set out as clear a programme as possible to enable authorities to carry out the provisions.
The Bill addresses the difficult issue of discharge from hospital and, where necessary, the return to hospital. I support the Bill because it will increase the possibility of the mentally ill leading a reasonably normal life in the world outside. Many people will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives but, given supervised after-care and proper medical treatment, there will be less chance of their having to return to hospital and having to endure appalling suffering in loneliness and squalor.
I feel diffident about entering into discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of the detailed proposals. I do so, perhaps, having a relative who suffered from schizophrenia but who has been successfully treated. I know that many people in the medical world, supported by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who know what they are talking about, are lukewarm about the Bill.
The serious need for after-care supervision concerns a relatively small number of vulnerable patients, many of whom have bad home lives and many of whom are so ill that they cannot cope with the smallest problem. It is in those situations, where patients are being released into the community, that there is a special requirement for social workers, and in such situations more psychiatric care and medical help is needed to administer medicines and offer counselling.
It is among that section of the community that there are patients who may be a danger either to themselves or to others. Those cases present grave anxieties to relatives and friends. Their difficulties can be overcome only by generous spending and good co-operation between the Departments of Health and the Environment and local authorities, in particular as regards the provision of accommodation.
A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health stated that there are an estimated 2,000 mentally ill people in London alone without any accommodation. In the words of a member of the City and Hackney Community Services:
"There are large numbers of people with high care needs who cannot just be put in flats or bed and breakfasts—they need someone to drop in or be around all the time".
To keep down the costs of looking after the mentally ill in the community would be counter-productive. If the authorities are starved of funds, there will be a danger of regression and rehospitalisation. I ask the Minister who is to reply whether the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the Bill will mean no additional costs for health or local authorities is made in the context of financial savings made through the closure of hospitals.
There is a danger that with inadequate community care resources, the money will be targeted on the individuals who have previously been detained in hospital. That course may be at the expense of other severely ill people who have been voluntary patients who do not need orders, but who need community support.

969
The Bill will give health authorities, medical practitioners and psychiatric nurses greater control over patients. I speak with a little experience of those matters and I believe that much depends on the trust which a patient has in the doctor. Only gradually do patients grow to accept and come to terms with their illness. Where there is greater insight, surely there will be a greater keenness to take medicine. I do not mean to imply that on some occasions it may be necessary to enforce the taking of medication.
Concern has been expressed about the powers given to supervisors south of the Border. Those powers are not given to their Scottish equivalent—the after-care officers—as regards taking and conveying a patient. In Scotland a special medical officer may, with the consent of the patient's after-care officer, direct the patient to attend. In either case, there is an element of compulsion and I believe that there are occasions when that may be needed.
Much will depend on close co-operation and consultation between the patient and the psychiatrist concerned. There must be a system to enable a patient to go back to hospital for short periods when necessary. A flexible approach is vital. In many cases, a successful improvement will depend on the quality of the home where members of a family are involved in congenial surroundings.
I support what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said about the need for family involvement. I support also what he said on the subject of medication.
Some of your Lordships are concerned about the lack of powers to treat. The Bill should spell out that the psychiatric nurse or other professional should have the right to say to the patient that he must take the medicine prescribed. There is a hollow ring in the words that he cannot be required to take medication. Those words remove the main purpose of the Bill. Should recall to a hospital be necessary, there will be a need for swift action. In Scotland there is a question as to how long the process of reassessment will take. There is uncertainty as to who initiates the reassessment. On that point, the Bill is far from definite. It contains only a somewhat vague mention of those who are concerned with the patient's medical treatment.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, have referred to Scotland. In many ways community care orders fall into line with current Scottish regulations, but under the new proposals the present Scottish system of discharge on a more or less permanent basis monitored by the Mental Health Commission will be changed.
The Bill restricts the period of leave of absence so that there will now be an indefinite threat of return to hospital. That is not in the interests of the morale of patients who, until now, have been given the freedom to continue their treatments under minimum duress. As my noble friend said, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland) has expressed opposition to that part of the Bill because it curtails a valuable long-term option that has been widely used in Scotland and which has allowed patients to live successfully in the community.
970
The community care orders should be backed up by a greater awareness of psychiatry among GPs and the local police who may be required to face dangerous situations. Much depends on the availability of expertise in local communities to meet emergencies. Doctor Finlay was no doubt adequate in his day, but in these complex times, a quick, expert response may be needed.
The Bill may not do all that is needed but it points in the right direction. With proper funding, I believe that it will help to resolve some of the difficulties which have arisen in relation to care of the mentally ill.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation of the Bill. In this Bill, the Government are being practical in a very good and sensible way, as they have been with other legislation concerned with health. They have realised the weaknesses which have emerged since the introduction of that very worthwhile principle of community care. They have seen the missing pieces and the breaks that there have been, which have meant that the high hopes for community care have not been realised.
I realise that it is important to have mental patients brought back into the community. When I was at theological college, the principal thought that it would be a good idea to take us students to a hospital where there were mental patients. I can well remember how it really shocked me. It made me think. Other students told me that I turned pale and they thought that I was going to pass out.
In my first living, I remember visiting a parishioner who had to go to a mental hospital as a patient. That made me realise the need for improved care and how many ordinary lay people needed help in order to help them. Even a priest needs that help.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod said—and I firmly believe this—people in the community need to be helped so that they can help the professionals, the carers and the wonderful voluntary workers who have the necessary experience and understanding. I know that I need help to help those people. That may sound odd coming from a priest who is trying to help all the time. However, those people need specific help. Indeed, because one is a priest it does not mean—Hey presto!— one has the ability to help in the way that one would like in all situations. I believe that to be important.
As I am sure is the case with most noble Lords, I can remember being in the community and seeing mental patients who had been sent back into the community. I refer to people who are, somehow or other, ill in that way. One notices that some people seem afraid and shy about having to be in their presence. Yes, we need help to assist professionals and others.
In fact, I can remember my father-in-law who, bless him, died some years ago. He was not at all well during his last years. I can recall when my wife Mary and myself took him out and when he came to see us at the rectory. However, I remember especially taking him to a tea place in Corsham which was near my parishes. It stuck in our minds—and indeed, it still does—how the

971
manager of that place rather frowned upon us and my father-in-law because, well, one could see that he was ill. That is quite wrong.
There are people in the community who need to be helped in that respect. Of course, there are those to whom helping comes naturally, but there are also others who find it awkward and who are rather shy about such matters and need to be helped. As one speaker said, invariably it is the young who can lead; indeed, they are marvellous in every way and in all things. They can, perhaps, give the lead to others. I remember asking some young people in one parish whether they would visit some old people. Those people were not mentally ill, but they were old and more or less housebound. The response was, "Yes".
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Like my noble friend Lord Mottistone, if it is decided that a mental patient should be returned to hospital for some further treatment, I cannot see how the Bill in any way infringes that person's liberty. I believe that we are really going mad about the word "liberty" in every way. The Bill is aimed at trying to help such people. If one is trying to help someone, does that mean that you are taking away that person's liberty? Indeed, that is crazy because one could more or less say that about anything being done for someone. One can always say that his or her liberty is being taken away. I do not understand that point of view. If we have the welfare and care of such people in mind, as, I believe, the Bill has, one is not taking such liberty away. One is simply trying to help. If it means that such people need to go back to hospital, how can one say that their liberty is lost?
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke about discrimination. I also find that argument difficult to understand. If some ethnic person cannot understand English very well, can it be said that the Bill is in some way discriminatory? I still find that hard to believe. In the practical sense, I believe that the Government have been bold enough to realise that there were some deficiencies in the community care programme and that such deficiencies needed to be put right. Is that wrong? No, of course it is not. Too many people in this world are afraid to acknowledge that, in their great principles and theories, which were put into effect, were some things that they did not foresee. One of the weaknesses in the present world is not being able to face such facts.
On the whole, I believe that the Bill is good groundwork for great improvement. I do not believe that the proposals have been irrationally thought through; indeed, I believe that great care and attention has been given to the legislation. I hope that the Bill will have a blessed way and that it will be accepted. No doubt some people will want to make amendments to it; but let those amendments be good, and good enough to improve the legislation and be part of the Bill.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government can be praised. I do not believe that they have brought the legislation forward in any hurried or ill thought out way. Indeed, perhaps I should try to make amends in that respect. I do not believe that the Government have acted in that way. They wanted to improve and make even better what basically has been, was, and is very good in the whole field of the National Health Service. As a
972
priest who visited hospitals and so on, one saw just that. But that does not mean that one did not think that there could be improvements. I hope that the Bill has a good passage through the House.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the role of a "winder-up" should be to gather up and emphasise the points in the debate which back up his case and, perhaps, to counter those which detract from it. There has hardly been a speech this afternoon which has not made a valid point on one side or the other. My overall impression is that the majority of noble Lords agree with our view that the Bill is only really a stopgap or, rather more crudely, a rather sluggish response to several recent tragic occurrences. At best, it is of marginal value and at worst it is a backward step which may be counter-productive or discriminatory. Above all, many speakers have said that other measures need to be taken to improve the care of the mentally ill in the community to diminish the likelihood of further tragic cases, that the current mental Health Act 1983, if properly used, could well serve the purposes of the present Bill and that the latter is probably unnecessary.
The other improvements which are required in community care will have financial cost implications which, according to the face of the Bill, this legislation will not have. Like my noble friend, I find that most extraordinary. If the Bill works, it surely must have cost implications. Alternatively, if it does not have cost implications and is much used, then other patients will suffer as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said.
I believe that all of us in this House accept—indeed, even the National Schizophrenia Fellowship does so— that, if properly resourced and administered, community care of all but the most acutely disturbed and mentally-ill patients is a humane and constructive policy. But, as so many speakers have said, the system is not working well—certainly not in inner-cities in England and Wales. I am not so sure about Scotland. In fact, I am not even sure whether the Bill is necessary in Scotland because I believe things are working better there.
In inner cities community care has been getting worse, not better, since the National Health Service and Community Care Act of 1991. Pressure on resources in the community in the inner cities, whether run by social services or community health providers, has been greatly increased recently. A contribution to this has been the diminishing number of acute psychiatric in-patient beds and also lack of emergency centres which now hardly exist at all, as my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out. So great is the shortage that in some mental hospitals bed occupancy has reached 200 per cent. That does not mean to say that there is double the proper number of patients in those wards but, with a full ward, doctors have had to refuse admission to the equivalent of another "wardfull" of acutely ill patients and have directed them elsewhere. One result is that there is a growth industry in private psychiatric hospitals on the periphery of London and, I imagine, other cities too.

973
If there is great pressure on beds, then, as so many psychiatrist colleagues have told me—including Professor Anthony Clare—the mental health threshold for deciding when a patient is fit to be discharged is lowered, and unstable people are sent into the community often before adequate arrangements for follow-up have been made. Theoretically the supervision orders created by this Bill should ensure that these arrangements will be made, but I am concerned that the procedure may be too bureaucratic to be used often and that the resources in the community required to fulfil the supervision orders will not be strengthened at all by the Bill.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have pointed out that guardianship orders are similar in effect to the proposed orders in the Bill. They are available under the current Act, but have not been used very often for mentally disturbed patients. Social services play a central role in guardianship orders but they have often been reluctant to use them partly because of lack of resources but also, it should be added, because of a lack of power in guardianship orders to require treatment. That is also a feature of the current order in this Bill.
Compulsory medical treatment is a sensitive area. Ideally medical treatment should not imply medication alone but a whole programme of rehabilitation, occupational therapy, housing and financial assistance, in the way that MIND calls for, as has been described by my noble friend Lord Ennals. As he has also pointed out, those measures have been called for by a whole range of other organisations in the community.
I return to guardianship. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his fellow committee of inquiry members in The Falling Shadow—that title is taken from T.S. Eliot's poem "The Hollow Men"—describe the background of the Robinson case in Torbay where an occupational therapist, Georgina Robinson (no relation) was murdered. This report describes a period when Andrew Robinson—the schizophrenic in the case—was under a guardianship order. Although a guardianship order cannot compel treatment against a patient's will, any more than the current Bill can, Andrew Robinson agreed to medication during the period of the guardianship, even though there was no compulsion to do so. After the guardianship order, and the containment it offered, was lifted, his medical treatment became less adequate and eventually lapsed with a severe deterioration in his condition. His father wrote a letter to the nurse involved in the case, asking for him to come. That was four months after the guardianship order had finished. On 8th March 1993 the Reverend Peter Robinson wrote to John Camus, the nurse, stating,
"I am sure you are aware that, since ceasing to take medication last November, Andrew has become very unwell, and, as always when he refuses medication, we know (from 16 yean experience!) that it can only end in some disaster. We feel as though we are sitting waiting for a time-bomb to go off!
It was three months before Andrew was admitted to hospital and it was three months after that that he deteriorated so much that he did not respond to treatment and the murder occurred.
974
In summary, we think that Clause 1 of the Bill adds a bureaucratic procedure to the 1983 Act whose effect could have been achieved very much more simply by strengthening the existing provisions for guardianship. This has the advantage that a guardianship order can be made while the patient is still in the community and is not restricted to those about to be discharged from hospital, as this Bill requires. We have no great quarrels with Clauses 2 and 3 which tighten the provisions for absence without leave and prolong leave of absence. But, again, I believe that there are resource implications there which are not addressed.
In a well informed brief the Scottish Association for Mental Health stated its concerns. These are not too different from those of many English bodies and point to deficiencies in mental health services which are not being addressed by the present Bill, in particular the lack of co-operation and communication between different agencies and the,
"need for a known member of staff to keep contact with the patient".
Like 'Sir Louis Blom-Cooper in The Falling Shadow, the association suggests that in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales, the time may have come to consider whether the current Mental Health Act, which sees hospitals as the main centres for treatment of seriously ill people, should be replaced by a new Act which recognises that more and more people are, and will continue to be, treated in the community. The current 1983 Act was seven years in gestation. The next Act may not take so long to develop but I suggest that the time is now overdue for the Government to initiate moves towards a new community-based mental health Act so that in a year or so, when we are sitting on the other side of the House, some groundwork will already have been done.
While I am full of admiration for the quality of the two recent reports based on inquiries into particular tragic cases, they are really a form of worst case analysis. What is needed before the legislation is changed is soundly and widely based research on the working of the present Act. The Government should initiate such a research programme as a matter of urgency.
We have, however, got this Bill in front of us. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has said that undoubtedly there will be amendments. There will be amendments, and they will be good amendments for a not very good Bill. We hope that they will make it better.
6.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Eraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I am indebted to all those who have contributed to this important debate on this Bill this afternoon. Some of those who have spoken have revealed that they have, possibly, rather unfortunate circumstances and intimate personal knowledge of some of the problems that can arise with the mentally ill. Others, such as my noble friends Lady Macleod and Lady Seccombe, have revealed their intense effort in the voluntary organisations supporting those who are mentally ill. There have also been valuable contributions by those who have spoken for a

975
number of highly respected organisations dealing with the mentally ill, not only this side of the Border but also in Scotland.
I believe that it would be fair, with one honourable exception, to characterise the views expressed today as welcoming the Bill although clearly a number of detailed reservations were expressed which will undoubtedly be explored as we move to the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that to characterise the introduction of the Bill as a reaction to tabloid opinion was unfair, particularly as my noble friend who opened the debate indicated that the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1993, with its suggestion of community supervision orders, was an important precursor to what we have introduced.
There were some questions about whether the Bill was welcomed beyond your Lordships' House. It has been broadly welcomed and the public believe it to be appropriate. A number of professional organisations, not least the British Medical Association, have written to the Secretary of State welcoming the Bill while, I accept, at the same time adding the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others that it may be desirable to have a broader review of the mental health legislation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I asked specifically that the Government should tell us, in view of the number of organisations that I listed which I know have strong and fundamental criticisms of the legislation, which organisations were consulted in the preparation of the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there was an extensive list. I have just given an example. I am reluctant to try to pick out one organisation and say that it offered wholesale or fulsome support. As I said, the BMA welcomed the Bill but qualified that welcome by saying that it would like to see a further review of mental health legislation. It is difficult to separate those organisations as he would like me to, but a full range of professional bodies and voluntary organisations concerned with mental health issues and patient organisations were consulted.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord write to me and place a copy in the Library?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes I shall try to draw together a list of those who were consulted. However, one cannot assume that their reactions to what is provided for in the Bill fall clearly into categories of either black or white.
One area of reservation was whether there were sufficient resources for the care of those who are mentally ill. Health authority spending on mental illness services has increased by some 40 per cent, since 1979. Local authority spending has increased by some 171 per cent., and the mental illness specific grant supporting local authority expenditure will be £66 million in the year 1995–96, with the Government committed to continuing that grant through to the end of 1997–98. That funding has supported something like 1,000 new projects helping about 100,000 mentally ill people. Without wishing to appear boastful, in Scotland in the
976
next year we shall spend approximately £18 million in the same grant form on 300 projects supporting something like 30,000 mentally ill people. Furthermore, an important feature is that community psychiatric nurses have increased in number approximately fourfold in the past 12 years.
There are undoubtedly pressures and costs in the care of the mentally ill. However, with the exception of what I shall have to say about tribunals in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, we do not believe that there will be a significant extra cost. There should not be. One of the important features of the legislation which possibly has not come out as clearly as it might, is that psychiatrists have indicated that they would like to see what is done already in an informal way given a legal framework. One of the features of the Bill is to provide just that.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was concerned that there might be a gap in care. I acknowledge that services do not reach all those who need them. That is not entirely' a failure of the services because, as has been indicated in the course of the debate, a number of those who are mentally ill are very reluctant to accept help. We believe and hope that the new supervision arrangements will go some way to help them because it will be more difficult for them to lose touch with the services that are being provided.
As regards the training of key workers, in firmly standing by a care programme approach we have included a commitment to improve the training of key workers in their duties under that approach in the 10-point plan. A number of specific initiatives aimed at both NHS and social services staff are already under way.
In the same area of resources I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whether there were enough acute beds. Leaving aside London, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a general shortage of acute beds. The pressures in London are acknowledged. However, the recent report to which the noble Lord referred found that those could often be alleviated by increasing community provision or improved bed management strategies. The task force identified the need for more acute beds in a few inner London districts. Those district health authorities have agreed action plans to bring about the required increase in provision.
Similarly, in answer to my noble friend Lady Macleod, it is fully accepted that it is important to have in-patient beds readily available in a crisis. It is important that there should be proper integration between hospital and community services. That again was emphasised in the report which I have just mentioned. Action plans are now in force to increase the number of acute beds.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Haig that the importance of suitable housing is emphasised in that report. At present the Department of Health is considering with the Department of the Environment the action that is needed to ensure that local authorities fulfil their responsibilities for housing the mentally ill and others with special needs.

977
More generally, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked whether we really need this legislation. The short answer to that question is yes. Fundamental and identifiable action is needed to allay a degree of public concern and to provide the proper legal framework to support patients and to guide professionals.
However,—and I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, focused on this point—we would not wish to introduce a set of arrangements which, because they necessarily contained within them a degree of coercion or compulsion would thereby damage therapeutic relationships. That would clearly be very unsatisfactory. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the treatment and care given under the provisions of the Bill will depend on the co-operation of the patient. That is why the principle of consulting the patient is so firmly enshrined. We believe that with the patients whose needs the Bill addresses a measure of legal backing is nevertheless justified, but we do not see that as undermining the principle that treatment relies primarily on co-operation. We would certainly not wish to damage that relationship.
Nor, I can tell my noble friend Lord Mottistone, would we wish to see relationships with patients' nearest relatives harmed. We would certainly wish to see them involved, but my noble friend will appreciate that if we are to deal with individuals appropriately their agreement should be secured before their relatives are informed unless the nearest relative is also recognised as the patient's informal carer on a day-to-day basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked whether the supervisor would normally be a social worker. The answer is that that supervisor may well be a social worker. But we think it more likely in fact that he or she will be a community mental health nurse. Most key workers in the care programme approach are such nurses. We anticipate that that would be the position.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am grateful to him for expanding on that point. I am grateful, too, that he mentioned earlier that there would be extra training for such people. Obviously if community psychiatric nurses are to take that responsibility, they may well need that training. But how will that be achieved within the provisions of the Bill which state that there will be no further expenditure?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in the 10 point plan approach that we have already undertaken I indicated that emphasis has been given to that factor. I hope that I used the present and past tenses. A number of initiatives have been or are already being taken notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has not yet reached the statute book.
The noble Baroness was also concerned that the supervisor should not be a scapegoat for any errors. An important factor is that there is a well-established principle that the delivery of the patient's care plan may be the responsibility of a named individual, but that individual works as part of a team. The individual should know the limits within which the authority is to
978
be operated. There should be agreed procedures for consulting other members of the team where any specific difficulties arise.
In contrast to a number of the observations made about England and Wales, some concern was expressed about existing arrangements in Scotland. I refer to an arrangement of leave of absence from hospital without end. It was believed that we should simply leave that arrangement in place because it was working well. It would be fair to say that, generally speaking, the arrangement has worked well. However, proper concern has been expressed that we should ensure that what is undertaken in relation to the mentally ill should be beyond legal challenge. As I recall, in opening my noble friend indicated that we have been made aware from a decision in the Scottish courts that to allow leave of absence without end is ultimately illogical and threatens to be opened up to legal challenge.
So far as concerns Scotland, we have restricted the provision to 12 months. By the same token, to ensure that we. march in step in England the period has been extended from six months to 12 months. That would seem about right so far as we can best judge.
A theme that also ran through the contributions—my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Haig raised the issue—related to compulsory medication. It is a matter which raises real issues. Civil liberty arguments have to be addressed. Difficult practical issues on administering compulsory medication in the community to an unco-operative patient have to be addressed. The issue is unlikely to command widespread support in your Lordships' House or in another place, or among professionals. Within Scotland there will be some opportunity for compulsory medication, not in the community but in circumstances where the condition of the individual has so deteriorated that it is considered appropriate to take that individual back to hospital for reassessment. Within the clinical context of the hospital reassessment, such compulsory medication would be permitted. We may return to that matter during later stages of the Bill. But beyond that we do not consider that we can go any further, nor indeed that we should.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the issue of the pressure on mental health review tribunals. It is anticipated that there would indeed be additional costs, not only in respect of the tribunals but also in respect of legal aid for those patients, and those extra legal costs would indeed be met.
It has been difficult to attempt to strike a balance. My noble friend Lord Campbell properly emphasised that we have to weigh up the issues regarding human rights and civil liberties of the individual with a mental disorder. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the rights and liberties of the members of the public to whom we also have a duty. So far as possible, we should seek to keep any danger to the public at large to an absolute minimum. But we wish to maintain the civil liberties of the patients with mental illnesses as best we can. We trust that what we have allowed for in the Bill strikes an appropriate balance. I am grateful to those who have indicated that they believe that we have achieved that balance, although they may have individual points of concern.

979
We were asked whether we could not simply rely instead on the existing arrangements of guardianship which are to be found on both sides of the Border. As has been rightly pointed out, recently the Law Commission on this side of the Border has reported. We do not consider it appropriate to approach individuals with mental illnesses simply on the basis of guardianship. Guardianship is essentially an arrangement which is oriented towards social care. I believe that these sets of provisions, whether they apply in England, Wales or Scotland, are based separately: they are centred upon the health service; they are rooted in a care programme approach. A separate identifiable, health-led provision is made. I believe that that is the right way to approach the matter. We are not persuaded that simply by adding a power to convey—I believe that it is accepted that it would be necessary in any event if guardianship were relied upon—would be an acceptable way forward.
Beyond the specific contributions made, there was a further and wider debate; namely, whether we should be undertaking a fundamental review of our mental health legislation, applying whichever jurisdiction. I wish to conclude by acknowledging the case for considering whether the Acts still reflect current practice. But there is no clear evidence at present, I believe, to conclude that they fail to meet present day needs or that there is as yet any emerging consensus about how the position might be changed. Our view is that we wish to take stock of the new powers that we propose should be introduced in the Bill before considering any further fundamental changes. However, as has been pointed out more than once, it is recognised that there are, and will continue to be, changes with more and more people appropriately being treated within the community.
If I have failed to answer all the detailed points, I hope that I may be forgiven. This seems to me to be a Bill which is particularly suited to the consideration that your Lordships will undoubtedly give it. There is a great deal of detail to be carefully considered. I have no doubt that we shall be able to do so at later stages.
I was asked whether I was prepared to consider having an additional informal meeting along the lines of that which my noble friend will conduct next week. While I certainly do not rule it out, I suggest that we might take the issue forward at that meeting. If at the end of the meeting there are specific Scottish issues of interest only to Scots, we might consider doing that as a separate exercise.
I thank noble Lords for all the contributions made at this Second Reading debate. I look forward to participating with your Lordships at Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
6.50 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1995
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House join me in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, to our debate. We look forward very much to what he has to say.
This is the first occasion the House has had the opportunity to consider the future of the prevention of terrorism legislation since the IRA and loyalist cease-fires. While the issues which we have to address will be familiar to those who have studied the annual debates, the context and the mood this year are quite different.
Since 31st August many of the restrictions introduced in response to the terrorist threat have progressively been removed. The closure orders on border roads between Northern Ireland and the Republic have been rescinded. There are far fewer troops on the streets of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced earlier this week that an army unit is to return to Great Britain where it will remain available to redeploy to Northern Ireland at short notice if required. I must emphasise that the decision was taken purely on the basis of the operational judgments of the police and military commanders, reflecting the improved security situation. Last week the searching arrangements in the centre of Belfast were discontinued. Here in London the police have been able to start to redeploy a number of officers who were previously devoted to security duties. The new climate of hope was perhaps most vividly illustrated by the visit which Her Majesty was able to make a week ago to Belfast and Armagh.
The cease-fires have brought long overdue relief to our police and security forces. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the enormous weight of responsibility which they have borne over the past quarter of a century. Our fervent hope is that the violence has stopped not merely for now but for good. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 21st October that we were prepared to make a working assumption that the cessation was indeed intended to be permanent. That, however, is not the same as saying that it will be permanent. We still have a long way to go before we can be sure that the republican and so-called loyalist guns have fallen silent for the last time and that no more will the destructive potential of IRA bombs be unleashed in our towns and cities.
The security changes which have occurred in response to the cease-fires have had two things in common. The first is that they have not been political gestures designed to promote the peace process but a prudent and well judged response to changing threat levels, arrived at in the light of the professional views

981
of our security advisers. The second is that they have each met the test of ready reversibility. By that I mean that nothing has been dismantled which could not extremely rapidly be put back in place if the cease-fires were suddenly to break down.
The paramilitary organisations retain all their previous capability. Their arsenals are intact; their command structures are in place; recruiting, targeting and fund raising have continued. It would, in the Government's view, be sheer folly to erode our own capabilities until we can be confident that the end of terrorist violence from Northern Ireland is itself irreversible.
It is against that background that the Government have had to consider the future of the legislation which we are debating this evening. In recent years there have been those who argued that the very title of this legislation—the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act—is misleading. According to its critics it has neither prevented terrorism nor can it any longer be said to be temporary.
In its simplest form the first of these arguments is that since terrorist violence has continued for more than 20 years since the introduction of the initial legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, it has manifestly failed in its objective of preventing terrorism. The truth, of course, is that it has never been part of the Government's argument that Northern Irish terrorism could be brought to an end by legislation and security measures alone. Political development and economic and social policies in Northern Ireland have all had their part to play. But let us not underestimate the impact on the terrorists of our determination, year after year, to stand resolute in the face of the most extreme provocations.
Can it seriously be suggested that the IRA's campaign would have ended any earlier if we had abandoned this legislation? Would the threat of terrorism have been reduced if we had decided to curtail the exceptional powers conferred on the police by this legislation?
It has also been argued that legislation which has lasted for over 20 years has, in reality, become all but permanent despite the annual process of renewal to which it is subject. The Government reject that view. Our firm conviction is that the Act remains, in substance as well as form, temporary.
We have consistently acknowledged that the legislation contains some wholly exceptional provisions which could not be justified but for the fundamental threat to national security from Irish terrorism. The exclusion order power and the provision for executive detention for up to seven days are the most notable examples. The Government have never had any intention that they should become permanent features of our law. Moreover, we have always refused to accept that Northern Irish terrorism is a permanent fact of life.
Undoubtedly the Act involves some encroachment on civil liberties but any dispassionate observer would, I believe, be struck by the enormous restraint which we have shown in this country over the past two decades in
982
the face of the most determined assault on our civil liberties and human rights from the terrorists themselves.
The police and Armed Forces have had to operate within the law and where they have stepped outside it they have been liable to disciplinary proceedings or prosecution. Evidential standards have had to satisfy the scrutiny of independent prosecutors and an independent judiciary. Those accused have had all the normal entitlements to legal aid. The prosecution has had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There has been the full panoply of appeal rights and independent complaints procedures—arrangements which have been substantially strengthened in recent years.
No nation faced with a grave challenge to its national security can refrain from taking some exceptional measures. I believe we are entitled to derive some satisfaction from the fact that we have resorted to so relatively few. But now is the moment to look forward rather than back. We need to consider for how much longer, in the new situation, we may need to retain some or all of these exceptional powers. We shall also at some point need to examine what permanent counter-terrorism legislation, if any, might be needed if Northern Irish terrorism were finally to disappear but if, as seems likely, we were still to face a continuing threat from international terrorism.
On the first question we have been greatly helped by the independent review conducted by Mr. John Rowe QC. I am sure noble Lords will want to join me in thanking him for his comprehensive and illuminating report. It is greatly reassuring to have his considered view that the powers were properly and fairly exercised during 1994. They were, moreover, used extensively. There were 1,564 detentions under the Act in 1994, all but 61 of those in Northern Ireland. Over threequarters of those detained were released within 48 hours but 357 people had their detentions extended. Perhaps the most striking statistic is that 348 of those 357 cases occurred before the IRA cease-fire on 31st August. In the last four months of last year just nine people had their detention extended beyond 48 hours, all of them in Northern Ireland. Since 1st January there have been just nine further cases, five of them in Great Britain involving international terrorism.
Moreover, the periods of detention have come down sharply since the cease-fires. There were only 25 cases in the whole of the United Kingdom last year where persons were detained for the full seven days permitted under the Act and in none of those cases was the seven-day period authorised at the outset. On each occasion, shorter periods were granted and the police had to come back and show subsequently that further periods were justified because of the complexity of the investigation. Since 31st August no one has been detained for more than 96 hours in total except in the case of those arrested in connection with the Newry post office murder.
Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion is that while the use of detention powers had declined dramatically, it would be premature at this stage to conclude that they could be dispensed with. The Government endorse that conclusion. We also endorse Mr. Rowe's arguments,

983
which are very much in line with those eloquently set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in last year's debate, that it is not practicable to introduce a judicial element into the arrangements for authorising extensions of detention.
Retaining the possibility of detention without charge or judicial involvement for up to seven days does mean that for the time being the strictly limited derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights, which we entered following the Brogan case, must remain in force. We very much regret that. We are, however, wholly satisfied that it is too early yet to be confident that the emergency which necessitated it has come to an end.
The other highly exceptional provision examined in some detail by Mr. Rowe is the exclusion order power. Again, his conclusion is that this has undoubtedly helped to frustrate terrorist attacks and that it should at this stage be retained. As with detentions, the use of the power has declined sharply since the cease-fire. When we debated this legislation last year there were 80 exclusion orders in force, 71 made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and nine by my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary. The case for all the orders has been reviewed since the cease-fire and, as a result, just 40 orders now remain in force.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has concluded that it would not be prudent to go further since, in the view of the police and the Security Service, there are still a number of people whom it would not yet be safe to allow unimpeded access to Great Britain. If all exclusion orders were to be lifted now there would be nothing to stop any of those people coming here well before a possible breakdown of the cease-fire, perhaps to make preparations for renewed attacks. The mainland would, as before, be a key target in the event of renewed terrorist violence.
Mr. Rowe's conclusion was that these and the other powers in the Act should all be renewed for a full 12 months. He nevertheless noted that a further order could be tabled at any time to suspend one or more of them if circumstances so warranted. He recommended that the Government should keep this possibility in mind. That we shall do. These are exceptional powers. But, equally, we owe it to the people of this country not to expose them to unnecessary risk. Keeping the powers in force, but using them as sparingly as possible, seems to us to be the correct approach at this stage while the present uncertainties remain.
So far, I have, like Mr. Rowe, simply been addressing the immediate future. Undoubtedly, if the cease-fires continue to hold, and if we make progress on the decommissioning of arms and explosives, other questions will arise. It may be that we should then be able to dispense with one or more of these powers. Similar possibilities would arise with the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which we shall be considering in three months' time following a further independent review by Mr. Rowe.
984
In addition we should also, in due course, need to address the longer term issues. On these the Government retain an open mind. There will certainly need to be a wide-ranging look at all the options. Some of the existing legislation, for example related to terrorist funding, may well need to be incorporated into permanent legislation. There may also need to be other powers and offences, over and above those currently provided in the general law, for dealing with the continuing threat from international terrorism, vividly illustrated by the bomb outside the Israeli embassy last July.
Quite how and when any such review should be undertaken is something on which the Government wish to reflect further. We are clear, however, that the priority for now must be to do everything in our power to turn the present Northern'Ireland cease-fires into a lasting peace. Until we have made further progress down that road it would be premature to consider what statutory framework might be needed once the requirement for temporary legislation has disappeared.
The Government would very much welcome a return to the all-party consensus which used to exist on the need for counter-terrorism legislation. For the moment it seems that that measure of agreement may still be just beyond our reach. But we greatly welcome the widespread measure of support in your Lordships' House for our attempts to bring a lasting peace to Northern Ireland. If they succeed, then we shall all be witnesses to an historic achievement which has defied the many courageous attempts that others have made down the years. In the meantime the Government will continue to attach the highest priority to the protection of our people. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
7.5 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I have been told that it is customary to start by asking for the indulgence of the House. I do so, not merely for that reason but because I may well need it. I have also been told that I must be non-controversial. But I find it hard to see how safeguarding the public against terrorism can be classed as being controversial; I think it is a matter upon which all noble Lords must agree. Some of the details of how it may be achieved may be considered controversial, and therefore I shall keep to general principles—although on some future occasion, when I am relieved of this constraint, I may possibly be more direct in putting my views.
I take my facts from an impartial source to which the noble Baroness has already referred; namely, the report from Mr. J. J. Rowe QC which was presented as recently as 3rd February this year. In dealing with the present situation, he draws attention to the fact that terrorists still have arms and are capable of using them. This is true of all brands of terrorism and not

985
just one particular group. The report finds that extortion is still going on: there is still racketeering by terrorists and money is being collected for their funds.
This Act, as has already been stated, applies to the whole United Kingdom, and not merely to Northern Ireland. International terrorism is on the increase and we must be protected against it. Let us remember Lockerbie and other incidents that have taken place in London itself. Let us also remember that terrorism need not be political. It may be of the Mafia type— and often is—concerned with drugs, protection rackets, money laundering and the like. Sometimes, indeed, there is merely a political facade to cover such activities.
The Act is not perfect; and Mr. Rowe has made many valuable suggestions which might form the basis of more permanent legislation. These should be—and I know that they will be—considered by the Government over the next year. But, as the noble Baroness has already said, it would be the utmost folly to cast this Act aside before we have something better to put in its place. I join with her in paying tribute to the fearless work that has been done by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and other agencies of enforcement. It may be that many of the provisions in this Act are not used. We have legislation dealing with treason, espionage and matters of that nature which is seldom used. But that is no reason to repeal those measures. They may well be needed from time to time.
The present order does not continue all the provisions of the Act. Indeed, some are being relaxed from time to time. But I am glad to see that Section 27(6) (b) and (c) is being retained, which allows provisions that are not in force to be brought into force swiftly, by order, if and when they are needed.
We all hope and pray for a permanent peace, but that will not be advanced by removing the Government's means of protecting the lives and security of all the people in the United Kingdom. Were we to do so, we would be failing in our duty. I have indeed great pleasure in supporting this Motion to approve the renewal of the order.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am glad that to me falls the honour of welcoming on behalf of the Whole House the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on the occasion of his maiden speech. That speech has already given us ample evidence of the wealth of experience and wisdom that he brings to our proceedings. His judgment, his cogent views, his dry wit, his brevity (which is not often found in your Lordships' House) and his breadth of knowledge and experience both in legal affairs and in government in Northern Ireland, have brought a most valuable dimension to the debate on a vital question. We look forward to hearing him speak again in the future and, I hope, to a wider audience at this critical time in the affairs of the union.
986
I wish to support the renewal of this order in the strongest terms, and to make two points. The first relates to the legal position. The Dail in Dublin decided last month to rescind the State of Emergency (originally declared in 1939 and revived in 1976) and this has been hailed as:
"designed to recognise the ceasefire and underpin the peace process",
and, in the words of the Irish Times on 7th February:
"to encourage the British Government to begin a dismantling of emergency powers in Northern Ireland".
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be aware, though it has received little publicity in this country, that the Irish Government, while revoking the State of Emergency, has quietly retained the Offences Against the State Acts. It was very briefly proposed last year to consider winding up the Special Criminal Court (the Dublin equivalent of the Diplock court in this case, where three judges of varying status sit without a jury) and reviewing the Offences Against the State Acts; but this was strongly and successfully opposed by the Garda and it will not now happen.
These Acts provide the Irish Government with powers to intern without trial, to ban organisations, to establish military courts and operate the non-jury special criminal courts I have mentioned, and they confer extensive powers of search, arrest and detention. It ill becomes a government whose people have hardly suffered at all at the hands of IRA terrorists to encourage us to dismantle our own legal safeguards, designed to protect our citizens throughout the union, when not one ounce of semtex has yet been handed over. I hope that we shall resist pressures which are a clear example of double standards. It is on a par with the protests about exclusion orders, carried out according to the law of the land, while the IRA itself excludes families (as recently as last month) from Northern Ireland, ordering them out of the country on pain of injury and telling them not to return to their homes.
My other point is—and in this case there is a parallel between Dublin's policies and ours—that the only valid argument for repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Order, which confers emergency powers only, would be that it would enable it to be replaced by permanent legislation, legislation which would enable the government of the day to introduce emergency measures if necessary.
This is what the Offences Against the State Acts enable the Irish Government to do. They have argued that the Acts must remain in place to allow them to combat the drugs epidemic and armed crime. That is true for us, but in our case there is the added threat of international terrorism (not excluding the IRA). I hope therefore that we shall maintain the present provisions unless and until they are replaced by more permanent legislation which could be used at need.
The IRA, through its political front Sinn Fein, is at the moment talking. It loses nothing by that. It still retains the power to resume its terrorist activities. Until it has publicly, finally and verifiably relinquished its power to kill and to destroy, we should retain the power to protect our people. An

987
unexploded bomb was recently found in a large and always-crowded bookshop in Oxford: if it had gone off many young people would have been killed. I do not know whether it was an IRA bomb, but until the IRA has identified and defused all the bombs it has placed and relinquished its killing power, it seems to me that we should keep protective legislation in place.
Let me say here with what relief I heard the latest statement from the Secretary of State in the other place on the conditions for ministerial talks with Sinn Fein/IRA, though they are still, in my view, not categoric enough, while the IRA maintains its arsenal, continues to train, recruit and target, is still seeking arms and funds and meanwhile continues its brutal beatings and punishments within nationalist areas. I believe we must face the fact that Sinn Fein, the political front of the IRA (Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have both been members of the Army Council), brokered the cease-fire in order to internationalise itself, to secure United States and European support. As Gerry Adams said at the recent Sinn Fein meeting in Dublin:
"In the USA and in Britain, the European Union and internationally, solidarity work must aim to bring maximum pressure on the British Government to adopt a policy of disengagement based on Britain becoming positive persuaders for ending the union … We need to build an all-Ireland struggle … This includes the need to uphold Ireland's right to sovereignty over the entire island. The British assertion of a claim of sovereignty over a part of our country must never be accepted".
He also said that the struggle was not ended but was in another phase. He said:
"We want to see an end to partition. Our strategy between now and the end of partition must be based on the widely accepted view that there can be no internal solution".
He rejects the veto by the majority. Martin McGuinness on the same occasion said:
"What is our agenda? Let us spell it out so that there can be no misunderstanding. We want the end of British rule over every part of our country. The British Government has got to relinquish its illegal territorial claim over the six counties. They have got to leave our country for good".
Both he and Gerry Adams reminded their audience that the IRA is a confident, united, unbroken and unbeaten army. Finally, he claimed that Sinn Fein has no weapons. It went to Stormont on the basis of its electoral mandate. Only this week, Martin McGuinness said:
"It is not realistic or sensible to expect in the present peace process that Sinn Fein should go to the IRA and demand that the IRA decommissions its weapons before Sinn Fein goes into talks with British ministers".
When the IRA talks of "decommissioning", it means that the British Army must give up its arms and go. If Sinn Fein has no power to influence the IRA, would we be negotiating with a party which commands 9.8 per cent, of the vote in Northern Ireland and 3 per cent, in the South? Would an American President, even given the charms of the Irish vote, be receiving Mr. Gerry Adams as virtually a world leader? I should say that, although Sinn Fein is in fact the political wing of the IRA and that is its only claim to credibility, I find it surprising, to say the least, that anyone can believe that Sinn Fein expects from that political base to secure through the ballot box its
988
objective—clearly stated—to "get the Brits out", to end partition and to unite Ireland. It will not, and it must know that.
Sooner or later, therefore, the threats to return to violence will begin. When they have achieved their maximum credibility as doves, they will be hawks again, having ensured that we and the unionists get the blame—always supposing that international pressure does not secure for them what 25 years of violence did not. And they have not done badly out of their strategy so far. It is interesting, to say the least, that they regard the framework document as:
"a clear recognition that partition has failed, that the British Government has failed and that there is no going back to the failed structures of the past".
Finally, I believe the Rowe report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act gives wholly cogent and well-founded arguments for the maintenance in place of the present legislation. I was very glad to hear the Minister speak in those terms. We should listen to what it. says.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the outset I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for coming to this House and making his intervention in this debate. He and I have known each other for many years as political opponents in Northern Ireland. He in fact was a Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, which is approximate to a Home Secretary here in the United Kingdom. He was also in charge of emergency legislation, which was known then as the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland. Since I was born in Northern Ireland, up to the present moment we have always lived under the cloak of emergency powers and emergency legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a constructive speech. I find it interesting that of the six speakers in the debate, four are what one would call newcomers. They have never taken part in a Northern Ireland debate. I am quite happy to see that they are to speak because the more people in this House and in another place who take part in the affairs of Northern Ireland the better it will be for all concerned.
Although this is a debate about the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it cannot be entirely isolated, or isolated under any circumstances, from other considerations in Northern Ireland. People will be aware of the framework document which has been brought to this House only by way of a Statement. Perhaps this is not the right time to discuss it; we should have a debate later on. The framework document should have warranted a much more serious debate in this House and in another place. The framework document will determine to a great extent whether or not terrorism continues to exist in Northern Ireland.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who devoted her remarks to the terrorism of the IRA. Let us never forget that there are other terrorists in Northern Ireland. Some of those who are now going to the Northern Ireland Office in their navy blue striped suits have viciously murdered people in

989
Northern Ireland. Some of those murdered have been my closest friends. I find it very difficult to take when I see pictures on television of people who have been found guilty and have served prison for carrying out the most vicious murders now being taken by the hand. That goes for the IRA and the loyalist murder gangs in Northern Ireland.
I would urge the Government and the Northern Ireland Office to be very careful and to check out the bona fides of these people who would claim to represent the people of Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the IRA has said through the mouth of Gerry Adams that it has an electoral mandate. The same cannot be said of the loyalist paramilitaries. They have absolutely no electoral mandate and it is highly unlikely that they will ever have one if the matter goes to a democratic vote in Northern Ireland.
I cannot support the order, yet I find myself in the position of not opposing it. There is still a need for emergency legislation while the terrorist situation remains as it is in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that there are now in existence 40 orders excluding people from entering Great Britain. I have always been opposed to exclusion orders. The one thing which can be said about the exclusion orders operated by this Government is that if a person breaks the terms of that exclusion order and is found to have re-entered Great Britain he can be fined or sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But the IRA has many more than 40 exclusion orders operating in Northern Ireland. There are many young Irish boys who have been told to leave Northern Ireland and to leave the island of Ireland and to go to Britain or elsewhere. They have been told that if ever they return they will face execution by the IRA. So, if there is any question of doing away with exclusion orders which exist under the PTA, the British Government must make representations to the IRA to do away with its exclusion orders.
In Belfast at the moment radio and television programmes have been broadcast about a young married woman by the name of Helen McKendry. In 1972 she lived in the Davis flats area of West Belfast. I was the MP for the area at that time. She was the mother of five young children. One night, masked men, members of the IRA, went to her house, abducted her and left her five very young children alone in the house. She has never been seen again. Repeated calls have been made to the IRA at least to tell those children, who have been grieving since 1972, what has happened to their mother; whether she is alive or dead; and if she is dead, how her death came about. But there have been no answers from the IRA.
At the moment, there is a great feeling of anger, not only within loyalist circles but within Catholic circles, about the way some members of the IRA and their spokesmen have been hailed almost as world statesmen. I am a Catholic and I was born into the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland. But I bitterly resent the welcome and the red carpet that President Clinton has laid down for Gerry Adams, a man who was very closely associated with terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. I could ask President Clinton from this
990
House whether his attitude would change if 396 American policemen had been killed by this terrorist organisation—because 396 RUC men were killed. I could ask him whether he would be welcoming Gerry Adams to the White House tomorrow, St. Patrick's Day, if he knew that nearly 500 of his soldiers had been killed—as nearly 500 British soldiers have been killed in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years.
The intervention of the American President and the welcome which he has given to this member of Sinn Fein/IRA will cause great resentment among the Unionist Protestant population in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly said in speeches in this House and in another place that there are two communities in Northern Ireland. One cannot ever hope to bring about peace if one negates and isolates one of those communities and makes all one's concessions to the other community. I am a Catholic. I am of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland. But I believe that far too many concessions have been made to the IRA to force it into continuing this cease-fire.
The more concessions that are made to one section of the community, the more passions will be inflamed in the other community in Northern Ireland. We are still at a very delicate stage. No one can say with any degree of accuracy how long the cease-fire will last. One desperately hopes that it will last into the future. However, as has already been said, the IRA still has vast amounts of arms in Northern Ireland. The British Government are quite right not to engage in full-time discussions with Sinn Fein, which is the voice of the IRA, until—what term does one use? —all the arms, a sufficient amount of arms, or as many arms as they can get their hands on, are handed over. The IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries must be seen to be handing over their arms. If there is to be a cease-fire, there is no need for arms to be held by any of the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
I was in the House of Commons in 1974 when the legislation was introduced by a Labour Government. For many years after there was a consensus in the House of Commons between the two major parties. Latterly, there has been a divergence of opinion. The Labour Party now takes the view that it cannot support the continuation of the Act while there are exclusion orders. I have never approved of exclusion orders but I think that the Government have shown by their revocation of a number of those exclusion orders only last week that there is intent to do away with those parts of the Act which have caused such great concern to members of the Labour Party.
I would not support this legislation because I believe that there are parts of it which are unnecessary. But I would not oppose it because I believe that it still has to be maintained until we are absolutely sure that the murder gangs have ceased to exist in Northern Ireland.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on a speech which was authentic, robust and straightforward. I am only one of many of your Lordships who greatly

991
look forward to his contribution to future debates. Perhaps I may also say that I listened with respect, as I often have done in this House and in another place, to the sober reminders of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of the anxiety, pain and anger that remain in Northern Ireland. I understand and have some sympathy with his feelings about current events in the United States and the intervention of the White House.
It is over 20 years since my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich moved in your Lordships' House that it should take note of the Government's proposals for what became the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Bill itself was taken the following day at 9.20 a.m. and it passed through all its stages and received Royal Assent by 9.35 a.m. As the House knows, today's draft order is the lineal descendant of that legislation in 1974 and until very recently it was impossible to claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has demonstrated, that the circumstances that brought that initial legislation about had significantly changed.
The 1974 Bill was taken urgently through both Houses of Parliament in the wake of the Birmingham bombing. My noble friend referred in his speech of 28th November 1974 to,
"a series of increasingly vicious terrorist attacks"
and said that the Bill would,
"powerfully reinforce the security forces".
It was for that reason, as he put it when speaking in this House, that Parliament was being asked for powers that involved,
"some encroachment on the liberties of individual citizens". — [Official Report, 28/11/74; col. 1501.]
There was widespread support for the legislation across the House. My noble friend Lord Wigoder asked three very pertinent questions. First, did the proposed legislation match up to the emergency? Secondly, was the encroachment upon our liberty that was inevitably involved the very minimum that was necessary for the purpose? And, thirdly, had every possible step been taken to ensure that such encroachment was in no danger of drifting into becoming the permanent law of the land? As I said, there was concern in your Lordships House in combating terrorism. But there was also concern that any encroachment on the liberty of the individual should be minimal and temporary. The House then agreed where the balance should be struck and over the years, with some heart-searching, that balance has been endorsed.
As the Minister says, the context and mood—I believe those were her words—are quite different this year. There is a new climate of hope and we should rejoice that that is the case. I believe that it follows that we should ask ourselves whether the balance, which was the right balance for 20 years, is the right balance today and whether the full liberty of the citizen should not now be restored. I do not doubt for a moment what the Minister said and that it has always been in the minds of your Lordships that "temporary" meant temporary. But "temporary" for 20 years is almost permanent in the eyes of many. We should not allow ourselves to ignore the danger that one could become the other.
992
In the debate on the Address in 1993 and again last year, I said that the whole House should congratulate the Prime Minister on the initiative he had taken in Northern Ireland and wish him well. The peace process is a remarkable achievement and a huge relief to us all. Indeed, we are so near to it that we may not fully recognise the magnitude of what has come about. I hope very much that the Government will stay cool and stick to their strategy despite the irritations, setbacks and disappointments which are bound to happen.
But if the peace process is succeeding—and I believe that we agree it is, bearing in mind the depressing and, I accept, wholly justified warnings made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—do we really need this legislation? My conclusion is yes; it remains a regrettable necessity.
In the first place—I believe that this is a very important point to make—I agree that its future has no place in the negotiations in the peace process itself. That is a separate matter. Secondly, I agree with Mr. Rowe that terrorist activity of a very important kind, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred, continues in Northern Ireland and it is foolish to pretend that there is no risk of a resumption of the sort of terrorism we suffered for 20 years or more.
Thirdly, although this is a different matter, and again following Mr. Rowe, there is the international terrorism to which Britain is vulnerable. It would be irresponsible to abandon legislation at the present time. But that cannot be the end of the matter. I was rather disappointed by the words the Minister used. She said that in due course we shall have to address the long-term issues. Quite how and when such a review should take place we wish to consider further. That is not unreasonable in itself, but I cannot see why a full review now of the policy and not existing legislation cannot be undertaken without prejudicing present legislation. It is a review which will be required and I do not know why it has not been embarked on yet. I wish to make clear to your Lordships that we on these Benches believe that such a review should be undertaken without delay.
Having said that, the order must be judged on its merits. It would be trivial and perverse to oppose it because the policy review has not yet been promised. Equally, as I said, there is no case for postponing the review because we support the order tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a clearer indication of when the review will be undertaken. I hope—and I would like to believe that it will be reflected in all the speeches on this occasion—that there will be unanimity in this House that the order deserves to be reviewed.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. Everyone agrees that terrorism is foul. Over the years I have both prosecuted and defended in bombing cases and therefore I hope that no one need tell me about the pernicious nature of the activities in question, nor indeed how skilful, dedicated and dangerous the work is to prevent, detect and prosecute such crimes. I have every

993
admiration for those who labour in that field in all sorts of different ways; not least, in my opinion, the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
But the vice of terrorism has more than one face. It has the immediate effect, of course, of death, injury and damage. It leaves widows bereft and children with no father. It lives and thrives, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, have pointed out, on fear, secrecy and intimidation, which still continue. Now, as earlier speakers have indicated, it sometimes claims to dress itself in fine clothes, but murder and maiming remain murder and maiming, whatever motive is claimed to drive them.
But there is a different and more insidious result and consequence that we ought to bear in mind and we ought to guard against it. We have to be very careful about possible corruption and pollution of the rule of law; the taking to itself by the state of unchecked power, the exercise of which is capable of being arbitrary and immoderate.
We have done our best as a party, here and in another place, to be non-partisan in our approach to these problems. I regret to say that that approach has not always been fully reciprocated in another place— although that is not true of this House because my experience of dealing with the Minister who is responsible in this House for Northern Ireland has always been most courteous and co-operative.
There are three matters of deep, I should say of fundamental, dispute between us and the Government. I refer first to the power to make exclusion orders—that is, internal exile—without judicial sanction. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The noble Lord and I have often spoken together in debates on Northern Ireland matters. I refer, secondly, to the extension of detention without charge for up to seven days without judicial authority. Thirdly—the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, also referred to this and I agree with him—I refer to the overarching requirement for setting into motion now a comprehensive review of anti-terrorist legislation.
I shall deal first with the report of Mr. John Rowe QC, who has been both a friend to me and a professional colleague over the years. It can be seen from Appendix A that he asked me for my views as part of his work of inquiry. I have to say that I profoundly disagree with certain of his conclusions.
I shall deal first with exclusion orders. As a first principle, I contend that no state claiming to be civilised ought to interfere with the liberty of its citizens except in circumstances of proved and demonstrated necessity. As a second principle, I suggest that any infringement of such liberties should be controlled by the judiciary, not by the Executive. It is somewhat depressing that 350 years after the Civil War I need to restate those principles.
I should like to quote from paragraph 21 on page 9 of Mr. Rowe's report, which states:
"The Secretary of State may make an exclusion order if he is satisfied that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism or is attempting or may attempt to enter the particular place for the purpose of terrorism".
994
That means that whichever Secretary of State is relevant for that particular purpose shall alone decide.
From 1st September 1994 to 31st December 1994, six orders were allowed to lapse. There is no mechanism at all whereby anyone can determine why the exclusion orders were made, whether they were properly made or, just as important in some cases, whether they were correctly allowed to lapse. I should like to emphasise the following words from page 10 of Mr. Rowe's report, where he stated:
"I have looked at the general exclusion picture of 1994, but not made a judgment about each case as to whether it was justifiable or not".
I suggest that if one considers those words, one can see the present dangers which we wish to avoid.
I believe that a judicial component, could be fashioned and introduced despite Mr. Rowe's conclusion. I know perfectly well—I believe that I understand fully—that the judges in Northern Ireland do not wish to become involved. But judges are involved in delicate matters. They carry out regular reviews of security matters and review the interception of communications. They hear public interest immunity applications often—frequently in secret—without the defendant being present and sometimes when the defendant does not even know that an application has been made. Those are not perfect safeguards, but they are better than none. I trust the judges on questions of personal liberty more than the Executive. I believe that the recent lamentable saga of Matrix Churchill justifies and fortifies my view.
I turn to the issue of detention for questioning. The Minister mentioned the murder at Newry. Of course, in those circumstances there are present powers to deal with offences of murder. After all, let us not forget that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers a magistrate to authorise the additional detention of a suspect in appropriate circumstances. That is judicial involvement and the principle of it is asserted and upheld. I recognise, of course, that terrorist information is delicate. A designated judge or judges may be needed; but that a judge is needed is, I believe, beyond dispute.
I turn now to paragraph 40 on page 19 of Mr. Rowe's report, where he states:
"I analysed the facts of cases which were said to be arrests on reliable intelligence and I found that most of them"—
I emphasise the words, "most of them"—
"had some factual support".
That means that some—a minority, I agree—had no factual support at all.
Mr. Rowe continued:
"The factual support I speak of might be proximity to the particular incident or some circumstantial evidence which might not be proof or even admissible"—
I query the value of circumstantial evidence which cannot be admissible. The quotation continues:
"but which gave rise to suspicion and lent some colour to the intelligence".
That is dangerously near to totalitarianism. I repeat that Mr. Rowe referred to evidence which is supported by material which gives rise to "suspicion" and lends "some colour" to the intelligence.

995
I submit—I am sorry to do so—that when one looks at the Rowe conclusions one is driven to the conclusion that one needs a judicial component. The value of a judicial component is two-fold. It tries to secure the reasonable avoidance of the injustice of imprisonment without cause. If one has a judicial framework, it provides a discipline of external scrutiny and that discipline is very important to any one of us (in uniform or out; with a judicial robe or not) who exercises such an important power over the liberty of his fellow citizens.
I turn now to the need for a review. Mr. Rowe's review is limited. It deals with only two things, as he himself recognises. The first is whether there is a need for the Act to continue, and the second is how the powers have been used. The "working assumption" to which the Minister referred, that the ceasefire is intended to be permanent, does not, says Mr. Rowe,
"require me to ignore the fact and reasoning I have set out".
Of course, I recognise that a working assumption can be no more than that when it is based, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, indicated, on only a very small experience in temporal terms.
I believe that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has conceded that he accepts that there is
"a need to look very carefully and to have a review as to what powers we will continue to need for the long term".
The Minister suggested that earlier. I agree absolutely with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to this aspect. There is no need to wait while we think about the general terms of reference of the review, about the timescale for the review or about the status of the person or persons who ought to carry it out.
Those are deep concerns and troubles to us. We on this side have always recognised—we still recognise and reaffirm—the need for stern powers against terrorism. We have never suggested the contrary, but we do say that we must be guided by principle and the rule of law, not the assumed requirements of the moment. We should always lean away from the unchecked power of the Executive. That is why I have spoken for longer than I normally do. These are important questions. In 10 years' time, when we look back at the powers that have existed for over 20 years, a useful test might be whether we feel that we were justified or that we could have done better by way of judicial safeguard as an element of powers which can be draconian.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I opened by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, to our debate. I now join with other noble Lords in thanking him most warmly for his maiden speech. The advice he received that he should exercise restraint on this occasion caused him no impediment. He brought to bear on our debate his considerable knowledge and experience. He also reminded the House of the general threat of terrorism, by addressing not just the particular of the order but the wider issue of international terrorism. Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord and say to him that supporting
996
the Government will not be interpreted on this occasion as controversial. Now that we have heard him, I hope that we shall hear him again, and often.
The debate has been short, but an extremely important one. I have listened with great interest to the points which have been raised. The debate has taken place at a time when the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland are more promising than they have been for 25 troubled years. But the present situation has been made possible only by the Government's, and, in particular, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's determination to pursue the kind of firm and unequivocal security policy which has made it clear to all terrorists that they will not succeed.
The Government have made a working assumption that the cease-fire is intended to be .permanent. We all very much hope that that proves to be the case. But we have not yet achieved a lasting peace, and while the present uncertainty remains we are not going to take chances with people's safety. We are not, in short, going to abandon our defences against terrorism until we are quite sure that it is safe to do so.
I very much agree with the arguments which were put by my noble friend Lady Park. She made telling points about the continuation of the Offences Against the State Acts in the Irish Republic. As she rightly observed, the powers of search, arrest and detention in the Republic under those Acts remain in force. It is interesting to note that the powers that the Dail repealed by lifting its state of emergency have not been used since 1977.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rightly reminded the House that terrorism in Northern Ireland has come from both parts of the community. Indeed, in the two years leading up to the cease-fire, the majority of those charged with terrorist offences committed in Northern Ireland were so-called Loyalists.
I endorse also what the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Park said about the wholly unacceptable use of intimidation by the IRA to force people away from their homes. That is something which must cease if we are to have a truly lasting peace. Perhaps I may say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, when he said that people in the United Kingdom will find it hard to understand why the United States Administration have now agreed that Mr, Adams may raise funds while visiting the United States. As the American Government know, Sinn Fein remains inextricably linked to the IRA which still maintains its arsenal; is still recruiting, targeting and training; and is engaged in intimidation and brutal punishment beatings. Not least, the IRA still seeks funds to maintain those operations. The British people will wonder why Mr. Adams is now permitted to raise funds in the US before the IRA has taken one single step towards decommissioning its large stock of arms and explosives.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, described exclusion as "internal exile". Even the recent report from the King's College London Civil Liberties Research Unit recognised that,
"it would not be strictly right to call it 'internal exile' since excluded persons are not sent to parts of the United Kingdom with which they have no connection".

997
Let us be clear what we are talking about here. The orders which remain in force are against people whose homes are in Northern Ireland or the Republic. They are excluded because, on the best advice available to the Home Secretary, it would not be safe to allow them to come to Great Britain. We should remember that the Provisional IRA has always attached particular importance to striking at high profile targets on this side of the Irish Sea.q
The noble Lord argued also for a judicial involvement in exclusion orders. That is of course a matter that has been examined extensively over the past 20 years by all those who have reviewed the Act independently, including Lord Shackleton; and my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Colville. None has believed that exclusion orders could properly be a matter for the judiciary. The decisions are executive by nature, and are best taken by Ministers, with all the safeguards that are laid down in legislation.
I understand the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about the need for a "full review of policy", as he called it. I accepted in opening the debate that the moment would come when we would need to consider what statutory framework might be needed in the longer term. But at this very delicate time, with all the uncertainties, our view is that such a review would be premature. The priorities for the moment must be to press on with the peace process and to keep the need for each of those exceptional powers under review.
The Government are grateful for the wide measure of support which we have received from your Lordships in taking forward the crucially important task of building upon the foundations laid by the Downing Street Declaration to create a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
My aim this evening has been to show why we consider it so important not to lower our guard against the threat from terrorism until we are sure that peace has indeed been established. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is an essential part of our armoury against terrorism, and though we look forward to the time when we no longer need to rely upon its exceptional provisions, I do not believe that that time has yet arrived. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

M.25 Link Roads
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA), they will abandon their present proposals for link roads on the M.25 in Surrey.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my Question relates to the possible abandonment of the M.25 scheme following the SACTRA report. It follows a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on 2nd March when I raised the subject of the SACTRA
998
report as a possible reason for delay in the public inquiry on the M.25 link roads in Surrey. Just to remind your Lordships, SACTRA is the Department of Transport's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. Its job is to assist the department to select methods of assessing its own possible schemes for building, modifying or enlarging trunk roads, including motorways, so as to ensure that they solve problems, and do so in a way which offers good value for money. Incidentally, SACTRA was established by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank when he was Secretary of State for Transport.
The report to which we are referring is that entitled Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic which was submitted to the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right honourable John MacGregor, on 16th May 1994 and published, together with the department's response, in December last.
The committee had been asked:
'To advise the Department [of Transport] on the evidence of the circumstances, nature and magnitude of traffic redistribution, mode choice, and generation [resulting from new road schemes], especially on inter-urban roads and trunk roads close to conurbations; and to recommend whether and how the Department's methods should be amended, and what if any research or studies could be undertaken".
This is an important subject because it is becoming obvious to most people that the more road space that one provides, the more traffic there is. There has been considerable dispute, but there are very many engineers and other practitioners who are convinced that that is what happens. So SACTRA was addressing an important question. It obviously considered a great deal of evidence from the department, other government departments, local authorities, interested parties and professionals at home and abroad. No one doubts the committee's competence to carry out its work. I do not propose therefore to deal with a very comprehensive report in great detail.
The main conclusions to which the committee came were, first,
"that induced traffic can and does occur, probably quite extensively though its size and significance is likely to vary widely in different circumstances".
Secondly, it states,
"that the economic value of a scheme can be overestimated by the omission of even a small amount of induced traffic… This matter is of profound importance to the value for money assessment of the roads programme".
I am sure that I do not need to remind those brave Members who have remained in the Chamber to hear my speech that value for money in huge and financially important programmes is a great aim for us all.
The report speaks of the need for stronger area-wide strategic appraisal for environmental reasons and for measuring the knock-on effects of changes in one part of the network so that the effect on land use can be considered; for studying the combined effects of several changes in long-distance routing; and for considering the induced traffic effect which arises as a result of traffic stimulated in other parts of the network when one part is improved in quality. Finally, the report recommends changes in methodology of assessment and

999
suggests that at least one scheme currently awaiting public inquiry should be reassessed using the new methodology.
The Government's response would be best described as cautious. I shall not go into it in great detail, although I assure the Minister that I have read it with great care. Indeed, I read most of the original report, which was not totally beyond my O-level mathematics, although some definitely was. To be welcomed in particular is the fact that the department issued revised guidance to its engineers. That requires them to take into account when assessing road schemes at least some of the points emphasised by the committee. Some engineers may believe that the instructions do not go far enough; but that is a little beside the points I now wish to make.
The scheme for link roads in Surrey along the M.25 between junctions 12 and 15 was first foreshadowed in 1990 in the M.25 action plan which dealt with capacity beyond dual four-lane carriageways. A version of it was shown to Surrey County Council at a private presentation in autumn 1991. The details of the scheme continued to change but it went out to consultation in July 1993. The inquiry into the scheme should have started in May 1994. The inquiry was postponed until October 1994 and in July 1994 it was postponed until this year. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked when the public inquiry stage of the project would be reached. The Minister responded by saying that an announcement would be made. I have re-read his answers and we cannot get much further than that.
The proposals have been extremely unpopular. The Minister mentioned the 12,000 letters of protest that had been received by the department. The county councils surrounding the whole of the M.25 have joined together in support of the stated opposition from Buckinghamshire and Surrey. Large groups of local authorities are working against the proposals as are important groups of protesters, green organisations of various kinds, local residents associations, and so forth.
The relevance of SACTRA to the scheme lies in the following facts. First, the scheme is large. It proposes to add along 7½ miles of the M.25, between the M.3 and M.4 junctions—they are junctions 12 to 15—three additional lanes on each side of the dual four-lane motorway. Furthermore, there will be two additional lanes on each side of the dual four-lane motorway on to the M.40. In other words, there will be 14-lane and 12-lane motorways, which will be the largest section of motorway in Europe. It is the centrepiece of a further series of schemes to widen the M.25 beyond four lanes in each direction from junctions 10 to 12; the rapid widening of the whole of the northern half of the M.25 from junction 16 (the M.40) to junction 29 (the A. 127 in Essex); and the eventual increased capacity over that dual four-lane section from the M.40 to the M.I. The cost of the proposals is at least £350 million.
Projects for widening or link roads on the M.4 on either side of the M.25, on the M.40 near the M.25 and on the M.3 will bring the total cost of all that road widening to almost £1 billion in 1994 prices. I can hardly over-emphasise the relevance of everything that can bring to bear close analysis of value for money
1000
when we are talking about schemes of this size. It must be properly assessed for value for money. If induced traffic were created by the schemes that value for money would be less than is currently supposed. That is one of the main points made in the SACTRA report.
Secondly, much of the network is currently congested and the M.25 is a motorway encircling a town. They are just the conditions in respect of which the report suggests that induced traffic might be expected to clog up a new trunk road capacity.
Thirdly, the government assessment of the knock-on effects of the 14-lane M.25 from junctions 12 to 15 covers an area only one kilometre on either side of the new road space. Again, that is totally contrary to SACTRA's recommendation that a wide area is essential, in particular where, because of existing congestion, induced traffic might occur on the networks surrounding the new or improved road. It so happens that a joint Surrey-Bucks modelling exercise on a far larger scale than that adopted by the Government indicates that traffic would increase on the local networks to such an extent that on roads and in many towns along the M.25 congestion would increase dramatically with a consequent decrease in the quality of life. Indeed, congestion on the local network would, to a considerable extent, not permit the traffic to reach the link roads with the consequent diminution of their value for money.
Perhaps I may try to clarify that point. The congestion in the local network in Surrey would, according to the modelling exercises of Surrey and Buckinghamshire county councils, be so great that traffic would not be able to reach the new widened section of the M.25, although it would try to do so. Therefore, it would not achieve what the Government have consistently told local residents it would achieve; namely, the transfer of traffic from the local network on to the motorway. On the contrary, there would be more traffic both on local roads and in local towns.
The section of the M.25 which goes past Heathrow is extremely congested, particularly now that there are roadworks, although it is always very busy. I do not believe that many people would accept that that should be left the way it is. Again, all modelling exercises that have been carried out indicate that that is not a sensible option. If that is the case, we must think of other options.
One of those options would be improved rail access to Heathrow, which is currently being looked at by the Sweltrac Group. Heathrow has 52,000 employees. It is the single largest generator of traffic in the United Kingdom not just because of the 51 million passengers who fly in and out—not all of whom, of course, leave the airport—but also because of the movement of employees in and out. Their movements, particularly in the morning, coincide exactly with the general morning peak. Rail access could be provided from Guildford and Woking via Staines and from Richmond, Kingston, Wimbledon and other points via Feltham and from Reading. The modelling of those new links shows excellent loadings.
It is interesting to note that under that scheme, the M.25 goes on filling up. In other words, the trips that are taken away because of the provision of well-used rail connections to Heathrow are replaced by other trips. That suggests that there are good reasons to suppose that there is a great deal of suppressed demand and that induced traffic is a major problem in the area if more road space is provided.
On the other hand, although the M.25 continues to be used heavily, more journeys are enabled to take place if rail access is provided, without expensive and environmentally disastrous link roads. My first question to the Minister is whether the Government can encourage those schemes. I phrase the question in that way because I am not at all sure, in view of the forthcoming privatisation programme—in particular the privatisation of Railtrack—that the Government are in any position to encourage sensible provision of new rail services which require new rail tracks, at least to some extent.
It would be possible to provide a better option for the transportation of goods by heavy goods vehicles. In contrast to the £167 million which the short seven-and-a-half-mile section of link roads will cost, according to research which the Government have supported it would cost about £70 million for infrastructure to be created from the Channel Tunnel through to the north west—incidentally, with a connection also to Northern Ireland—which would enable the piggy-back transfer of freight from the north west straight through to the Continent. I refer to Dr. Mawhinney's recent speech in which he seemed to suggest that additional transportation of long distance freight by rail was highly desirable.
On a far smaller scale, the prevention of overloaded lorries would be of benefit because one overloaded lorry causes more damage to the road way than literally hundreds of thousands of cars. Road repairs are a potent source of congestion on the M.25. However, Kent and Oxfordshire have been unable to maintain their trading standards officers because of cuts in government support and the vehicle inspectorate has been cut by 25 per cent. Will the Government do anything to ensure that freight vehicles do not drive about overloaded and/or will they assist promotion of the piggy-back scheme?
The traffic on the motorway could be managed. One way is to introduce speed limits as the motorway becomes congested. I welcome the experiment which is about to take place on that very section to see whether variable speed limits are effective.
Moreover, better policing of the 70-mile-an-hour limit would be a great mercy. On the whole, the faster people go, the more room they take up on the motorway. The accidents which are caused by bad driving and speeding are another source of congestion, as well as being tragic in their own right. Could local police authorities have the income from fines from speeding vehicles to help meet the cost of patrolling the motorways, as happens now in relation to parking controls in the London boroughs?
Finally, part of the section from junction 13 to junction 15, which goes past Heathrow, could be widened to five lanes in each direction, as is currently proposed by the British Airports Authority as its fall-back position as it advances to a public inquiry on terminal 5.
I have tried to respond to the Secretary of State's request for dialogue on this most contentious of subjects. What happens on this small section of motorway is of far greater importance than its effect merely on the residents of Surrey. It is the key to the Government's future policy. I very much hope that the Government will follow SACTRA's advice and at least reassess the proposal. Best of all, they should abandon it altogether.
8.16p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have sympathy for the noble Viscount this evening not only because he has a bad cold but also because the SACTRA report puts him in rather a difficult position. The noble Baroness has told us about the report and I shall not repeat all the various details. She told us that the draft areas for the link roads were published in April 1994. No date had been announced for the public inquiry by December when the Government published the SACTRA report which cast doubt on the validity of the original assessment. The Government must have pondered for some time on the report because their response was published on the same day.
The noble Baroness has told us about a scheme for the link roads in Surrey. Those link roads are expensive. They will cause noise and emissions pollution; they are unpopular locally; and to cap it all, the report of the Government's own advisory committee now casts doubt on the net present value.
The Minister's right honourable friend Dr. Mawhinney said that he accepted the report and that his department is now looking at all national road schemes in the planning stages to see whether the changes in traffic considered by SACTRA are likely to be significant. He called for a debate and quite right too. This is part of that.
But while the debate takes place, the prolonged planning blight continues on the surrounding neighbourhood. That is why the Minister is in a difficult position. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government want that debate because they find it difficult to determine what should be their policy. However, with a debate of that kind, it is sensible for the Government to put up a policy for discussion in order to provide a lead. Otherwise, the debate ranges over vast, irrelevant areas outside the subject and is prolonged endlessly.
The Government cannot afford to do that because meanwhile, several Conservative Back-Bench MPs in the area are becoming increasingly unpopular with their constituents as the uncertainty and pollution blights their lives. Politically, the Government cannot afford that. Nor can they afford to fall out with the British Road

1003
Federation Ltd. Delay is damaging and so it may be that the Minister will tell us this evening what the policy will be.
Perhaps I may be helpful and advise the Minister what to do. Unless he raises taxes yet again by introducing road pricing or raising motoring taxes, he has very few options. He needs the money which motorists pay to fund non-transport expenditure. As a result of poor management of the economy, he does not have the money for the additional public transport which the Government should have introduced years ago.
In reality, all the Minister can do is to tackle the problem at the margins, spend a little more on public transport and carry out some sensible but minor road improvements to ease traffic flow. My advice to the Minister is that he must face up to the inevitable and tell us this evening that, for those reasons, he will abandon the link roads and that, therefore, not very much will happen.
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, tonight's debate has indeed been a select one. There was a wide variety of topics in both speeches but there was a certain discrepancy in the length and detail of them. Therefore, I shall try to make my response fall somewhere in the middle which, it is to be hoped, will not cause any anxiety, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, because it is too long, and secondly, to the noble Baroness because I have not covered the matter fully.
The M.25 receives much criticism and has, in some quarters, become the butt of many jokes. But, in all seriousness, we must not forget that it has been extremely successful in removing through traffic, particularly heavy lorries, from London. The M.25 provides a complete orbital route around London and the suburbs and it is the country's busiest motorway. It has successfully served more traffic than forecast when it was originally planned.
It is an essential part of the country's strategic road network and its success can been seen in the very heavy use made of it. Nearly 700,000 drivers use it every working day. Although it represents only 6 per cent, of the mileage of our motorway network, it carries 14 per cent, of all motorway traffic. That popularity has resulted in many sections becoming congested, especially at peak times. The busiest section between junctions 12 and 15 alone carries up to 200,000 vehicles per day.
It is vital for our economy that the motorway continues to perform its proper function of distributing traffic around London. It is an old saying, but still a true one for all that, that "time is money" and, without doubt, that congestion wastes valuable time. Without improvement, congestion on the motorway will increase and traffic would endeavour to find alternative routes using unsuitable local roads.
The proposals for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 were first published in June 1992. In the following year it was announced that the scheme would be taken forward to the next stage in the planning process; but,
1004
in view of the concerns raised, a commitment was given to hold a public inquiry once the formal proposals had been published. At the same time, an assurance was given that 70 per cent, of the motorway would not need to be widened beyond dual four lanes.
Following that announcement, the link roads scheme was worked up in more detail, and draft highway orders and an environmental statement were published in April last year. The draft compulsory purchase order was published in June and comments on the formal proposals were requested by 15th July 1994. As the noble Baroness told the House this evening, nearly 12,000 objections have been received. Most people expressed concern about noise and air quality and many requested more investment in public transport as an alternative.
It had originally been anticipated that the public inquiry would be held towards the end of last year but, in the light of the considerable number of objections received, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, announced last July that the inquiry would not start before this year. As I explained to the House recently in response to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, an announcement about the inquiry arrangements will be made as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness raised the issue regarding the recent report produced by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. As we have heard, SACTRA was asked in 1989 by the Department of Transport to advise on the circumstances, nature and magnitude of traffic generation and to recommend whether and how the department's methods should be amended. I appreciate the sympathy extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for my cold. However, I can assure the noble Lord that his sympathy in policy terms is not required. Nevertheless, his kind sentiments are always appreciated.
SACTRA was asked to report on traffic generation because the department recognised that, as economic growth over the past 15 years has greatly increased traffic levels, the number of congested areas has gone up and with them the cases where a road scheme might bring costs as well as benefits. There was also a growing feeling that there ought to be a more general examination of whether roads do, to some degree, increase traffic as well as relieve congestion. The report published in December 1994, with the Government's response, is the result of that study.
We welcomed the comprehensive and detailed work carried out by SACTRA in such an extremely difficult area. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, said that he was determined that important, and often very difficult, decisions on road schemes are taken on the basis of the best and, indeed, the most up-to-date methods of forecasting their effects.
However, contrary to assertions from some quarters, SACTRA did not imply in its report that, in general, schemes should be abandoned because the provision of new road capacity is futile. That would only be so if there was full and immediate filling up of an improved road, without relief to any other part of the network— an occurrence which SACTRA says is unlikely.

1005
Although it would not have been proper for SACTRA to comment on specific road proposals, the committee did conclude that there is likely to be a significant proportion of schemes where there is a real possibility of extra traffic, but the amount of induced traffic, and its significance for a road scheme, is likely to vary widely in different circumstances. It is, therefore, important to look carefully at individual cases on their merits. That is what the Government have undertaken to do in their response to the SACTRA report. The department is now looking at all national road schemes in the planning stages to assess the likely significance of induced traffic and, as appropriate, to take account of induced traffic effects in scheme appraisal. The M.25 at junctions 12 to 15 is one of the schemes undergoing extra assessment, the results of which will be available at the public inquiry.
The noble Baroness discussed a number of measures, apart from the provision of additional capacity which she felt would be important in the consideration of the matter. Some of those alternative measures are already being actively implemented. In particular, a pilot scheme for variable mandatory speeds is due to be introduced between junctions 10 and 15 of the M.25 in the spring of this year. Experience from other countries indicates that an increase in throughput of between 5 per cent, and 10 per cent, may be achieved. Junction arrangements and signalling have also been approved. However, while those measures help ease the problems and enable more traffic to utilise the capacity provided by the existing motorway, they cannot replace the need for extra capacity.
1006
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised the issue of investment in public transport. The Government share the importance that the noble Lord attaches to that issue. Investment in our national railways has been at record levels in recent years. Some £15 billion at today's prices has been invested since 1979. However, the fact remains that we cannot simply wish away road traffic. In 1993, nearly 94 per cent, of passenger travel in this country was by road. Even a 50 per cent, increase in travel by rail would reduce road travel by only 3 per cent.—less than the average annual growth in road traffic over the past 10 years. The position is similar with freight. In 1993, over 90 per cent, of freight was moved by road and a 50 per cent, increase in rail freight would be equivalent to a 5 per cent, reduction in road freight.
The M.25 caters for a vast number and variety of journeys which public transport would not realistically be able to meet. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has recognised this evening that simply doing nothing is not an option in these circumstances. Additional capacity would cater for existing and forecast traffic taking into account both the national and local trends. For the longer term, the Government have already put in place measures which will help, such as planning guidance, which is intended to reduce the need to travel.
Although there has not been complete agreement in the short debate we have had this evening, I think we all agree that there is a serious problem of congestion on the M.25, and particularly on the stretch we are discussing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter and for putting forward her suggestions as to how this issue should be best addressed.
House adjourned at half past eight o'clock.

  Lockerbie and the Montreal Convention
  Lockerbie and the Montreal Convention
  Libyan Citizens: Trial Location Claim
  Libyan Citizens: Trial Location Claim
  Extradition and the Russian Constitution
  Extradition and the Russian Constitution
  Extradition: US Law
  Extradition: US Law
  Abkhazia: Return of Ethnic Georgians
  Abkhazia: Return of Ethnic Georgians
  Angola Cease-Fire: Alleged Breaches
  Angola Cease-Fire: Alleged Breaches
  Fisheries Dispute: EU and Canada
  Fisheries Dispute: EU and Canada
  Official Residences: Source of Articles
  Official Residences: Source of Articles
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Environment Council, 9 March
  Environment Council, 9 March
  Environment Bill: Drafting of Amendments
  Environment Bill: Drafting of Amendments